Clark County Board of Equalization hears property appeals, approves mixed reductions and holds
February 10, 2025 | Clark County, Nevada
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Clark County Board of Equalization met Feb. 10 to hear taxpayer appeals of assessor valuations across Clark County and took action on multiple individual cases, approving some reductions and leaving others at the assessor's recommended taxable value.
The board — Scott Dugan, Timothy Albert, Patrick Ager, Kristen Lowe and Kelly Wade — convened the hearing after a roll call and a sworn statement for witnesses. Sarah (district attorney representative) opened with the board's authority to determine and correct property values and outlined ethical requirements for public officers. Assessor staff including Maryann Weidner, Jamie Jacobs, Dallas Tripp, Tracy Mason and others presented case analyses and sales comparables for each petition.
Why it matters: These routine but consequential hearings resolve how properties will be taxed for the year and can affect homeowners and large-property owners differently depending on reductions, obsolescence or the assessor methodology used to set replacement cost. The board applied statutory limits and Marshall & Swift cost guidance throughout the session when assessing replacement-cost estimates.
Votes at a glance:
- Case 483, Ishabah Family Trust (luxury condo at Mantova/Lake Las Vegas): Board reduced the assessed value as moved on the record to "$3.79" (motion carried). (Petitioner presented multiple comparables; assessor had recommended a reduction to $400,000 before the hearing.)
- Case 480, Dane Ellsworth (custom single-story home, NW area): Board voted to leave the assessor position (motion to hold assessor value carried).
- Case 823, Montessori LLC (custom home; petitioner: Rebecca Shabbat): Board held the assessor recommendation (motion carried).
- Case 55, Macbow Family Trust (Ken Bowne, Viking Estates): Board reduced taxable value to $730,000 (motion carried after discussion of market comparables and limited comparable sales in the neighborhood).
- Case 493, Buena Bridal Capital LLC / Robert Rovetta (Anthem Country Club short-sale): Board accepted that the purchase price was representative of market value in the property condition and held value at the purchase price (motion carried).
- Case 243, Marna Reimer (McDonald Highlands / Viewpoint): Board held the assessor value (motion carried after equity and comparable analysis).
- Case 405, Dennis Pankey (North Las Vegas townhome): Board approved an equity-based reduction to an 81,419 total taxable value for similarly sized units after discussion of effective age (motion carried).
- Multiple high-value custom-home appeals (McDonald Highlands / Blue Heron / Sunpoint builds): In several cases petitioners argued replacement-cost-through-construction contracts or insurance replacement costs; the board deferred to assessor methodology (Marshall & Swift) and held values in the majority of those appeals (motions to hold assessor value carried).
- Cases 120 and 121 (Dragonhawk/related listings): The petitioners withdrew those appeals during the hearing; the board accepted the withdrawals.
How the board decided: Board members weighed assessor cost approaches, sales comparables and equity grids. Assessor staff repeatedly relied on the Marshall & Swift cost tables and an equity grid that compares taxable values, effective ages and built-area differences. In appeals where petitioners cited insurance or contractor costs, the board and assessor staff noted Nevada practice and case law require the standard cost manual in county valuation work.
Several petitioners were told they retain the right to appeal board outcomes to the State Board of Equalization.
Notable process notes: The board emphasized it decides value and equity (taxable value), not tax rates or tax caps; staff and the district attorney explained the 3% owner-occupied / 8% non-owner annual tax cap is a taxation limit and does not change assessed valuation.
Quotes from the hearing:
"Motion carries," said Scott Dugan as the board concluded multiple items.
"The county board of equalization may determine the value of any property the county assessor assesses and may change and correct any valuation found to be incorrect," summarized Sarah, the district attorney representative, at the start of the hearing.
Ending: The board concluded the session after hearing the scheduled appeals; petitioners were reminded of forms and appeal rights to the State Board of Equalization. The board scheduled follow-up sessions noted by staff for later dates in February.
The board — Scott Dugan, Timothy Albert, Patrick Ager, Kristen Lowe and Kelly Wade — convened the hearing after a roll call and a sworn statement for witnesses. Sarah (district attorney representative) opened with the board's authority to determine and correct property values and outlined ethical requirements for public officers. Assessor staff including Maryann Weidner, Jamie Jacobs, Dallas Tripp, Tracy Mason and others presented case analyses and sales comparables for each petition.
Why it matters: These routine but consequential hearings resolve how properties will be taxed for the year and can affect homeowners and large-property owners differently depending on reductions, obsolescence or the assessor methodology used to set replacement cost. The board applied statutory limits and Marshall & Swift cost guidance throughout the session when assessing replacement-cost estimates.
Votes at a glance:
- Case 483, Ishabah Family Trust (luxury condo at Mantova/Lake Las Vegas): Board reduced the assessed value as moved on the record to "$3.79" (motion carried). (Petitioner presented multiple comparables; assessor had recommended a reduction to $400,000 before the hearing.)
- Case 480, Dane Ellsworth (custom single-story home, NW area): Board voted to leave the assessor position (motion to hold assessor value carried).
- Case 823, Montessori LLC (custom home; petitioner: Rebecca Shabbat): Board held the assessor recommendation (motion carried).
- Case 55, Macbow Family Trust (Ken Bowne, Viking Estates): Board reduced taxable value to $730,000 (motion carried after discussion of market comparables and limited comparable sales in the neighborhood).
- Case 493, Buena Bridal Capital LLC / Robert Rovetta (Anthem Country Club short-sale): Board accepted that the purchase price was representative of market value in the property condition and held value at the purchase price (motion carried).
- Case 243, Marna Reimer (McDonald Highlands / Viewpoint): Board held the assessor value (motion carried after equity and comparable analysis).
- Case 405, Dennis Pankey (North Las Vegas townhome): Board approved an equity-based reduction to an 81,419 total taxable value for similarly sized units after discussion of effective age (motion carried).
- Multiple high-value custom-home appeals (McDonald Highlands / Blue Heron / Sunpoint builds): In several cases petitioners argued replacement-cost-through-construction contracts or insurance replacement costs; the board deferred to assessor methodology (Marshall & Swift) and held values in the majority of those appeals (motions to hold assessor value carried).
- Cases 120 and 121 (Dragonhawk/related listings): The petitioners withdrew those appeals during the hearing; the board accepted the withdrawals.
How the board decided: Board members weighed assessor cost approaches, sales comparables and equity grids. Assessor staff repeatedly relied on the Marshall & Swift cost tables and an equity grid that compares taxable values, effective ages and built-area differences. In appeals where petitioners cited insurance or contractor costs, the board and assessor staff noted Nevada practice and case law require the standard cost manual in county valuation work.
Several petitioners were told they retain the right to appeal board outcomes to the State Board of Equalization.
Notable process notes: The board emphasized it decides value and equity (taxable value), not tax rates or tax caps; staff and the district attorney explained the 3% owner-occupied / 8% non-owner annual tax cap is a taxation limit and does not change assessed valuation.
Quotes from the hearing:
"Motion carries," said Scott Dugan as the board concluded multiple items.
"The county board of equalization may determine the value of any property the county assessor assesses and may change and correct any valuation found to be incorrect," summarized Sarah, the district attorney representative, at the start of the hearing.
Ending: The board concluded the session after hearing the scheduled appeals; petitioners were reminded of forms and appeal rights to the State Board of Equalization. The board scheduled follow-up sessions noted by staff for later dates in February.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting