The Clark County Board of Equalization on Feb. 6, 2025, upheld the Clark County Assessors taxable value of $4,104,116 for a 30,766-square-foot strip retail center at the southwest corner of Owens Avenue and Sand Hill Road and denied jurisdiction on several notices of appearance the assessors office said were untimely or improperly authorized.

The decision came after the propertys owner and appellant, Eric Reiter, questioned the assessors choice of comparable sales and said recent higher interest rates and local operating problems reduce market value. The assessors office, represented at the hearing, presented sales-comparison and income-based analyses and recommended the board hold the taxable value.

Why it matters: the Boards action affirms the assessors valuation for tax purposes and refused to accept several appeals because agents failed to file timely or correct written authorizations. The rulings affect individual taxpayers seeking review and illustrate procedural limits the board enforces before hearing substantive valuation disputes.

Case 61 — Ticken L.L.C. (strip retail center)
The board heard one contested commercial appeal (Case 61) in detail. Troy Grama, speaking for the Clark County Assessors Office, described the subject as a strip retail center of three buildings totaling 30,766 square feet in the Northeast submarket. The assessor recommended no change to the taxable value: "$4,104,116," Grama told the board.

Appellant Eric Reiter said he built the center and provided a rent roll, a membership-agreement note about an internal buyout and recent-sales listings he said support a substantially lower market value. Reiter told the board he had an operating net cash flow near $216,000 and argued that higher interest rates since 2021 mean older sales (2020'1/2022) are not comparable.

"The property is not worth 4,200,000.0," Reiter said during his rebuttal.

The assessor countered with an income and sales-comparison analysis. The assessors materials showed subject rents ranging from $0.78 to $2.20 per square foot with a weighted average near $1.24 per square foot; the assessor used a vacancy assumption of 10% (the appellants materials showed a one-day vacancy equal to 14% by square footage) and applied an 8% capitalization rate in the assessors final income estimate. The assessors office also reviewed market surveys (Colliers, Cushman & Wakefield, CoStar) and a sales-comparison chart it said supported the current taxable value.

After board questions about rents, vacancy and security/maintenance costs at the site (appellant described repeated graffiti, vandalism and homeless encampment activity behind the property), a motion to uphold the assessors valuation carried. The board informed Reiter he retains the right to appeal the boards decision to the Nevada State Board of Equalization.

Notices of appearance and jurisdiction rulings
Before the contested case, the assessors office asked the board to refuse jurisdiction on multiple notices of appearance (NOAs) where agent authorization letters were missing, untimely or referenced the wrong fiscal year. Mary Anne Widener, secretary to the board with the assessors office, walked the board through documentary evidence including the appeal forms, notice-of-value cards and web and newspaper notices that the office said set the January 15 filing deadline.

The board denied jurisdiction on several cases where the assessors office demonstrated the required written authorization or timing was not met (examples cited in hearing materials included cases numbered 667, 670, 671 and 676). For one appellant (case 734) who sought review of prior years, the assessor explained statutory limits on reopening certified rolls and the board denied jurisdiction for the back-year appeals while noting the appellant has a separate open case for the current year (case 90).

Public comment and administrative items
During public comment Thomas Wlucic, who identified himself as both a Clark County citizen and a member of the appraisal division, urged the board to consider forming a small subcommittee to examine repeated filings and apparent misuse of appeal filings that, he said, waste staff time and may misrepresent owners opinions of value. A representative from the District Attorneys office agreed with the assessors reading of prior Nevada Supreme Court decisions cited by an appellant, noting those cases involved timely-filed appeals.

The board also voted earlier in the meeting to adopt the agenda and to accept the assessors recommendations on the pages identified in the agenda packet. The board approved minutes listed on the agenda for a February 2024 meeting and voted to accept assessor recommendations for cases where petitioners did not attend or where cases were stamped stipulated or withdrawn.

Votes at a glance
- Motion to adopt the agenda — passed (voice vote)
- Motion to accept assessor recommendations (pages 11'0) — passed
- Motion to approve minutes from a February 2024 BOE meeting (as listed on the agenda) — passed
- Motion to deny jurisdiction on NOAs (including cases 667 and 670) for lack of proper authorization — passed
- Motion to deny jurisdiction on case 671 (authorization referenced wrong fiscal year) — passed
- Motion to deny jurisdiction on case 676 — passed
- Motion to deny jurisdiction on case 734 (back-year appeals untimely) — passed
- Motion upholding assessor taxable value $4,104,116 for Case 61 (Ticken L.L.C.) — passed

Whats next
The assessors office said 338 cases remain on the schedule following the Feb. 6 hearing and listed multiple upcoming hearing dates in February 2025. Appellants unhappy with the boards decisions were told they may appeal to the Nevada State Board of Equalization and that appeal forms are available outside the hearing chamber.