Columnist Jon Ralston: Misunderstood bill crucial to local governments

Wednesday, April 11, 2001 | 8:34 a.m.

Jon Ralston hosts the public affairs program "Face to Face" on Las Vegas ONE and also publishes the Ralston Report. His column for the Sun appears on Sundays and Wednesdays. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or through e-mail at ralston@ vegas.com

CARSON CITY -- In this place, which even Lewis Carroll couldn't have imagined, the bills that seem the most innocuous and/or appear to be abstruse usually are the most incendiary.

So fall with me through the capital hole and into this Wonderland and examine Assembly Bill 653. This is one of those measures that is understood by about six people -- none of them legislators -- and yet has an impact on Southern Nevada local governments, and thus the populace, that cannot be underestimated. It also could create lasting local enmities unlike any seen since the mid-1980s, and a political fight that could be the signature battle for fledgling Speaker Richard Perkins.

On its face, AB653 is a cipher -- "Makes various changes to formulas for distribution of certain revenues" is the deadpan description in the bill's summary.

Ah, but these changes are not only various, they are significant and affect how a melange of taxes are apportioned to the local governments. These levies are collectively known as the Consolidated Tax Distribution Formula. I would try to explain it to you, but please trust me: Carroll's Jabberwocky would make more sense. " 'Twas brilig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe" is more coherent than any explanation I could give you of this mix of state and local revenues that is spread across the cities and county.

So let me distill: Henderson has grown a lot and wants more of the pie. The city has an ally in the speaker, who, coincidentally, happens to hail from Henderson. The city of Las Vegas and Clark County have the most to lose -- $4 million in the short run and a lot more over the long haul -- but can't seem to work together to fight the Herndersonites, who have the confidence only a speaker can inspire.

At a hearing before the Assembly Taxation Committee on Tuesday, the city of Las Vegas and Clark County lobbyists -- after rumbles that they would come to the table together -- appeared separately and were not on the same page.

The county says the $4 million should be split evenly with the city -- the city thinks the big, bad county should pay more. The county is more flexible in adjusting what amounts to a growth suppression multiplier in the formula -- the ever-shrinking city says no way.

The city and the county are on the same page in that they both believe that an adjustment in the Consumer Price Index built into the formula should remain, thus helping governments regardless of growth. To not do so, they argue, only benefits a fast-growing entity -- and fast-growing entity, thy name is Henderson.

The politics here are elemental.

The bill is the Henderson position -- no growth-suppression, the $4 million gift and no CPI. Perkins, who is angry at the city and county folks for what he says were ambushes at Tuesday's hearing, wants to jam the bill out of the house he controls -- the Democrats have a 27-15 advantage. That way he gets the extreme position out of the lower house and then forces the fight to the Senate, knowing that a little give in negotiations between the houses will still benefit Henderson.

The city of Las Vegas, which has the most to lose, has no chance unless it works in concert with the county. Elected officials in both governments have been meeting to discuss strategy, but clearly they were not together Tuesday.

The city has no choice here. It must get the county on board to have any chance to significantly change the bill in the Senate, once it is voted out of the Assembly panel on Thursday and out of the lower house.

The city will have to play hardball -- and with Mayor Oscar Goodman already speaking out on this, probably too loudly for Perkins' comfort, he will have to use his popularity to cow certain commissioners. I wonder what would happen if Goodman threatened to take his name off Commission Chairman Dario Herrera's committee for Congress. No, he wouldn't do that, would he?

Senate Czar Bill Raggio also must be licking his chops, knowing that he now has a perfect nugget for the end-of-session horse-trading with the new speaker. Raggio, Goodman, most of the local elected officials and nearly all of the Gang of 63 will never fully understand the complexities of the formula. But this fight will come down less to the innocuous-sounding bill or even the millions of dollars at stake.

It will come down to which government and which legislator plays politics better.

That's the way it often works in this Wonderland that even Lewis Carroll couldn't have conjured up.