Tax bill pits Henderson against LV, county

Erin Neff

Wednesday, April 11, 2001 | 11:14 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Southern Nevada governments lined up on opposing sides of a tax bill Tuesday.

City of Henderson officials say Assembly Bill 653, brought by Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins, D-Henderson, is sorely needed. The bill would shift the consolidated tax base and account more for population growth, city officials say. The proposal calls for $4 million to be added to Henderson's base amount.

"I'm here because I represent constituents in Assembly District 23," Perkins said. "I believe that those constituents have not been represented by this formula as well as they should be."

The cities of North Las Vegas and Mesquite agreed with Henderson's position, even though they wouldn't be getting any of the $4 million.

But the city of Las Vegas and Clark County, which would each shoulder $2 million in losses to accommodate Henderson's base shift, were opposed.

AB653 changes the consolidated tax formula by shifting the base, eliminating a growth stabilization computation method and removing increases in the Consumer Price Index from consideration.

Henderson City Manager Phil Speight said the current consolidated tax formula, created in 1997, did not justly disperse money to the fast-growing city. In fact, he said, Henderson has received $24 million less in revenue than it should have in the past three years and stands to lose increasing amounts each year the formula is not changed.

"No member of this committee would expect an entity to suffer an $8 million loss in revenue each year," Speight told the Assembly Taxation Committee.

Marvin Leavitt, a lobbyist for the city of Las Vegas, drew a chart for the committee, arguing that AB653 would go too far to correct any inequities created in 1997.

"Unless you take money from somebody else, you cannot maintain an equal funding per capita," Leavitt said.

Both Leavitt and Clark County officials argued that by rewarding cities that grow, cities with stagnant growth would be left struggling to provide services.

But the city and county have also been at odds during on and off negotiations about the formula for the past 18 months.

The two argued about who should pay more toward Henderson's base and about how the so-called 1-plus computation formula for growth should be applied.

Mike Alastuey, assistant county manager, said the county would agree to split the $4 million 50-50 with the city if the Legislature approved a base shift. Leavitt essentially put the base, the 1-plus formula and the CPI back into negotiations Tuesday, saying he had philosophical differences with all three components of Henderson's proposal.

"It looks like you've thrown everything back on the board," said Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, R-Henderson.

Tiffany argued that Leavitt's entire position was biased because the city of Las Vegas stands to grow less than Henderson in coming years.

"Maybe this is not a static formula in perpetuity," said Committee Chairman David Goldwater, D-Las Vegas. "That's why the Legislature meets every two years."

Carole Vilardo, president of the Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke against the bill, saying it will create unintended consequences that will force lawmakers back to the table in two years.

Goldwater instructed the local government representatives to try to work on a compromise before the committee's scheduled work session Thursday.