Bill would shift tax data to Internet, costing newspapers

By David McGrath Schwartz

Wednesday, March 25, 2009 | 2 a.m.

It’s hardly news that these are tough times for journalism.

The Reno Gazette-Journal is conducting another round of furloughs. The Las Vegas Review-Journal let go one of its two capital bureau reporters before the legislative session. And at many newspapers, newsmen and women who depart aren’t being replaced.

Then there is Assembly Bill 307, a kick in the industry’s teeth or maybe another nail in its coffin. The bill would lift the requirement that counties publish property tax assessments in newspapers. The information would instead be made available on the Internet.

The benefit: A saving to taxpayers. Clark County, for example, would save about $500,000 a year.

The cost: Newspapers, such as the Review-Journal — and indirectly through a joint-operating agreement the Las Vegas Sun — and Gazette-Journal would see one more source of revenue go away.

During an Assembly Taxation Committee hearing Tuesday, Barry Smith, president of the Nevada Press Association, testified against the bill. The reason for the printed list, he said, is to answer this question: “Is my property being assessed fairly in comparison with my neighbor or with other neighborhoods? Scanning a printed list makes it easy to spot discrepancies.”

He had a poll the Press Association commissioned last summer that found 56 percent of people preferred to read public notices in newspapers; 18 percent prefer the Internet.

Opposing him were local government lobbyists and a skeptical Assembly Taxation Committee. (Both hard-line conservative Assemblyman Ed Goedhart and resident liberal Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie spoke in favor of the measure.) The Conservation League testified in support — to save trees.

“Every time it’s published, constituents complain that this is a waste of money,” said Leslie, D-Reno. “It is time to change. Publishing this is just insanity.”

Assemblywoman Marilyn Kirkpatrick, D-North Las Vegas, admitted she’s a newspaper reader who checks the tax rolls when they’re printed. “A lot of older folks don’t know how to turn on a computer,” she said.

Hers was the lone vote against moving the bill out of committee.

Afterward, Smith said: “I find it curious that we’re talking about a half million dollars, when during the previous bill they talked about subsidizing golf courses to the tune of $2.5 million a year.”

Which leads us to Assembly Bill 307, which would have reversed that “subsidy.”

•••

It started out to undo what Assemblyman Tick Segerblom saw as a past wrong. In 2005 the Legislature passed a bill allowing golf courses to pay property tax as “open space.”

Segerblom figures Clark County has lost $4.5 million a year because of the change. (Clark County figures it’s more like $2.5 million a year.)

Assembly Bill 307 would have undone that change, and made golf courses pay taxes as golf courses.

That proposal was not warmly received by golf course developers and their lobbyists.

Even before the bill could be heard, Segerblom amended it. He said the proposal was going nowhere, even if it should. Now, he simply wants a requirement that golf courses that pay the lower tax rate commit to staying golf courses for 10 years.

He made no secret of the reason. The Las Vegas National Golf Club, surrounded by his constituents’ homes, has been trying to convert to a housing development.

After a hearing Tuesday, Segerblom was surrounded by about 20 lobbyists and golf course employees, all arguing that the bill was bad. Golf course developers argued higher taxes could drive struggling golf courses out of business.

“Believe me, I’m not trying to bankrupt the industry,” Segerblom said.

Alfredo Alonso, a lobbyist, tried to calm the more passionate members. “There’s a way to do this,” he assured Segerblom and everyone else.

Asked afterward why he backed off, Segerblom said: “They were way too organized.”