Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By Anjeanette Damon (contact) 
Saturday, May 28, 2011 | 3:31 p.m.
Sun archives
- AG refuses Sandoval’s request to file petition with court (5-28-2011)
- Sandoval adviser: Taxes a ‘last resort,’ must come with reforms (5-27-2011)
- Governor might seek clarification on Supreme Court ruling (5-27-2011)
- Court decision changes footing on state budget (5-27-2011)
- Sandoval adviser: Court ruling blows hole in budget 10 times larger than expected (5-27-2011)
- Teachers union wants more than extending taxes set to expire (5-26-2011)
- Timing of court ruling breaking budget stalemate no coincidence (5-26-2011)
- In a reversal, Sandoval to consider extending 2009 tax increases (5-26-2011)
- Oceguera: Sunsetting taxes the ‘best we’re going to do’(5-26-2011)
- Court rules Legislature’s $62 million grab unconstitutional (5-26-2011)
An independent analysis of the budget hole created by this week’s Nevada Supreme Court ruling indicates the problem may be almost twice what Gov. Brian Sandoval’s administration has estimated, when taking into account decisions made for the current biennium's spending plan.
The ruling, which prevents the state from taking local or special tax dollars for its general fund, calls into question a number of revenue-raising measures the Legislature has taken since 2009.
Sandoval has estimated the ruling blows a $656 million hole in his proposed budget for the next biennium that begins July 1. But the analysis done for a lobbying group with a variety of private clients indicates the number could be as high as $1.14 billion, including $452 million in the current biennium and $685 million in the proposed budget.
The analysis includes six local fund grabs by the Legislature in the 2009 session and 2010 special session:
-$188 million in room tax revenue.
-$68 million from Clark and Washoe counties property tax revenue.
-$60 million grab of capital funds from Clark and Washoe counties.
-$48 million from the counties’ indigent accident funds.
-$25 million from the Clark County School District capital funds.
-$62 million from the Clean Water Coalition—the entity that filed the lawsuit to begin with.
Money at stake in Sandoval’s proposed budget includes:
-$221 million in room tax revenue.
-$38 million from the indigent accident funds.
-$425 million from the school districts’ debt reserves (a number that has actually shrunk to $225 million).
The private analysis did not take into consideration the $83 million in property tax revenue Sandoval wants to take from Clark and Washoe counties-- a funding mechanism that Sandoval is including in his own review of questionable money.
Legislative leaders said they aren’t focused on the $452 million from the 2009 budget, largely because Clark and Washoe counties haven’t filed suit. But they don’t want to put the proposed budget at risk.
“Those decisions have already been made,” Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, D-North Las Vegas, said of the 2009 budget. “The focus now is on a going forward basis.”
Time for Sandoval to finally act like a governor instead of a Republican. Time to represent the taxpayers instead of the corporations. Call your legislator today-they are working all weekend-at 1-800-978-2878 and tell them to eliminate the tax breaks for foreign mining corporations paid for by the taxes from Nevada's working families. Time for the working people of this state to get a break instead of people from Canada and Europe.
GOOD!!!!
Residents of Clark County should no longer be forced to pay a special tax to subsidize the rural counties.
GOOD!!!
give us our frickin money back...
stop acting like a child brian sandoval...
a northern nevada child at that...
grow up...
stop playing childish games...
BRIAN SANDOVAL IS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FRAUD!!!
True conservatives will applaud this Supreme Court decision.
Sandoval is passing on the need to raise revenue to the local governments. He knows the local governments cannot get by on what they will be left once the raiders from Carson City take everything. He knows they will have to raise property taxes to balance budgets. So he gets to look like the Golden Boy to people like Rose and the far right king makers in the Republican Party, while the local governments and their residents get to bare the burden of the State's failure to have a rainy day fund.
He's just passing the revenue increases to the locals while looking like some great conservative. Its a complete shell game. And its amazing that people like Rose fall for it.
Stealing money from local governments to avoid raising taxes is not fiscal responsibility, or conservatism. Its childish, irresponsible, and shows a complete lack of leadership. Hopefully the Court ruling will stop this charade and force Carson City to make real decisions.
Time to make southern Nevada "South Nevada."
@LVLawDog
I agree.
Time to make southern Nevada "South Nevada."
I agree, but how? Who starts the process? How do we get him/her/them to actually get this ball rolling? Hey, SUN, can you help out with this? A fact-based article about the process? Because I never have been able to figure out what we get from northern Nevada, particularly in comparison to what they get from us. And I don't get why more southern Nevadans don't get riled up about that.
Below is what the whole of Article 4, Section 20 of the Nevada Constitution says. None of it says that the state cannot keep the entirety of state sales taxes or any other taxes levied and collected by the state. In fact, it says nothing forbidding the state from recalling to Carson City real estate taxes authorized by the Legislature and collected by the counties and cities. This is a general law (not home rule) state and the counties are mere branches of the state government. Idiot non-lawyers have to read the first sentences of Section 20, not just the enumerated list beneath it. What Section 20 is talking about is passage of laws which would be in effect in ONLY in certain counties like Clark County or cities like Reno:
Section 20. Certain local and special laws prohibited. The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases--that is to say:
Regulating the jurisdiction and duties of justices of the peace and of constables, and fixing their compensation;
For the punishment of crimes and misdemeanors;
Regulating the practice of courts of justice;
Providing for changing the venue in civil and criminal cases;
Granting divorces;
Changing the names of persons;
Vacating roads, town plots, streets, alleys, and public squares;
Summoning and impaneling grand and petit juries, and providing for their compensation;
Regulating county and township business;
Regulating the election of county and township officers;
For the assessment and collection of taxes for state, county, and township purposes;
Providing for opening and conducting elections of state, county, or township officers, and designating the places of voting;
Providing for the sale of real estate belonging to minors or other persons laboring under legal disabilities;
Giving effect to invalid deeds, wills, or other instruments;
Refunding money paid into the state treasury, or into the treasury of any county;
Releasing the indebtedness, liability, or obligation of any corporation, association, or person to the state, or to any county, town, or city of this state; but nothing in this section shall be construed to deny or restrict the power of the legislature to establish and regulate the compensation and fees of county officers, to authorize and empower the boards of county commissioners of the various counties of the state to establish and regulate the compensation and fees of township officers in their respective counties, to establish and regulate the rates of freight, passage, toll, and charges of railroads, tollroads, ditch, flume, and tunnel companies incorporated under the laws of this state or doing business therein.
I especially like the last part where the Legislature can pass laws cutting the compensation of county officers.
Horsford "The focus now is on a going forward basis." - this is his way His way of saying " Move alone, nothing to see here, move along"
Horsford want to ignore the reality of the double standard with the monies and does not want to look back because;
- If the interpretation is that the state cannot use any of the money grab funds, then the state must start doing a lot of refunds and the problem gets worse.
- if the interpretation is the water coalition funds is a separate issue and a little different scenario, then there is no issue with the grabs .
Which is it Horseford? Is it the same thing and refunds to all? or is it different and there is no issue grabbing the funds?
The mining companies are just not paying their fair share. Much of the ore is going outside the country for processing in China and elsewhere. Time to get the laws changed so these mega conglomerates pay a lot more in fees.
We have already seen in recent days businesses testifying in support of extending the sunsets on certain taxes. The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce has come out in support of a broad based business tax that is linked to education reform. However, there is still an area that needs to be addressed. The Constitutional protection for the mining industry and the state laws that allow huge deductions need to undergo changes. I am not advocating the Alaska solution of a 25% royalty on oil companies, although based on recent earnings reports, that doesn't seem to have had a negative effect on their profits. The issue was highlighted in a recent power point presentation at the Barrick Mining annual meeting. One of the mines highlighted in the power point was the Cortez Hills Mine in Northern Nevada. According to the power point, in 2010, the mine produced 114,000,000 ounces of gold (over 35 TONS) at a production cost of $312 per ounce. During the first quarter of 2011, the mine produced 366,000 ounces (over 11 TONS) of gold at a production cost of $220 per ounce. If you project a sale price of $1000 over cost of production,that results in a profit of over $1,500,000,000. Based on what the mining industry paid in taxes in 2009, the tax payment to the state of Nevada will probably be less than 50,000,000. The power point goes on to point out that the projected production from Cortez Hills for 2011 will be between 1.30 to 1.45 MILLION ounces (40-45 TONS)at a production cost of $235-245 per ounce. This is natural resource that should provide significant benefits to the citizens of Nevada. Unless the Legislature acts quickly, another two years will pass without any significant action to change the tax structure of the state.
Dear Governor Sandoval,
We want our money back from 2009-2011. We need it, please send it as quickly as possible.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Washoe County Commission
Clark County Commission
Washoe County School District
Clark County School District
I borrow from Peter to pay Paul all the time!
What is this, a tax buffet?
Pick and choose willy nilly which revenues will fund the budget hole?
Will it be fair to all?
Clark and Washoe Counties should NOT be paying the whole budget bill of the state.
Again, MINING TAX STRUCTURE REFORM needs to be a part of the negotiations.