Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

sponsored by
News


Property tax raises sought in rural areas

CARSON CITY -- Some rural Nevada county officials will ask the Legislature in February to give them the authority to raise property taxes above the caps set by the Legislature in 2005.

The intent is to raise additional tax revenue to protect what they view as critical programs and services.


Most Popular Stories
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • FATAL SHOOTING: Police again mourn comrade
  • NORM: Biden finds rank has its privileges
  • NORM: Walton: Coach deserved a punch
  • Two of three suspects in slaying of officer could face death penalty
  • DEADLY HOME INVASION: Police suspect link to family
  • Station Casinos posts $455 million third-quarter loss
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • UNLV sacks football coach Sanford
  • NORM: CityCenter seeks presidential visit




  • The bill draft request submitted by the Nevada Association of Counties would give a county commission the authority, with a two-thirds vote, to raise property taxes by up to 10 cents per $100 of assessed valuation beyond the current caps to generate revenue to offset potential budget cuts in the areas of public safety, health and welfare services. Public hearings would be required.

    The current tax caps of 3 percent for owner-occupied homes and 8 percent for other properties were established by the Legislature in response to accelerating property values and corresponding jumps in tax bills in much of the state.

    Any tax increase approved under the legislation would be assessed against the actual value of the property and not based on the property tax revenue now generated under the caps. The additional new revenue would then, after the first year, be subject to the caps.

    Jeff Fontaine, executive director of the association, said the proposal comes from some rural county representatives where declining tax revenues are having a significant impact on programs and services. Neither Washoe nor Clark counties has sought the legislation, he said.

    "This proposal would provide the counties the flexibility to raise revenues to pay for these vital services which are currently being jeopardized," says the explanation for the bill draft request submitted by the association.

    Sen. Mike McGinness, R-Fallon, chairman of the Senate Taxation Committee and a representative of several of Nevada's rural counties, said counties are always asking for home rule and the ability to make their own decisions, so they are welcome to bring the measure and take a shot.

    A $50,000 reduction in a rural Nevada county budget could mean the layoff of a sheriff's deputy or the closure of a park, he said.

    But lawmakers will be in a tough position with the bill, since there was widespread support to impose the caps in the first place, McGinness said.

    He added it's likely that Gov. Jim Gibbons, who vetoed a bill in 2007 giving two rural counties permission to raise property taxes to build a juvenile detention center, will not "look kindly on this proposal either."

    Gibbons vetoed the 2007 measure saying it would permit commissioners to raise property taxes without going to a vote of the people.

    The proposed bill would also allow tax increases without a vote of the people.

    Erik Pappa, director of public communications for Clark County, said the measure isn't being sought by the state's most populous county.

    "We've committed to living within our means," he said. "We're having to tighten our belts, given the current economic downtown, just like our citizens, the state and the cities.

    "The County Commission hasn't weighed in on this matter, though staff isn't recommending increasing property taxes," Pappa said. "Our strategy has been to reduce spending. Nonetheless, we respect that the other counties have a different perspective."

    Sharron Angle, a former state lawmaker who is trying to get a California-style Proposition 13 property tax cap on the November ballot, said the proposed legislation is exactly why her proposed constitutional amendment is needed. Putting a tax cap in the constitution would mean it could not be tampered with by lawmakers, she said.

    "The way I read it, it is a precursor to removing the 3 percent and 8 percent caps all together," Angle said. "It's what we've said all along. The caps are temporary as soon as government needs the money."

    Angle's amendment was certified for the ballot by Secretary of State Ross Miller.

    But senior Judge Charles McGee ruled on Sept. 9 that the tax cap measure was flawed. The decision, which was appealed to the state Supreme Court, was sought by the Nevada State Education Association over the issue of affidavits required to be submitted with the signatures by the circulators. The affidavits are required to prevent voter fraud.

    Angle has tried for years to get a property tax limit into the Nevada Constitution.

    Nevada's secretary of state has told county election officials to remove the plan from their Nov. 4 ballots now that McGee has ruled against it.

    Joel Hansen, the attorney for the tax cap group, filed an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court and also asked for an emergency stay pending outcome of the appeal.

    Angle's proposed constitutional amendment would limit property tax increases to 2 percent per year for all property until it is sold.

    Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775 687-3900. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 3 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    UNLVStud wrote on September 16, 2008 01:43 PM: Showing their true colors, the Red Rurals want to raise taxes. The Democrats need to capitalize on yet another opportunity to claim the fiscally responsible mantle.

    To fix their financial woes, Republicans either want to steal the money from their citizens, or borrow it from China.

    Sounds like they need better leadership to manager their money.

    Finally, proposals like this are only fodder for crazy Angle's petition to harm seniors and first time home buyers.


    Roger wrote on September 16, 2008 09:05 AM: This is something Joni Eastly, Nye County Commisioner is hoping for. She needs higher taxes so she can get herself a new company car. She is also up for re-election this year in case you live in Nye County.


    ths wrote on September 16, 2008 07:44 AM: If a small rural town is struggling and is willing and has the support of the people to protect vital services why should the Governor Veto it?

    Also Angle claims this is why her bill is needed? Angle what is a county to do if they can't pay for vital services? Why do you think that CA has so many other forms of taxes. They needed to to be able to give vital services. Granted they have over spent on other programs now but their could still be the issue of not having enough revenue for basic services.

    If Rural counties where often the corruption and other deals are harder to hide due to the small size of government can't make things work in todays tough times why hamper it further. Fools for thinking constitutional tax caps are needed.