North Las Vegas submitted amendment to tax deal last week, but Henderson now wants no part of it

UPDATE NO. 2 -- It's even worse than I thought. As soon as Henderson learned it was part of the NLV amendment last week -- that is, Henderson would have benefited, too -- City Manager Jake Snow sent a "we had nothing to do with this!" email to the speaker. I have obtained their exchange:

 

 

On Jan 31, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Jacob Snow wrote:

We got this from NLV yesterday. We had nothing to do with it.  It shows the City of Henderson getting a base adjustment along with City of North Las Vegas.  I wanted you to know, first thing, that we oppose this effort to change what we all agreed to, and we do not want anything to do with it.  We have never wavered from our support for what we all agreed to at the subcommittee level. 

 

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:20 AM

From: Marilyn Kirkpatrick

To: Jacob Snow

Subject: Re: NLV base Adjustment on C Tax

 

Thanks. I knew better.   It is very sad they are stooping to such levels.  It won't fix their budget problem.  Mk

 

UPDATE: A Henderson official called me this morning to assure me that the city never signed on to the NLV deal and that it supports the compromise. Hear that, Madame Speaker?

 

-----

You may have read about how North Las Vegas wants more money to save its crippled budget and has proposed an amendment to a deal agreed to by other municipalities during the interim.

Henderson originally had signed on, but a Jan. 31 missive I have obtained to the speaker and tax Chair Irene Bustamante Adams indicates that city wants no part of it now -- better not to alienate the speaker, who put the pact together?

That missive is below and I have attached the NLV amendment here.

-----

 

Madame Chair and Madame Speaker,
 
Attached is our proposed amendment to AB68 and an additional sheet that outlines the reasoning behind the amount of base adjustment listed in the amendment.  I will tell you that we have not gotten any sign-off from the City of Henderson either on this language, the amount requested, or even if they support the amendment.  
 
Our reasoning for including them is that all of the modeling done by the CTax Interim Committee working group reflected that both Henderson and North Las Vegas are deserving of a base adjustment.  To not include them would defeat the purpose of having this one time base adjustment truly make all the cities in Clark County have an equitable starting point for the new formula reflected in AB68.   It is very important to realize that by using the excess distribution this year as the source of this base adjustment - no entity in Clark County will receive less money than they received the previous year.  Because AB68 will roll excess into the base going forward, if a base adjustment is determined to be prudent in a later year - entities may in fact receive less.  That would not be the intent of North Las Vegas.   
 
We simply ask for the opportunity to present our information, facts and reasoning behind this proposed amendment and that the committee give it due consideration.  We in no way intend for our actions to do anything to jeopardize the passage of AB68.  This amendment will start everyone on a fair and equitable base going forward under AB68.    
 
Respectfully submitted,
Dan Musgrove 
On Behalf of the City of North Las Vegas