The measure would provide more tax relief than the state's existing tax cap approved by the 2005 Legislature. The amount of that savings, though, could not be determined because proponents have not picked the rollback date and because property values have fluctuated so much in the past few years.

"It's the same thing we've always pursued," said Angle, a former Republican member of the Legislature who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2006. "We want stable, predictable property taxes. Our measure will look no different than it has before."

The $200,000 from a thus-far anonymous contributor, which is already in the bank gathering interest, will allow the group to hire professional signature gatherers rather than rely solely on volunteers, she said.

But the cost estimate to get the necessary signatures is about $400,000, which is why a serious solicitation effort is now under way to match the $200,000, Angle said.

Two previous efforts to qualify a measure for the ballot failed when an insufficient number of valid signatures of registered voters were collected. The efforts were both done primarily with volunteers.

The group will need just under 59,000 valid signatures, which means collecting closer to 90,000 to be on the safe side, Angle said.

The concept has had strong support in independent polls all across the state, she said. The problem has been getting the signatures to get it on the ballot, Angle said.

Muddying up the process is a new measure passed by the Legislature requiring signatures to be collected in all 17 counties, she said. The measure is probably unconstitutional, but the group will have to follow the law until and if it is ruled as such by a court, Angle said.

A legal challenge is expected.

A previous requirement that signatures be collected in 13 of 17 Nevada counties to qualify a ballot measure was found unconstitutional by a federal appeals court.

Angle is optimistic that the group will be successful this time around because of the huge financial contribution. To solicit money from Nevada residents with the large donation already in hand is easier, she said.

Las Vegas resident Gerry Lock, a self-described escapee from the San Diego area, said he supports the proposal and has donated $100. The Locks benefited from Proposition 13, which took effect in 1978.

"There were people at the time who were being priced out of their homes," Lock said. "People in Nevada don't realize how important it is for voters to control the property tax issue."

Property tax limits might not mean much to younger families who are in the process of buying and selling homes as they move up in the market, but for retirees who plan to stay in one place, the limits provide financial security, he said.

Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, who worked on the Legislature's 2005 answer to soaring property values, questioned the need for a new tax cap proposal.

"Nevada came up with its own solution to soaring property values which led to the increase in property tax bills," she said. "We came up with a bipartisan solution which gave longtime homeowners relief.

"We passed a comprehensive measure protecting our schools and protecting Nevada homeowners," Buckley said. "Why do we need to come up with another measure that some out-of-state financier wants to import to Nevada."

The lawmaker was referring to the $200,000 donation, although the source of the money has not been disclosed yet.

"We have to maintain a balance," Buckley said. "We want to keep taxes low and stable, but we want to make sure we're not going to hurt our schools. I think that is what we did."

Carole Vilardo, president of the Nevada Taxpayers Association, said she would have to review the language in the new measure before taking it to her board for review. The association opposed the 2006 measure for several reasons, she said.

One concern with the 2006 measure was Angle's use of terminology, which in several cases was open to more than one interpretation, Vilardo said.

Such ambiguities can lead to extensive litigation, as happened with Proposition 13 in California, she said.

Another concern is that unlike in California, Nevada voters have approved the use of property tax increases to pay for government operations, such as the hiring of new police officers, Vilardo said. Cutting the revenue source for operating budgets could lead to problems in maintaining the services, she said.

Any amendment to the state constitution would have to be approved by voters twice, in 2008 and 2010, before it could take effect.

A committee of the group is still determining what rollback date to use, Angle said.

The 2006 proposal used a 2003-04 date to start, but the committee is considering an earlier starting date to account for the big run-up in property tax bills earlier this decade, she said.

The Legislature in 2005 enacted a statutory property tax cap limiting annual increases to 3 percent a year for primary residences and at 8 percent for other property.

Angle said the cap could be changed by the Legislature at any time. It could also be overturned in court because it is not equal for all property, she said.

She objected to that "split roll" and called it unconstitutional. "This is very unfair to commercial property owners and their tenants," she said in a statement.

A constitutional amendment would ensure that only the voters could make changes to the proposed cap, she said.

 

COMMENTS (from the LVRJ website):

Anthony wrote on July 31, 2007 09:11 PM: I'm more interested in wondering why my property taxes keep going up, despite the fact that my house is worth exactly the same as it was when I bought it (it went up, then slid back a little the last few months). I got my CC assessors card and saw yet another increase. WTF?

Herb wrote on July 31, 2007 11:17 AM: I only have 5 years left to pay off my house and I look forward to retiring in it. Already the property taxes are more than the house payment and I worry that If things keep going the way they have with property taxes I'll have to sell my house and move. The problem is, with property prices where they are, how can I afford a place as nice as the one I have now. I don't want property taxes to eat up all my retirement savings and I don't want to be living on the street at 75! When my wife and I bought the house decades ago we had no idea that that could happen. I say Prop. 13 is a good thing, go for it.

fj wrote on July 31, 2007 11:00 AM: C'mon people, if the Democrat B.B. is against it, it must be good! Why do politicians like Buckey always say it's for the children? What taxes are for B.Buckey, is for you and your colleagues to pillage and plunder!

RANDY wrote on July 31, 2007 10:59 AM: I FIND IT VERY STRANGE THAT WE CAN'T WRITE A BALLOT QUESTION IN PLAIN ENGLISH ABOUT TAXES. HOW ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE, NO RAISING TAXES WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL. GOVERNMENT MUST STAY WITHIN BUDGET. GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT WASTE OUR TAX DOLLARS. ANY COST OVERRUNS MUST BE JUSTIFIED DO TO AN EMERGENCY.AN EMERGENCY IS DEFINED AS A NATURAL DISASTER IN WHICH LIFE AND PROPERTY ARE SERIOUSLY DISRUPTED DUE TO FLOOD,EARTHQUAKE,WAR,OR DISEASE OUTBREAK.

J. C. wrote on July 31, 2007 09:18 AM: I lived through California's prop 13. What caused the revolt was the inability of the California government to live within its means. The legisgature kept passing laws benefiting special interest groups and raising taxes to make up the shortfall. Rising property prices then caused more property tax and people couldn't afford to keep their homes. Nevada is headed down the same road and It won't be long before the current cap on property tax is lost because the state is engaged in tax and spend politics.

Don Reynolds wrote on July 31, 2007 06:59 AM: How is it legal for them to accept an anonymous $200,000 donation? Why won't they reveal the donor? Is it drug money? Is it from Mexico? How we do even know that its only 200,000 and not, as I've heard, a million?

Not worth looking into Mr. Whalen?

James wrote on July 31, 2007 06:49 AM: I paid $150,000 for my home 21 years ago. My property taxes today are $3,200. My home today is worth $750,000. (I'm house rich and cash poor!) Using today's value my taxes would be $7,500. JUST WHAT YEAR ARE THE PROPONENTS PLANNING TO ROLL TAXES BACK TO IN ORDER FOR MY PROPERTY TAXES TO BE EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN WHAT I PAY TODAY? EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO? FIFTEEN YEARS AGO? HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL VALUE THAT FAR BACK?

RESPONSE:

James:  Since you are an existing homeowner your taxes would be based on 1% of your taxable value. If you have your July 1 tax bill handy you can figure and compare by using the following method:  Assessed value divided by .35 equals the taxable value.  Taxable value times 1% equals the amount of tax you would pay this year if the initiative provisions were in place now.   If you want a more detailed comparison of your property under the intiative with a roll back, please e-mail me at sharron@sharronangle.com with your parcel number.   When you calculate your savings, you could donate to our cause at www.wethepeoplenevada.org The measure restores and ensures predictability for property owners and tenants, both commercial and residential, as to what they will have to pay in taxes each year - a maximum of 2% more than the previous year.

Don: Watch the spin.  I did not say that our donor lived out of state, Buckley did and she doesn't know who our donor is so it was a spin statement to deflect your attention from the real issue.  In the last cycle in-state donors lost their jobs and donor businesses were hurt by harassment. Anonymous means safety!

JC, Randy, FJ and Herb: Well said!

Taxes will now be based on the acquisition value. This largely eliminates the disputes and controversy resulting from arbitrary and subjective appraisal practices of assessors. The measure corrects unconstitutional assessment, assures predictability and stability in taxes, and balances the need for homeowner protection with governments need for reasonable revenue growth. If there is any initial pain to government, it will be far outweiged by the benefits of the measure.  As for revenue growth, despite the initial rollback, the initiative actually generates substantially more revenue for government on an ongoing basis, resulting from the increase to market value assessment after property is sold, new construction, etc. Growth paying for itself-a novel idea.  The 2003 split roll (3% and 8%) tax cap legislation is unconstitutional because it treats different types of property unequally. It can be rescinded at any time, either by the courts or by the legislature itself. The initiative corrects the unconstitutional inequity of the tax cap and extends taxpayer protection against the whims of the legislature and its tax hungry government lobbyists behind the fence of the Nevada Constitution.