Prevailing wage was the issue du jour in the Assembly Government Affairs Committee. While three bills were on the agenda, the committee barely got through two of them due to the large amount of people that signed in to testify.
I stepped forward in strong support of AB 298, a bill introduced by Heidi Gansert, who worked with Clara Andriola of the Associated Builders and Contractors. This bill would make much-needed and long-overdue reforms to the prevailing wage process.
For those of you who don’t know, any contractor who bids a public works project in this state that costs more than $100,000 must pay his workers “prevailing wage.” This is sometimes known as “Little Davis-Bacon,” after the federal law of the same name that came to pass in the 1930s.
The idea is to ensure that workers are paid a “fair” wage and one that represents the average wage in the area. The problem is that the way the system currently works, the formula favors collective bargaining agreements and taxpayers get left holding the bag.
The short version of the process is that the State Labor Commissioner sends out a survey to every licensed contractor in the state, who fills out the wages they pay in various trade categories on every project they worked on. The list also includes the location (county) that each job was performed in.
A few issues:
1. Very few companies actually fill out the survey. This makes the sample that much more unreliable. There is a specific sub-group of companies that are very good at returning these surveys: union contractors. Why? Because their collective bargaining agreement requires them to. I stated on the record today that is incumbent on this Chamber and the trade groups that we work to educate employers about how important it is to fill out this survey. It could mean more money in their pocket!
2. When filling out the survey, a contractor is required to list the work done on private AND public projects. This means that public project wages, which are inflated by the prevailing wage, are included in the final formula scheme. In other words, prevailing wages help determine the prevailing wage!
3. It is important to note that there is a large chunk of the prevailing wage rate that never gets into laborers pockets. Some of that wage gets funneled back to labor unions, which use that money for other things besides worker safety and welfare.
One of the beauties of AB 298 is that it would exempt K-12 and higher education construction projects from the prevailing wage requirements. During my testimony, I mentioned the Chamber’s strong support of the failed WCSD-1 failed school revitalization ballot campaign last year. I pointed out that we could build more schools and serve more children if we spent extra prevailing wage money on building school facilities.
Truth be told, the Chamber opposes any type of prevailing wage law (see page 7 of our Agenda for Economic Vitality in Nevada).
When asked by one Committee member if the Chamber supports eliminating prevailing wage completely or just reforming it, I replied: “Both.” AB 298 is a good first step.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
The week is off to a fast start.
My morning began in the Assembly Government Affairs Committee, where “fire-safe” cigarettes were discussed. AB 229 would mandate that all cigarettes sold in Nevada be tested to ensure that they are easily extinguishable and protect people and property from fire. There was no opposition to the bill, as cigarette manufacturers helped craft it and the Retail Association proposed an amendment to ensure that their members (and the Chamber’s) are properly notified of those brands that have been approved.
The afternoon found me in Assembly Commerce and Labor, where I went to the table in opposition to two bills.
The first was AB 365, sponsored by Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie. This is yet another insurance mandate bill. This one in particular would require all small employer insurance policies to cover treatment for eating disorders. Again, while each of these bills may seem to have merit, and the proponents always argue that the cost is minimal, it is the added effects of all of these insurance mandates that really drive up health care costs.
Nevada is something like 3rd in the nation with the amount of health insurance mandates on small employers. We have over 50 mandates! Large businesses covered under ERISA plans have only 6 or so mandates to deal with.
When you add all of the workers comp bills to this, the dollars really start to add up.
The second bill which brought me to the table was AB 381. This bill would do away with binding arbitration in various consumer contracts, thereby driving cases into already overcrowded courtrooms. Arbitration can save both sides in a dispute a lot of money. Obviously, any company that has to deal with a new wave of attorney fees and court costs will pass on those costs to the consumers.
My morning began in the Assembly Government Affairs Committee, where “fire-safe” cigarettes were discussed. AB 229 would mandate that all cigarettes sold in Nevada be tested to ensure that they are easily extinguishable and protect people and property from fire. There was no opposition to the bill, as cigarette manufacturers helped craft it and the Retail Association proposed an amendment to ensure that their members (and the Chamber’s) are properly notified of those brands that have been approved.
The afternoon found me in Assembly Commerce and Labor, where I went to the table in opposition to two bills.
The first was AB 365, sponsored by Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie. This is yet another insurance mandate bill. This one in particular would require all small employer insurance policies to cover treatment for eating disorders. Again, while each of these bills may seem to have merit, and the proponents always argue that the cost is minimal, it is the added effects of all of these insurance mandates that really drive up health care costs.
Nevada is something like 3rd in the nation with the amount of health insurance mandates on small employers. We have over 50 mandates! Large businesses covered under ERISA plans have only 6 or so mandates to deal with.
When you add all of the workers comp bills to this, the dollars really start to add up.
The second bill which brought me to the table was AB 381. This bill would do away with binding arbitration in various consumer contracts, thereby driving cases into already overcrowded courtrooms. Arbitration can save both sides in a dispute a lot of money. Obviously, any company that has to deal with a new wave of attorney fees and court costs will pass on those costs to the consumers.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Packed Hearing Room for SB 201
The Senate Taxation hearing room was packed today for SB 201, the RTC-5 implementation bill. There were so many construction workers and labor union folks that showed up that a second hearing room was opened downstairs for the overflow.
The lineup included Mayors Bob Cashell and Gino Martini, County Commissioner John Breternitz, Reno City Councilman Dave Aiazzi, Derek Morse with the RTC, Norm Dianda with Q&D Construction, and developer Perry DiLoretto. I sat at the table right next to Skip Daily with the Laborer’s union, which doesn’t occur that often!
I pointed out that while we talk a lot about this bill creating 3,000 jobs, we don’t talk about what those 3,000 jobs mean to the rest of our Chamber members. The workers on these projects will have money to spend on the goods and services that our members provide.
The improved roads will allow all of us to get to work, home, and school quickly and safely.
SB 201 is also an economic development tool. While this Chamber works hard every day to ensure that our state’s tax structure remains business-friendly, we also need to ensure that our transportation system is adequate for our present and future needs. Companies looking to re-locate or expand their presence here want to be able to move their goods and their employees around the region efficiently.
The trucking association testified as neutral and the petroleum marketing folks had some issues. There was one Washoe County resident who testified in opposition to the bill, but she seemed to have more issues with how the sample ballots were distributed than with anything else.
While there were a few technical questions from some of the committee members, the reception seemed pretty positive.
The committee took no action on the bill today, but it needs to be out of there and to the floor by April 10th.
We really want to get this bill through as fast as possible so that we can start bonding projects and get people to work as soon as possible.
The lineup included Mayors Bob Cashell and Gino Martini, County Commissioner John Breternitz, Reno City Councilman Dave Aiazzi, Derek Morse with the RTC, Norm Dianda with Q&D Construction, and developer Perry DiLoretto. I sat at the table right next to Skip Daily with the Laborer’s union, which doesn’t occur that often!
I pointed out that while we talk a lot about this bill creating 3,000 jobs, we don’t talk about what those 3,000 jobs mean to the rest of our Chamber members. The workers on these projects will have money to spend on the goods and services that our members provide.
The improved roads will allow all of us to get to work, home, and school quickly and safely.
SB 201 is also an economic development tool. While this Chamber works hard every day to ensure that our state’s tax structure remains business-friendly, we also need to ensure that our transportation system is adequate for our present and future needs. Companies looking to re-locate or expand their presence here want to be able to move their goods and their employees around the region efficiently.
The trucking association testified as neutral and the petroleum marketing folks had some issues. There was one Washoe County resident who testified in opposition to the bill, but she seemed to have more issues with how the sample ballots were distributed than with anything else.
While there were a few technical questions from some of the committee members, the reception seemed pretty positive.
The committee took no action on the bill today, but it needs to be out of there and to the floor by April 10th.
We really want to get this bill through as fast as possible so that we can start bonding projects and get people to work as soon as possible.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Session has finally started...
It has been said that the Legislative session really started on Monday, which was the deadline for all the committees to introduce their bills. We finally know the lay of the land and the (somewhat) totality of what we have to deal with. While there is always the potential for leadership to introduce “emergency” bills, there is no way to quantify what those will be yet.
The next deadline is April 10th, when most bills must be through their first committee of introduction. This means that the next few weeks will be a flurry of activity.
I received a document the other day that has about 15 bills listed on it that could negatively impact the business community, 12 or so of those bills are workers comp related. There are some big deals in there and I will get more information out to Chamber members as I learn about them.
I took action on two bills today. The first was AB 313 in the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee. As I had to testify in another hearing, I signed in as opposed but did not go to the table. As you can see from the link above, this bill would limit the amount of late fees that a landlord could charge a tenant if he/she is late with their rent payment. While this bill only affects a certain segment of our membership, the Chamber believes that this is an unnecessary intrusion into the private sector and that every business should be free to set their own payment policies and procedures.
I stepped up to the table in the Senate Government Affairs Committee to oppose SB 264. This bill would allow all local governments (counties, cities, school districts, library boards, etc) to impose, increase, decrease, or repeal certain taxes without having to come to the State Legislature for authority to do so.
Nevada does not have a home rule system whereby localities are free to set their own taxing and spending policies. All taxes imposed by a local government have to have been authorized at some point by the legislature. Of course, several local government representatives testified in support of this concept.
While the Chamber believes that there should be discussions about giving local governments more autonomy over their affairs, rules, and regulations, I testified that tax rates and policies should probably have the extra check and balance that the legislature provides. I quoted our Agenda for Economic Vitality in Nevada, which states our support for the “concept of reasonable tax and fee caps to prevent government from unnecessary expansion.”
I also pointed out that there could be unintended consequences if this bill were to become law. We all know that Clark County is the economic engine of this state. Could there be a scenario whereby that county raised taxes or fees so much that businesses have no incentive to remain or locate there? Would that reduction in tax base then ripple through our state budget and, therefore, our local budget? These are things that must be considered.
Tomorrow at 1:30 will find me in Senate Taxation testifying in strong support of SB 201, the RTC-5 bill. Come down to Carson and support us!
The next deadline is April 10th, when most bills must be through their first committee of introduction. This means that the next few weeks will be a flurry of activity.
I received a document the other day that has about 15 bills listed on it that could negatively impact the business community, 12 or so of those bills are workers comp related. There are some big deals in there and I will get more information out to Chamber members as I learn about them.
I took action on two bills today. The first was AB 313 in the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee. As I had to testify in another hearing, I signed in as opposed but did not go to the table. As you can see from the link above, this bill would limit the amount of late fees that a landlord could charge a tenant if he/she is late with their rent payment. While this bill only affects a certain segment of our membership, the Chamber believes that this is an unnecessary intrusion into the private sector and that every business should be free to set their own payment policies and procedures.
I stepped up to the table in the Senate Government Affairs Committee to oppose SB 264. This bill would allow all local governments (counties, cities, school districts, library boards, etc) to impose, increase, decrease, or repeal certain taxes without having to come to the State Legislature for authority to do so.
Nevada does not have a home rule system whereby localities are free to set their own taxing and spending policies. All taxes imposed by a local government have to have been authorized at some point by the legislature. Of course, several local government representatives testified in support of this concept.
While the Chamber believes that there should be discussions about giving local governments more autonomy over their affairs, rules, and regulations, I testified that tax rates and policies should probably have the extra check and balance that the legislature provides. I quoted our Agenda for Economic Vitality in Nevada, which states our support for the “concept of reasonable tax and fee caps to prevent government from unnecessary expansion.”
I also pointed out that there could be unintended consequences if this bill were to become law. We all know that Clark County is the economic engine of this state. Could there be a scenario whereby that county raised taxes or fees so much that businesses have no incentive to remain or locate there? Would that reduction in tax base then ripple through our state budget and, therefore, our local budget? These are things that must be considered.
Tomorrow at 1:30 will find me in Senate Taxation testifying in strong support of SB 201, the RTC-5 bill. Come down to Carson and support us!
Monday, March 23, 2009
More insurance mandates...
Signed in as opposed to two more insurance mandate bills today.
Both the Senate and Assembly Commerce and Labor Committees meet at 1:30 in the afternoon, and both have jurisdiction over insurance mandate bills.
In the Assembly, AB 268 was up. This would require all businesses who aren’t self-insured to cover new chemotherapy treatments, including pills that can be taken orally. The argument was made by the proponents of the bill that a pill regimen could potentially be much cheaper than chemo treatment that involves a doctor visit, IV drip, etc. The insurance industry, however, argued that evidence in Colorado showed that the drugs were actually the much more expensive option.
Senate Commerce and Labor took up SB 192, which would require insurance policies to cover name-brand drugs, but only charge generic prices to its policyholders. Apparently, the patient would not even have the option of using generic drugs. As name-brand drugs are not cheap, someone will have to make up that cost. That someone would be every small business owner who pays for health care and prescription coverage for their employees.
The Chamber remains opposed to all new health insurance mandates, as they tend to drive up the cost of every insurance policy.
Both the Senate and Assembly Commerce and Labor Committees meet at 1:30 in the afternoon, and both have jurisdiction over insurance mandate bills.
In the Assembly, AB 268 was up. This would require all businesses who aren’t self-insured to cover new chemotherapy treatments, including pills that can be taken orally. The argument was made by the proponents of the bill that a pill regimen could potentially be much cheaper than chemo treatment that involves a doctor visit, IV drip, etc. The insurance industry, however, argued that evidence in Colorado showed that the drugs were actually the much more expensive option.
Senate Commerce and Labor took up SB 192, which would require insurance policies to cover name-brand drugs, but only charge generic prices to its policyholders. Apparently, the patient would not even have the option of using generic drugs. As name-brand drugs are not cheap, someone will have to make up that cost. That someone would be every small business owner who pays for health care and prescription coverage for their employees.
The Chamber remains opposed to all new health insurance mandates, as they tend to drive up the cost of every insurance policy.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
I sat in this morning’s Joint Ways and Means/Finance Committee meeting on the merger between the Nevada Commission on Economic Development and the Nevada Commission on Tourism. The Governor has proposed to merge the two agencies in an effort to balance the budget.
Most of the committee members expressed skepticism of the idea, acknowledging that each of the agencies have very different missions. Lt. Governor Brian Krolicki stepped up to the table to oppose the idea.
The afternoon was spent in Assembly Taxation, where I was pleased to testify in support of two bills.
The first, AB 146, is sponsored by Majority Leader John Oceguera, with strong support from Secretary of State Ross Miller. It would create an online “business portal” operated by Miller’s office that would allow any business in the state to go to one place to take care of all of their license, permit, and tax issues. One website would allow you to take care of all the various state and local agencies that a business must deal with when setting up shop or renewing their operation.
The Majority leader included the Chamber and other business organizations in a working group to work out any issues with the bill prior to the hearing. I cannot speak highly enough of this process, whereby a legislator brings forward an idea and actually puts together a group of stakeholders to work on it. Mr. Oceguera is well-known for doing this and he is to be commended for it.
The second bill that I testified in favor of is AB 275, which has been proposed by Minority Leader Heidi Gansert. This bill would ensure that banks and other financial institutions pay the same Modified Business Tax rate that every other business pays. It would also eliminate the discriminatory branch excise tax imposed on those same institutions.
Currently, most of the business community pays 0.63% of their payroll to the state. Banks, however, must cough up 2% of their payroll AND pay a $7000 per branch excise tax on any branch above one per county.
The Chamber believes that this is horrible tax policy. No industry should be singled-out for extra taxation and we are opposed to any tax per business branch location. No business should be punished for being successful and offering better service to their customers.
Given the general fund hole that the Legislature is staring at, I do not have high hopes for the passage of any bill that would actually decrease taxes. That doesn’t mean we should give up on our principles.
Most of the committee members expressed skepticism of the idea, acknowledging that each of the agencies have very different missions. Lt. Governor Brian Krolicki stepped up to the table to oppose the idea.
The afternoon was spent in Assembly Taxation, where I was pleased to testify in support of two bills.
The first, AB 146, is sponsored by Majority Leader John Oceguera, with strong support from Secretary of State Ross Miller. It would create an online “business portal” operated by Miller’s office that would allow any business in the state to go to one place to take care of all of their license, permit, and tax issues. One website would allow you to take care of all the various state and local agencies that a business must deal with when setting up shop or renewing their operation.
The Majority leader included the Chamber and other business organizations in a working group to work out any issues with the bill prior to the hearing. I cannot speak highly enough of this process, whereby a legislator brings forward an idea and actually puts together a group of stakeholders to work on it. Mr. Oceguera is well-known for doing this and he is to be commended for it.
The second bill that I testified in favor of is AB 275, which has been proposed by Minority Leader Heidi Gansert. This bill would ensure that banks and other financial institutions pay the same Modified Business Tax rate that every other business pays. It would also eliminate the discriminatory branch excise tax imposed on those same institutions.
Currently, most of the business community pays 0.63% of their payroll to the state. Banks, however, must cough up 2% of their payroll AND pay a $7000 per branch excise tax on any branch above one per county.
The Chamber believes that this is horrible tax policy. No industry should be singled-out for extra taxation and we are opposed to any tax per business branch location. No business should be punished for being successful and offering better service to their customers.
Given the general fund hole that the Legislature is staring at, I do not have high hopes for the passage of any bill that would actually decrease taxes. That doesn’t mean we should give up on our principles.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
I am beginning to feel the affects of being the Chamber’s one-man show down in Carson.
I wanted to be in three different hearings at the same time this afternoon, so I signed in at one, testified in the other, and missed the third. If it weren’t for my intern Tony back at the office, I would be more confused than normal!
Senate Government Affairs heard SB 189 today, which would allow an employee to file a complaint in court without first going to the State Labor Commissioner. The labor unions seem to be upset with current Labor Commissioner Mike Tanchek, a great public servant. Maybe because he doesn’t give them everything they want. This is the same group that wants sole authority to pick the Labor Commissioner. I signed in as opposing this bill, but I was not able to attend the hearing.
I went before the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee again today in opposition to AB 224, which would prohibit insurance companies from denying payments of amounts that are “not in dispute.” Representatives from the insurance industry testified that this language is ambiguous and consumers already have the right to sue insurers for denying payments and coverage. This bill also adds that an insurer is liable for any damages, “including, without limitation, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.” I think we all know what can of worms that last phrase opens.
Tomorrow brings two bills that I will heartily support in Assembly Taxation: the creation of a statewide “business portal” website, and the repeal of the discriminatory modified business and branch taxes on banks.
I wanted to be in three different hearings at the same time this afternoon, so I signed in at one, testified in the other, and missed the third. If it weren’t for my intern Tony back at the office, I would be more confused than normal!
Senate Government Affairs heard SB 189 today, which would allow an employee to file a complaint in court without first going to the State Labor Commissioner. The labor unions seem to be upset with current Labor Commissioner Mike Tanchek, a great public servant. Maybe because he doesn’t give them everything they want. This is the same group that wants sole authority to pick the Labor Commissioner. I signed in as opposing this bill, but I was not able to attend the hearing.
I went before the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee again today in opposition to AB 224, which would prohibit insurance companies from denying payments of amounts that are “not in dispute.” Representatives from the insurance industry testified that this language is ambiguous and consumers already have the right to sue insurers for denying payments and coverage. This bill also adds that an insurer is liable for any damages, “including, without limitation, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.” I think we all know what can of worms that last phrase opens.
Tomorrow brings two bills that I will heartily support in Assembly Taxation: the creation of a statewide “business portal” website, and the repeal of the discriminatory modified business and branch taxes on banks.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Moral Obligation to Smoke and Drink
There was a very long hearing in Assembly Taxation this afternoon, and there were only two bills on the agenda!
I signed in opposing both, but only went to the table on one of them.
First up was AB 277, proposed by Assemblyman Bernie Anderson. This bill would raise the excise taxes considerably on liquor, including beer and wine. The money raised by this bill would go toward DNA testing and various alcohol and drug treatment programs.
The DNA issue arises from the tragic Brianna Denison case last year. It was during the course of that investigation that we all learned that the Washoe County crime lab had a large backlog of DNA samples and evidence that they had collected, but did not have the funding to expedite the process of analyzing all of the samples. AB 277 would provide money for that purpose.
AB 255, sponsored by Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, would raise the excise tax on cigarettes by about $1 per pack to fund medical services to pregnant women. I went to the table in opposition to this bill.
In fact, in Assemblywoman Leslie’s opening remarks, she quickly listed all of the reasons that some would use to oppose the bill, and she was dead on! She even stated that this method was horrible tax policy, but that she was tired of seeing these necessary services go unfunded year after year.
The Chamber opposes both of these bills because we believe that there should be a nexus between any tax and the purpose for that tax. We also believe that one specific industry should not shoulder the entire burden of a tax that benefits the entire population. You can find our positions on taxation on page 2 of our Agenda for Economic Vitality in Nevada.
In other words, if DNA testing and health care for pregnant women are determined to be important government services that the state needs to provide, then we should all pay for it, not just drinkers and smokers (and the stores that sell to them).
I also voice our concern that AB 255 would make cigarettes in Nevada more expensive than in many of our surrounding states, including California. We don’t even want to mention internet sales. By driving sales over the border or to the internet, we could actually hurt our local retailers and maybe even bring in less tax revenue on these products than we do currently.
Finally, these bills would seem to provide a perverse incentive for all of us to smoke and drink as much as we can in order to fund these important programs! You have a moral obligation!
I signed in opposing both, but only went to the table on one of them.
First up was AB 277, proposed by Assemblyman Bernie Anderson. This bill would raise the excise taxes considerably on liquor, including beer and wine. The money raised by this bill would go toward DNA testing and various alcohol and drug treatment programs.
The DNA issue arises from the tragic Brianna Denison case last year. It was during the course of that investigation that we all learned that the Washoe County crime lab had a large backlog of DNA samples and evidence that they had collected, but did not have the funding to expedite the process of analyzing all of the samples. AB 277 would provide money for that purpose.
AB 255, sponsored by Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, would raise the excise tax on cigarettes by about $1 per pack to fund medical services to pregnant women. I went to the table in opposition to this bill.
In fact, in Assemblywoman Leslie’s opening remarks, she quickly listed all of the reasons that some would use to oppose the bill, and she was dead on! She even stated that this method was horrible tax policy, but that she was tired of seeing these necessary services go unfunded year after year.
The Chamber opposes both of these bills because we believe that there should be a nexus between any tax and the purpose for that tax. We also believe that one specific industry should not shoulder the entire burden of a tax that benefits the entire population. You can find our positions on taxation on page 2 of our Agenda for Economic Vitality in Nevada.
In other words, if DNA testing and health care for pregnant women are determined to be important government services that the state needs to provide, then we should all pay for it, not just drinkers and smokers (and the stores that sell to them).
I also voice our concern that AB 255 would make cigarettes in Nevada more expensive than in many of our surrounding states, including California. We don’t even want to mention internet sales. By driving sales over the border or to the internet, we could actually hurt our local retailers and maybe even bring in less tax revenue on these products than we do currently.
Finally, these bills would seem to provide a perverse incentive for all of us to smoke and drink as much as we can in order to fund these important programs! You have a moral obligation!
Monday, March 16, 2009
WC-3, the anti-growth initiative that the Chamber opposed last November, reared its ugly head in the Assembly Government Affairs Committee this morning.
It is now known as AB 119, a bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie. The initiative and the original version of the bill were written by PLAN, the “Progressive” Leadership Alliance of Nevada. (Is it considered “progress” if we move toward California and away from capitalism?) But I digress…
While PLAN would have you believe that AB 119 is only meant to implement the voters’ intent; that is not true. The voters supported amending the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, not Nevada Revised Statutes. In fact, the process was already in place to hold public meetings to deal with this issue; meetings that were cancelled once this bill was introduced. AB 119 may actually be slowing down the process of implementing the voters’ intent.
While the amended bill is not nearly as harmful as the original text that you will find in the link above, it still has some undefined terms in the text, such as “region,” “development pattern,” and “sustainable water resources.” All of the local governments supported the change, but our position is that this bill is totally unnecessary.
Representatives from the Builders Association of Northern Nevada did a superb job in proving that our current Regional Plan already accomplishes what AB 119 is “supposed” to do. Click HERE for some facts about water and growth.
One point needs to be made very clear: No one can develop a piece of dirt until that developer has the water rights in hand to serve that project. We can never over-develop. If we were to somehow run out of newly available water, nothing else could be built.
In fact, we have become more efficient at using our resources at the same time that we build more homes and businesses. Brand-new homes and office buildings use much less water than older developments.
I testified against the bill and then was interviewed by KUNR after the hearing. My basic point was that we have had responsible, managed growth in Washoe County for years. Our economy must have a certain amount of growth to survive and thrive. Our members depend upon the income paid to the construction workers who shop in our stores and consume our services.
AB 119 does nothing to help our current economic conditions. In fact, it could very well make it worse.
It is now known as AB 119, a bill sponsored by Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie. The initiative and the original version of the bill were written by PLAN, the “Progressive” Leadership Alliance of Nevada. (Is it considered “progress” if we move toward California and away from capitalism?) But I digress…
While PLAN would have you believe that AB 119 is only meant to implement the voters’ intent; that is not true. The voters supported amending the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, not Nevada Revised Statutes. In fact, the process was already in place to hold public meetings to deal with this issue; meetings that were cancelled once this bill was introduced. AB 119 may actually be slowing down the process of implementing the voters’ intent.
While the amended bill is not nearly as harmful as the original text that you will find in the link above, it still has some undefined terms in the text, such as “region,” “development pattern,” and “sustainable water resources.” All of the local governments supported the change, but our position is that this bill is totally unnecessary.
Representatives from the Builders Association of Northern Nevada did a superb job in proving that our current Regional Plan already accomplishes what AB 119 is “supposed” to do. Click HERE for some facts about water and growth.
One point needs to be made very clear: No one can develop a piece of dirt until that developer has the water rights in hand to serve that project. We can never over-develop. If we were to somehow run out of newly available water, nothing else could be built.
In fact, we have become more efficient at using our resources at the same time that we build more homes and businesses. Brand-new homes and office buildings use much less water than older developments.
I testified against the bill and then was interviewed by KUNR after the hearing. My basic point was that we have had responsible, managed growth in Washoe County for years. Our economy must have a certain amount of growth to survive and thrive. Our members depend upon the income paid to the construction workers who shop in our stores and consume our services.
AB 119 does nothing to help our current economic conditions. In fact, it could very well make it worse.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Several items today…
I went to the testimony table twice today.
The first time was in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill in question is SB 167, which has been proposed by State Treasurer Kate Marshall. It deals with unclaimed property, which is a complicated subject that I won’t delve into here.
Chamber member IGT offered an amendment to the bill, which would protect businesses from invasive outside audits performed in the name of claiming unclaimed property. I signed in neutral on the bill itself and urged the committee to consider and support the amendment. I pointed out that anything we can do to make our unclaimed property laws less onerous and more business-friendly would have a positive affect on attracting new businesses and industries to our state.
During the 11 am floor session today, the Assembly unanimously passed AB 165, a bill sponsored by Speaker Buckley that would implement required transfers from the state’s general fund to the rainy day fund. In other words, the Governor and the Legislature would be forced to set aside funds in the boom times to assist us in the down times. I testified in favor of this bill a few weeks ago in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, as it is one step in our long-term spending reform agenda. There are other bills of the same nature that have been proposed by other legislators and the Governor, so we anxiously await those proposals.
I spent most of the afternoon in the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee. AB 167, which would mandate that all insurance policies cover acupuncture treatment (except those offered by large companies covered under the federal ERISA law and labor union plans).
The Chamber is opposed to ALL insurance mandates, as they end up driving up the cost of insurance coverage, hitting our small employers the hardest. That could result in even more people ending up uninsured, which nobody wants. This hearing certainly had a different feel than the autism hearing a few days ago. The room was mostly empty and acupuncture is not nearly as emotional of an issue. The argument was made that acupuncture treatment could actually lower health insurance costs. If that is the case, then the Chamber fully supports allowing our members, the employers, to make the decision on whether or not to cover it. Some of them may jump at the chance! But they should not be required to cover it.
Finally, the Committee held a hearing on AB 150, which would require tanning bed operators to be regulated for the first time by the State Board of Cosmetology. The bill includes new posting requirements, parental consent forms for minors, and a requirement that any employee who operates a tanning machine must be 18 years old.
I have not heard back from any of our tanning bed members, so the Chamber has no official position on this bill. I am concerned, however, that the requirements of this bill may be too onerous for a small business operator, a concern also voiced by Assemblyman Settelmeyer at the hearing. The Indoor Tanning Association did oppose the bill, claiming that most of these protections are in place and operable already.
If you are a tanning bed operator and have interest in this bill, shoot me an e-mail.
I went to the testimony table twice today.
The first time was in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill in question is SB 167, which has been proposed by State Treasurer Kate Marshall. It deals with unclaimed property, which is a complicated subject that I won’t delve into here.
Chamber member IGT offered an amendment to the bill, which would protect businesses from invasive outside audits performed in the name of claiming unclaimed property. I signed in neutral on the bill itself and urged the committee to consider and support the amendment. I pointed out that anything we can do to make our unclaimed property laws less onerous and more business-friendly would have a positive affect on attracting new businesses and industries to our state.
During the 11 am floor session today, the Assembly unanimously passed AB 165, a bill sponsored by Speaker Buckley that would implement required transfers from the state’s general fund to the rainy day fund. In other words, the Governor and the Legislature would be forced to set aside funds in the boom times to assist us in the down times. I testified in favor of this bill a few weeks ago in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, as it is one step in our long-term spending reform agenda. There are other bills of the same nature that have been proposed by other legislators and the Governor, so we anxiously await those proposals.
I spent most of the afternoon in the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee. AB 167, which would mandate that all insurance policies cover acupuncture treatment (except those offered by large companies covered under the federal ERISA law and labor union plans).
The Chamber is opposed to ALL insurance mandates, as they end up driving up the cost of insurance coverage, hitting our small employers the hardest. That could result in even more people ending up uninsured, which nobody wants. This hearing certainly had a different feel than the autism hearing a few days ago. The room was mostly empty and acupuncture is not nearly as emotional of an issue. The argument was made that acupuncture treatment could actually lower health insurance costs. If that is the case, then the Chamber fully supports allowing our members, the employers, to make the decision on whether or not to cover it. Some of them may jump at the chance! But they should not be required to cover it.
Finally, the Committee held a hearing on AB 150, which would require tanning bed operators to be regulated for the first time by the State Board of Cosmetology. The bill includes new posting requirements, parental consent forms for minors, and a requirement that any employee who operates a tanning machine must be 18 years old.
I have not heard back from any of our tanning bed members, so the Chamber has no official position on this bill. I am concerned, however, that the requirements of this bill may be too onerous for a small business operator, a concern also voiced by Assemblyman Settelmeyer at the hearing. The Indoor Tanning Association did oppose the bill, claiming that most of these protections are in place and operable already.
If you are a tanning bed operator and have interest in this bill, shoot me an e-mail.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Room tax passes
As my friends Anjeanette Damon (RGJ) and Jon Ralston (Las Vegas Sun) have already reported, the Senate passed the 3% room tax increase this afternoon.
The vote was 16-5, with the no votes all coming from Republicans (Amodei, Cegavske, Hardy, McGinness, and Washington). The vote finally came a day after five hours of an off and on hearing was held on Monday. It was assumed as late as last night that there were not enough votes to pass the petition.
Most of the opponents of the bill complained that taxation should not be done by initiative petition, but through the legislative process. The Chamber could not agree more.
We opposed this bill when it appeared on the ballot last November in the form of WC-6. We said then that we have elected officials for a reason. We delegate decision making authority on taxes, spending, and other matters to our councilmen, commissioners, and state legislators. We do not live in a direct democracy. We live in a republic. (I have been informed that since the initiative petition process is outline in the Nevada State Constitution, that we do, in fact, have a form of direct democracy. So, I stand corrected. But it doesn't mean I have to like it!)
Even the supporters of this bill admitted that this is not the process that they would have preferred, that their hands were tied and could not improve the language.
The proponent of this measure (the teachers union) has been telling the Legislature that Nevada needs new "broad-based" tax sources that are more stable than our current revenue. (In other words, they support taxing businesses more.)
I fail to see how an increase in the room tax (a percentage of the total room rate, not a fixed dollar amount) meets this definition, but why let good policy get in the way of cold, hard cash?
At least room rates are stable right now, right?
After this biennium, the money raised from this measure will go to teacher salaries and to improve student achievement. We should hold the teachers union to this. We better see improved student achievement.
Finally, the Chamber opposed this because there is no nexus to room tax and education. Our tourists will pay for the education of our children.
And did I mention that this law limits the room tax in Clark and Washoe counties to 13%? And that most of our hotels in Washoe are above 13% already? Meaning that Clark County tourists will pay 99% of the freight.
To: The Tourists of Clark County
From: The People in the Rest of Nevada
Thank you.
The vote was 16-5, with the no votes all coming from Republicans (Amodei, Cegavske, Hardy, McGinness, and Washington). The vote finally came a day after five hours of an off and on hearing was held on Monday. It was assumed as late as last night that there were not enough votes to pass the petition.
Most of the opponents of the bill complained that taxation should not be done by initiative petition, but through the legislative process. The Chamber could not agree more.
We opposed this bill when it appeared on the ballot last November in the form of WC-6. We said then that we have elected officials for a reason. We delegate decision making authority on taxes, spending, and other matters to our councilmen, commissioners, and state legislators. We do not live in a direct democracy. We live in a republic. (I have been informed that since the initiative petition process is outline in the Nevada State Constitution, that we do, in fact, have a form of direct democracy. So, I stand corrected. But it doesn't mean I have to like it!)
Even the supporters of this bill admitted that this is not the process that they would have preferred, that their hands were tied and could not improve the language.
The proponent of this measure (the teachers union) has been telling the Legislature that Nevada needs new "broad-based" tax sources that are more stable than our current revenue. (In other words, they support taxing businesses more.)
I fail to see how an increase in the room tax (a percentage of the total room rate, not a fixed dollar amount) meets this definition, but why let good policy get in the way of cold, hard cash?
At least room rates are stable right now, right?
After this biennium, the money raised from this measure will go to teacher salaries and to improve student achievement. We should hold the teachers union to this. We better see improved student achievement.
Finally, the Chamber opposed this because there is no nexus to room tax and education. Our tourists will pay for the education of our children.
And did I mention that this law limits the room tax in Clark and Washoe counties to 13%? And that most of our hotels in Washoe are above 13% already? Meaning that Clark County tourists will pay 99% of the freight.
To: The Tourists of Clark County
From: The People in the Rest of Nevada
Thank you.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The hearing on AB 162 just ended after almost three hours of testimony, some of it very moving and emotional.
Valerie Clark stepped up to the table with other representatives of the insurance industry and the manufacturers. Their testimony really focused on the affect on small businesses that this bill would have. Once large employers, unions, and medicaid recipients are excluded (as this bill provides for), the cost of this bill would seem to fall only 30% of employers.
The committee took no action on the bill today and will work out some of the issues that were identified.
While most observers in the Legislative Building agree that some type of autism coverage bill will pass, the question is how broad and sweeping the final bill will be.
The Senate is STILL meeting in Committee of the Whole to take testimony on the 3% room tax increase. This bill sailed through the Assembly. The Senate seems to have a few more questions about it...
Valerie Clark stepped up to the table with other representatives of the insurance industry and the manufacturers. Their testimony really focused on the affect on small businesses that this bill would have. Once large employers, unions, and medicaid recipients are excluded (as this bill provides for), the cost of this bill would seem to fall only 30% of employers.
The committee took no action on the bill today and will work out some of the issues that were identified.
While most observers in the Legislative Building agree that some type of autism coverage bill will pass, the question is how broad and sweeping the final bill will be.
The Senate is STILL meeting in Committee of the Whole to take testimony on the 3% room tax increase. This bill sailed through the Assembly. The Senate seems to have a few more questions about it...
The Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee has convened and is discussing AB 162, which would mandate that insurance companies cover autism treatment.
The Chamber is opposed to any health insurance mandates because they increase the costs on EVERYBODY’S insurance policy. If every policy has to cover such issues, then every policy will be more expensive. At a time when employers are struggling to keep their workers employed, any additional costs could force them to raise premiums or eliminate coverage.
Just to be clear, the Chamber is not opposed to insurance companies covering autism or any other medical condition; we are opposed to the state government mandating that coverage. These types of coverage issues should be a decision made by the insured and his/her employer.
The hearing room in Carson City is packed this afternoon with autism activists, many with children. The hearing room in Las Vegas appears to be filled with even more people.
Valerie Clark, the Chamber’s Immediate Past Chair, is here to testify in opposition to the bill. She is head of the Chamber’s Health Care Task Force and is President of Clark and Associates, an insurance brokerage firm. She will present a unique perspective, that of a mother, a nurse, and an insurance broker.
The Chamber is opposed to any health insurance mandates because they increase the costs on EVERYBODY’S insurance policy. If every policy has to cover such issues, then every policy will be more expensive. At a time when employers are struggling to keep their workers employed, any additional costs could force them to raise premiums or eliminate coverage.
Just to be clear, the Chamber is not opposed to insurance companies covering autism or any other medical condition; we are opposed to the state government mandating that coverage. These types of coverage issues should be a decision made by the insured and his/her employer.
The hearing room in Carson City is packed this afternoon with autism activists, many with children. The hearing room in Las Vegas appears to be filled with even more people.
Valerie Clark, the Chamber’s Immediate Past Chair, is here to testify in opposition to the bill. She is head of the Chamber’s Health Care Task Force and is President of Clark and Associates, an insurance brokerage firm. She will present a unique perspective, that of a mother, a nurse, and an insurance broker.
I spent the morning in the Senate Finance Committee, which is one of the committees that determine where our money will be spent for the next two years.
I testified with a neutral position on SB 14, which would raise the marriage license fee by $5 and would deposit that money in the account that aids the victims of domestic violence. $20 of every marriage license fee already goes to that account.
A representative of the wedding chapel industry approached me and asked for our support of an amendment offered by Senator Maurice Washington that would tack on an extra $7 to the fee for certified copies of marriage certificates. The chapel industry has been in a downturn for quite some time and it feels that it would be very difficult to absorb any more costs. The amendment mentioned above may bring in most of the money that the original bill would bring in and would not affect any specific industry.
Given that the Chamber has no position on marriage licenses or the fees associated with them, I signed in as neutral and simply urged the committee to consider the amendment.
The next bill that the Finance Committee took up was SB 150, which would create a separate budget reserve account for K-12 education funding. Currently, if there is education money that has been unallocated after a biennium, it reverts to the state’s general fund. SB 150 would keep that unallocated money in a separate fund that could then be used for economic downturns like we are seeing today.
I testified in strong favor of this bill and reiterated the Chamber’s support for long-term spending reforms such as the one that this bill provides.
In a few minutes, the Senate takes up the room tax…
I testified with a neutral position on SB 14, which would raise the marriage license fee by $5 and would deposit that money in the account that aids the victims of domestic violence. $20 of every marriage license fee already goes to that account.
A representative of the wedding chapel industry approached me and asked for our support of an amendment offered by Senator Maurice Washington that would tack on an extra $7 to the fee for certified copies of marriage certificates. The chapel industry has been in a downturn for quite some time and it feels that it would be very difficult to absorb any more costs. The amendment mentioned above may bring in most of the money that the original bill would bring in and would not affect any specific industry.
Given that the Chamber has no position on marriage licenses or the fees associated with them, I signed in as neutral and simply urged the committee to consider the amendment.
The next bill that the Finance Committee took up was SB 150, which would create a separate budget reserve account for K-12 education funding. Currently, if there is education money that has been unallocated after a biennium, it reverts to the state’s general fund. SB 150 would keep that unallocated money in a separate fund that could then be used for economic downturns like we are seeing today.
I testified in strong favor of this bill and reiterated the Chamber’s support for long-term spending reforms such as the one that this bill provides.
In a few minutes, the Senate takes up the room tax…
Thursday, March 5, 2009
My day is almost over. It was my turn to testify in front of the Joint Taxation meeting at around 7 pm.
I had been proceeded by several folks, including representatives from the Nevada Manufacturing Association, the Nevada Motor Transport Association, the Las Vegas and Henderson Chambers and the brothel owners. The Retail Association followed me.
Most of our messages struck the same theme: Our members are hurting, so be very aware of the consequences of your actions this session.
I discussed the 60 retail closures in Washoe County last year, the commercial vacancy rates at 20 year highs, IGT's layoffs and Moana Nursery's struggles.
I presented the same message that we have been presenting since session started: Until long-term spending reforms are implemented, we will not support any tax increases.
If we do nothing this session to deal with the SAGE Commission recommendations, PERS/PEBP reform, prevailing wage, etc. then the problem will only get worse as we move forward.
If we raise taxes now and do nothing on the issues mentioned above, our hole will continue to get deeper and we will have to have more cuts and more tax increases as we move forward.
Our members need tax stability so that they can plan their own budgets.
I did receive a fairly warm reception from the Committee, although after almost 5 hours of testimony, everyone was tired and were ready to end the day.
If you have any stories that you can share with me regarding how you have had to deal with the current economic conditions, click on the e-mail link on this page and drop me a line. It is always more meaningful to bring real stories to the table in a hearing room.
And so we move forward with less than 90 days to go...
I had been proceeded by several folks, including representatives from the Nevada Manufacturing Association, the Nevada Motor Transport Association, the Las Vegas and Henderson Chambers and the brothel owners. The Retail Association followed me.
Most of our messages struck the same theme: Our members are hurting, so be very aware of the consequences of your actions this session.
I discussed the 60 retail closures in Washoe County last year, the commercial vacancy rates at 20 year highs, IGT's layoffs and Moana Nursery's struggles.
I presented the same message that we have been presenting since session started: Until long-term spending reforms are implemented, we will not support any tax increases.
If we do nothing this session to deal with the SAGE Commission recommendations, PERS/PEBP reform, prevailing wage, etc. then the problem will only get worse as we move forward.
If we raise taxes now and do nothing on the issues mentioned above, our hole will continue to get deeper and we will have to have more cuts and more tax increases as we move forward.
Our members need tax stability so that they can plan their own budgets.
I did receive a fairly warm reception from the Committee, although after almost 5 hours of testimony, everyone was tired and were ready to end the day.
If you have any stories that you can share with me regarding how you have had to deal with the current economic conditions, click on the e-mail link on this page and drop me a line. It is always more meaningful to bring real stories to the table in a hearing room.
And so we move forward with less than 90 days to go...
The Joint Taxation hearing has just begun in Carson City. Both the Senate and Assembly Tax Committees are meeting in joint session today from 1:30 to 3:30 and then again from 5-8.
The purpose is to have a public forum whereby various groups who are “affected” by Nevada’s tax structure can offer their thoughts and solutions.
First up is PLAN, the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. They are arguing that mining companies and other wealthy business owners are not paying their fair share and, therefore, the poor and middle class end up picking an unfair share of the tab.
One argument that has been made is that large corporations pay corporate profits tax in 47 other states and that we, as Nevadans, don’t benefit from any of it. It could be argued, however, that Nevadans may be paying for the tax policies of other states.
Imagine if several of those 47 states got rid of their corporate profits tax, don’t you think that would allow Wal-Mart or other national retailers to lower their costs nationwide?
Lastly, one of PLAN’s main complaints is that large corporations come into Nevada, make a lot of money off of us, and then ship it out of state to build schools and roads elsewhere.
How did PLAN gather all of this information and put it together for their report? They shipped some funds, paid by Nevadans, to Chicago to hire a consultant.
My scheduled time to address the committee is 6:45 this evening. Stay tuned…
The purpose is to have a public forum whereby various groups who are “affected” by Nevada’s tax structure can offer their thoughts and solutions.
First up is PLAN, the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. They are arguing that mining companies and other wealthy business owners are not paying their fair share and, therefore, the poor and middle class end up picking an unfair share of the tab.
One argument that has been made is that large corporations pay corporate profits tax in 47 other states and that we, as Nevadans, don’t benefit from any of it. It could be argued, however, that Nevadans may be paying for the tax policies of other states.
Imagine if several of those 47 states got rid of their corporate profits tax, don’t you think that would allow Wal-Mart or other national retailers to lower their costs nationwide?
Lastly, one of PLAN’s main complaints is that large corporations come into Nevada, make a lot of money off of us, and then ship it out of state to build schools and roads elsewhere.
How did PLAN gather all of this information and put it together for their report? They shipped some funds, paid by Nevadans, to Chicago to hire a consultant.
My scheduled time to address the committee is 6:45 this evening. Stay tuned…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
