Republican lawmakers are already digging in their heels at the possibility of a change to the state’s property tax formula, citing “tax fatigue” after the $1.1 billion increase the Legislature passed in 2015.

Perhaps it’s no surprise then that Republican Sen. Ben Kieckhefer bristled at finding an apparent discrepancy in property tax data presented by Clark County at a joint tax hearing on Tuesday, where the stage was set for a conversation about a possible property tax change.

In a statement Wednesday morning, Kieckhefer said the county had presented inaccurate information that “dramatically understated” growth in property tax revenue.

"Local governments have a coordinated effort this session to peel back taxpayer protection components of Nevada's property tax law, and Clark County's inaccurate testimony was their opening salvo,” Kieckhefer said.

At the hearing, Clark County Manager Yolanda King said the increase in property tax revenue between 2016 and 2017 was 1.4 percent. Kieckhefer said that number is actually 4.7 percent.

So who’s right?

***

During the Tuesday hearing, Kieckhefer noted a discrepancy between a number in King’s slideshow and the county’s 2017 general fund budget report. The slideshow pegged the county’s 2017 property tax revenue at $275.2 million, while the budget pegged that number at $283.3 million.

The sets of numbers in the slideshow and in the budget report both deal with the portion of property tax revenue that flows into the state’s general fund. Other property tax revenues flow into separate county funds allocated for specific purposes, King said.

The budget document pegs total property tax revenue in the 2017 general fund at $283.3 million, while one of the property tax subtotals on that document is $275.2 million. That’s the number Kieckhefer thought the county had erroneously used in its slideshow instead of the $283.3 million total figure, a difference of $8 million that frames the debate.

But it’s not quite as cut and dried as that.

King acknowledges the $275.2 million on the slideshow, which she referenced in her presentation to the committee, is an adjusted figure from the budget document. But it’s not the same $275.2 million Kieckhefer was pointing to.

County commissioners made an adjustment to one of the other funds that property taxes flow into, essentially moving $8 million out of that fund and into the general fund, King said.

But that internal shuffling of funds meant that the amount of property tax revenue in the general fund was $8 million more than it otherwise would have been in 2017. So, to more accurately reflect the year-over-year increases in the general fund, King said she subtracted that $8 million from the $283.3 million, ending up with the $275.2 million figure she used in her presentation.

That one-time adjustment was necessary to create an “apples-to-apples comparison” for the true net increase in property tax revenue year over year, King said.

“The information that was presented to the joint committee with regard to the net increase in property tax revenues was accurate,” King said. “It wasn't a number that was purported to mislead the public or the elected officials.”

In short, using the $275.2 million adjusted figure results in an increase of 1.4 percent over the previous year. Using the $283.3 million number results in the 4 percent figure.

Kieckhefer said Wednesday that he wasn’t “out for anybody’s head” but he felt the clarification was important because the “data point was being used as the backdrop” for the county’s argument for a change in the way property taxes are calculated.

Still, even after the clarification from Clark County, Kieckhefer said that his point still stands that the county’s general fund revenue has increased more than what the county said in their presentation.

“I understand their argument, but they showed a number $8 million less than they actually had as a backdrop for (the Nevada Association of County’s) bill to adjust the property tax caps,” Kieckhefer said in a text message. “It was certainly misleading about the state of their general fund revenues to provide service.”

***

The Tuesday hearing was a precursor to AB43, which would establish a 3 percent minimum cap on annual increases in property taxes. State law specifies that annual increases cannot exceed 3 percent for residential properties and 8 percent for commercial properties but does not include a floor.

Nevada’s 17 counties frame the change as a fix to what they call “unintended consequences” from the current formula, created in 2005 before the Great Recession, which they say has led to stagnating tax revenue making it difficult to provide essential services.

Opponents of the bill, including Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson, say that there’s nothing to be fixed and that the stagnating property tax revenues are evidence that the 2005 caps are working. They also worry that a change to the formula would overburden property owners still struggling with post-recession economic recovery.

“I will fight any and all efforts to raise the property taxes of Nevadans. It will not happen this session, period,” Roberson said in a statement last month. “It has no hope of passing the legislature and advocating for it is only a waste of time.”

The bill has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Taxation, though a hearing has not yet been scheduled. The joint tax committees will hear more presentations Thursday on property taxes from Washoe and Clark county school districts and rural municipalities.