The 2023 Post Legislation Session review is here.
Jon Leleu
Attorney/Lobbyist
Argentum Partners
jleleu@argentumnv.com
Kerrie Kramer
Lobbyist
Argentum Partners
kerrie@argentumnv.com
Together again
Gee, it’s good to be together again
I just can’t imagine that you’ve ever been gone
It’s not starting over, it’s just going on
Together again
Now we’re here and there’s no need remembering when
‘Cause no feeling feels like that feeling
Together again
– The Muppets
Endearing, isn’t it? Indeed, driving through Washoe Valley on the way to Day 1 of the 2023 Nevada Legislative Session had that unmistakable feeling of comfort and familiarity. Despite the fact that the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and more than 20 of the 63 Legislators had never experienced a live legislative session, we were anxious to see our friends, work with our long-standing coalitions, and actually attend a live lobbying meeting for the first time since 2019. Yet, all good things must come to an end, and shortly after the gavel commenced the 2023 Session, our happy Muppets earworm quickly gave way to the mutually-assured destruction message from “Beat It”:
Just beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Showin’ how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn’t matter who’s wrong or right
Just beat it
– Michael Jackson
As the interests of the state gave way to national political talking points and political infighting within and between the parties, the Assembly, the Senate, and the Governor’s office, the Carson faithful hunkered down for a long, bruising session. It should come as no surprise, then, that when the dust settled on sine die, very little was accomplished. Although legislative Democrats were quick to pillory Governor Lombardo for shattering the “record” for vetoes in a single session, very little mention has been made of either the plague-like attrition of legislation throughout the session, or the volume of awful policy which the legislature sent to the Governor’s desk, necessitating “the power of the pen.” And while the number of vetoed bills is high, so too is the hubris in expecting that all bills passed by the legislature should be signed by the Governor, a separate but co-equal branch of government.
The numbers are eye-opening:
– BDR”s – 1,234
– Total Bills Introduced – 1,044
– Bills Passed and Sent to Gov. Lombardo – 610 (58%)
– Bills Signed – 535 (88%)
– Bills Vetoed – 75 (12%)
By any measure, the 2023 Nevada Legislative Session will be remembered for its missed opportunities, as Nevada electeds invariably chose politics over state interests on nearly every issue. Indeed, even the appropriations bill for capital improvements was unable to escape partisan gamesmanship, as the Senate failed to pass the bill by sine die, requiring a special session to be held such that the budget could be fully funded; a constitutional mandate. Over and over, bills that passed were either unanimous or party-line; a key indicator that caucuses are dug-in and bills are not being negotiated. And while the parties may point to their respective “wins,” reality is actual progress for the State of Nevada was minimal, and Nevada’s unique 120-day biennial legislative session prevents further action until 2025, widening the chasm between where Nevada needs to be as a state in the 21st century, and where it ended up after sine die on June 6, 2023.
Jon Leleu
Attorney/Lobbyist
Argentum Partners
jleleu@argentumnv.com
Kerrie Kramer
Lobbyist
Argentum Partners
kerrie@argentumnv.com
“Blow, blow, thou winter wind Thou art not so unkind, As man’s ingratitude.”
– William Shakespeare
Storms pounding the pacific northwest. Accumulation measured in feet. “Atmospheric River” is again part of daily conversation. Odd year. Jon’s grumpy(ier). Kerrie’s resolution to clean up her language died 2 weeks ago.
It must be time for another Legislative Session.
But while certain constants remind us of what is to come, such as Kerrie’s texts increasingly mentioning waterfowl, certain changes give hope that some things will be different.
The election of Joe Lombardo as Governor is one of those changes, and a direct message from the voters to the parties that candidates matter; platform matters; and to borrow one from Ralston, #wematter. While the national stage is important, there are larger issues at home, and it is time to start dealing with these things, as opposed to hastily adopting poorly conceived legislation simply to waive around a “vanity plate.”
On January 23, 2023, Governor Lombardo sent a message to Nevadans on his way out the door, when he responded to a reporter’s question of what he was most looking forward to as Governor by muttering into a hot mic, “getting sh*t done.” The message, combined with the more formal speech, could not have been more clear: budget surplus, but mitigated and targeted spending, dollars spent will come with accountability, and almost seemingly answering NAIOP’s mantra for the last several years, provide actual executive leadership in the two most critical issues facing Nevada – water and land. And while these resources are regulated by the federal government, Governor Lombardo made plain his intent to roll up his sleeves and “get sh*t done.”
And so, as Jon and Kerrie delve into pre-filed bills and track BDR’s, we do so with a different set of “eyes.” Bills and BDR’s put forth seemingly assuming a “rubber stamp” will likely not be as easy to move. Legislation assumed to be DOA suddenly has a pulse. And Carson City, sure as the winter snow will fall, will come to life with new relevance in 2 short weeks.
We look forward to seeing you in March.
Jon Leleu
Attorney/Lobbyist
Argentum Partners
jleleu@argentumnv.com
Kerrie Kramer
Lobbyist
Argentum Partners
kerrie@argentumnv.com
Dear Principal Members and President Circle Sponsors,
This email is a follow up to the Government Affairs Alerts sent in December and January regarding the proposed Evaporative Cooling Systems ban. As you may be aware, on December 8, 2021, Clark County proposed a ban on all evaporative cooling systems. On December 20, 2021, the Southern Nevada Water Authority Board passed a resolution supporting a county-wide moratorium on the use of evaporative cooling systems. This resolution directed all local jurisdictions to begin working toward ordinances and/or other administrative measures (through procedure, building codes, or otherwise) that would no longer allow evaporative cooling systems to be used for any new commercial project.
At this time, no ban or moratorium has officially been placed into effect at any local municipality, although Clark County has already begun inserting advisory language into all “Notice Of Final Action” letters for new projects that such systems will be banned. Here is an example of that language (submitted to us by a NAIOP member):
“Applicant is advised that the installation and use of cooling systems that consumptively use water will be prohibited.”
In response to these actions, the NAIOP Southern Nevada Government Affairs Committee formed a subcommittee tasked with managing this issue and working with industry and community stakeholders to both advocate for the commercial real estate industry and educate and inform community leadership of potential economic impacts.
Within the first several weeks of the new year, it became clear from several conversations and inquiries that our elected officials and the Southern Nevada Water Authority Board needed to hear from our industry on the issue. The subcommittee drafted the attached letter, which was sent to every commissioner, councilperson, and mayor in Southern Nevada. Additionally, local trade organizations responsible for economic growth in Southern Nevada received a copy of the letter.
As we move forward with DRI studies, we will also be reaching out to our principal members for additional information that we will need in order to complete Economic Impact Summaries. We ask that our principal members be ready to help NAIOP in the coming weeks.
There is no doubt that our region is currently experiencing a drought worse than experts expected. It would be reasonable for our members to expect numerous changes in the coming months and years regarding how our community uses water. It is our job to advocate for our industry in a manner that is considerate of our community’s best interests, as community leadership attempts to navigate current climate realities.
Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact chapter leadership.
Thank you.
Hayim Mizrachi
Chapter President
NAIOP Southern Nevada Chapter
(702) 941-7376
hmizrachi@mdlgroup.com
Steve Neiger
Government Affairs Chair
NAIOP Southern Nevada Chapter
(702) 836-3760
steve.neiger@colliers.com
Please be advised that Clark County Building Department has recently discovered an error in how some fence permit fees were being calculated. Fees were being calculated on a lower project valuation number; resulting in a lower permit fee being charged.
Effective January 3, 2022, this calculation error has been corrected. As a result, please be advised the permit fees for fence permits issued on or after January 4, 2022 may be higher.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
Click here for the notice.
Respectfully,
Jerome A. Stueve, P.E.
Director/Building & Fire Official
jerry.stueve@clarkcountynv.gov
Happy Holidays!
2021 brought tremendous yuletide cheer, not only was there an infrastructure week, but multiple infrastructure bills. And, may our hearts be still, one of them actually passed!
The following bifurcation from the controversial “Build Back Better Act,” the hard infrastructure bill was signed on November 15, and is 2,700 pages in length. Generally, the bill appropriates $1.2T, $550B of which is new spending, to traditional infrastructure projects over the next five years.
The categories of federal spending are, generally, as follows:
- Roads and bridges ($110B)
- Public transit ($39B)
- Railways ($66B)
- Power Grids ($73B)
- EV’s ($7.5B)
- Electric busses and ferries ($7.5B)
- Airports & Waterways ($42B)
- Resilience and Climate Change ($50B)
- Drinking Water ($55B)
- Environmental ($21B)
- Broadband ($65B)
- Transportation Safety ($21B)
Some of this spending goes to federal agencies to fund existing programs or, in some cases, mandates agency rulemaking to create programs. For instance, the bill makes direct, supplemental appropriations to several federal agencies:
- U.S. Department of Agriculture
- U.S. Department of Commerce
- U.S. Department of Energy
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- U.S. Department of the Interior
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Department of Transportation
Some of the spending goes directly to states for the same purposes – fund existing programs/projects or requires the establishment of same. As you know, the Nevada Legislature is not in session, so in many (if not most) cases, the statutory framework to manage the appropriation of these funds may not be in place. This will happen either in the Interim Finance Committee or in 2023.
With respect to funds to be received by Nevada, the overall economic impact is estimated at ~$4 billion, and the White House analysis notes the following categories and spending over five years:
- Roads ($2.5B)
- Bridges ($225M)
- Public Transportation ($459M)
- EV ($38M, and can apply for up to $2.5B in grant funding)
- Broadband ($100M)
- Climate Change ($8.6M)
- Cyber Attacks ($12M)
- Drinking Water ($403M)
- Airports ($293M)
The White House also notes additional economic impact data is coming and will be updated.
State and local elected officials are already issuing press releases regarding spending of the funds, however, as noted, the funds have generally not yet been appropriated, and in many cases, the programs which will be funded with this money aren’t yet in place. This will happen shortly, likely over the next several months.
We wish all of you a safe and restful holiday season and look forward to a very successful 2022!
Jon & Kerrie
Jonathan Leleu, Lobbyist/Attorney
jleleu@argentumnv.com
Kerrie Kramer, Lobbyist
kerrie@argentumnv.com
Argentum Partners
(702) 692-8037
The Governor’s Office of Energy held a workshop and adoption hearing regarding the 2021 IECC adoption. There were two proposed appendices dealing with EV charging stations and parking calculations for both commercial and residential developments.
Ultimately what ended up happening was the GOE lowered some of the thresholds and did not formally adopt the appendices with the code. What they did was hand the appendices to the local municipalities as a guide for what they can pass through ordinance. Included are the links to the amended appendices.
We will be monitoring the local jurisdictions, as Clark County and Henderson are doing comprehensive code rewrites as we speak, and we will likely see some of this included in those code rewrites. The City of Las Vegas and the City of Henderson are also looking to adopt the 2021 IBC and IFC codes, so they are a candidate for adoption of the EV charging station appendices as well.
This issue will impact every aspect of commercial real estate, and we need your help! Please take some time to review and provide comments that will help NAIOP navigate this at the local level.
Click here for the proposals.
Jonathan Leleu, Lobbyist/Attorney
jleleu@argentumnv.com
Kerrie Kramer, Lobbyist
kerrie@argentumnv.com
Argentum Partners
(702) 692-8037
The session is over! Check out our end of session report here.
Jonathan Leleu, Lobbyist/Attorney
jleleu@argentumnv.com
Kerrie Kramer, Lobbyist
kerrie@argentumnv.com
Argentum Partners
(702) 692-8037
NAIOP Southern Nevada, announced its support last month for the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act introduced Wed., March 3 by U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-Nev.). This legislation will expand public lands conservation and economic development opportunities in Southern Nevada.
According to the association, this bill takes into consideration sustainable and efficient growth, economic development, recreation, preservation and conservation interests.
For many years, NAIOP Southern Nevada has advocated for a balanced approach to managing federal lands in Southern Nevada to attract industry and new business while also maintaining a high quality of life for local residents and visitors. NAIOP leaders realize Southern Nevada will require properly configured and sized land parcels in appropriate locations to remain competitive, while diversifying the local economy.
“In the absence of this vital legislation, Southern Nevada will soon face a land shortage stunting our economic development and diversification efforts,” said David Strickland, NAIOP Southern Nevada Chapter president. “Expansion of the disposal boundary, coupled with a regional plan that allows for efficient, sustainable development, keeps Southern Nevada competitive and able to attract new business, improving the quality of life for residents in Southern Nevada through increased employment opportunities, economic diversification and higher wages and incomes.”
In addition to being one of several organizations consulted during the development of the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act, NAIOP commissioned a detailed study by local firm RCG Economics that evaluated whether short-term and long-term developable land constraints could negatively impact the region’s economic strength and resilience.
Highlights from the study include:
- To attract industry and new business, Southern Nevada will require properly configured and properly sized land parcels in appropriate locations to attract investment and businesses, and create well-paying jobs, while diversifying the local economy. Without this, Southern Nevada will be less economically competitive compared to other regions in the Western U.S.
- The supply of right-sized parcels for large-scale commercial development in the Las Vegas Valley is extremely scarce. The study shows there are now only 22 local parcels consisting of at least 60 acres, of which only 15 of those parcels are privately owned and could be potentially available for economic development purposes. There is a strong possibility that most if not all these parcels will be absorbed in the near- to mid-term.
- Southern Nevada is projected to require about 14,100 acres of developable employment land to support the approximately 390,000 jobs that are projected to be needed by 2035 to support the region’s population and to provide economic resiliency.
- The shortage of developable employment land parcels in the urbanized portion of Southern Nevada poses a significant challenge to future economic resilience and sustainability. If nothing is done to ensure that sufficient land is available to support the region’s economic development goals, Southern Nevada residents will likely see their quality of life diminished.
According to NAIOP Southern Nevada, the results of its study demonstrate the impact to Southern Nevada and its economy from competitive cost disadvantages due to land constraints. It also quantifies the potential future declines in economic output, employment, earnings and gross regional product (GRP) due to this land shortage. The study found that potential cost disadvantages of 3% to 5% would significantly and negatively affect Southern Nevada’s economy and the well-being of its residents and businesses.
Click here to review NAIOP’s 2020 Southern Nevada Industrial Land Study.
Jonathan Leleu, Lobbyist/Attorney
jleleu@argentumnv.com
Kerrie Kramer, Lobbyist
kerrie@argentumnv.com
Argentum Partners
(702) 692-8037
Someone’s knockin’ at the door
Somebody’s ringin’ the bell
Someone’s knockin’ at the door
Somebody’s ringin’ the bell
Do me a favor
Open the door and let ’em in
– Paul McCartney
There was a time, in recent memory, we yelled at our children for watching too much YouTube. Then 2021 came along, and like a bad frozen drink, added equal parts 81st Nevada Legislative Session and COVID-19, held the booze for maximum annoyance, and hit frappe. Voila. You’re on YouTube, and YOU’RE on YouTube, and YOU’RE on YouTube…and all of us are watching our elected officials cobble together policy like the Brady Bunch.
The good news is our beloved Gang of 63 managed to keep some vestiges of normalcy, e.g., “legislative time,” and while waiting in YouTube purgatory, Jon learned how to do the Thriller dance while sitting at his desk, and also figured out how to build a DIY shed from scratch – those two things will either keep him occupied through summer, or wind him up in the hospital. Time will tell.
Without lobbyists in the building, the Legislature has been left on their own to debate revenue, budget, and policy decisions in a virtual chatroom, and really, in a vacuum. Although most legislators have been very good about setting meetings and returning calls, these detached experiences provide a fraction of the accessibility normally enjoyed in a live setting – gone are the elevator speeches, “walk and talks,” and smoke breaks which provided an opportunity to discuss concepts which would ultimately be voted on, and unfortunately, several bills antagonistic to development remain pending given deadlines have been suspended and no bills have died.
Property Tax
SB 10 – this bill is recycled legislation (AB 43 – 2017) which would place a 3% floor on statutory property tax abatements. Citing a dip in property values in 2017, NACO presented testimony indicating the bill is intended to stabilize revenue streams, which were disrupted by a reduction in property values. The bill is not intended to raise revenue, so much as secure existing revenue. NAIOP opposed this legislation in 2017, and opposed it again in 2021 as it fails to address the root cause of these issues; Nevada’s convoluted tax structure. More, this issue is far from policy-based, as the Legislature’s refusal to address property taxes in any way has caused municipalities to assess fees on virtually all processes related to development, and legislation exists in this session to assess even more fees to support programs administered at the municipal level (see below).
SB 64 – this bill is somewhat similar to SB 10, in that it attempts to place a 3% floor on statutory abatements, however, SB 64 would remove the secondary cap calculation, and also reduce allowable depreciation deduction by half a point. NAIOP is opposing this bill.
SJR 8 – this Resolution is the second go-around for SJR 14 from the 2017 Legislative Session (reset on sale/depreciation), which died without a hearing in 2019. Given no discussion has been offered regarding real property tax reform, NAIOP is not currently opposing or supporting SJR 8.
Anti-Development
AB 211 – this bill would require any application for tentative map to be submitted to the Nevada Department of Wildlife for a 30-day evaluation and comment period, prior to the local planning commission hearing the matter, and at a cost of up to $5,000 per application.
AB 331 / 334 – these bills seek to enable a local government to assess a “linkage fee” of up to $5 psf. for new industrial development and $3 psf. for new commercial development, to be dedicated to affordable housing. AB 334 also enables the municipality to offer “payments in lieu” of a development including inclusionary zoning.
Landlord/Tenant
With the exception of AB 141, no landlord/tenant legislation has been introduced which affects commercial tenancies. With respect to AB 141, Assemblyman Watts has offered a conceptual amendment to remove references to commercial tenancies, as the bill was intended to be residential only. NAIOP is neutral on this bill.
In addition to the above mentioned bills, we are currently waiting on language from the Treasurer’s Office that would seed the infrastructure bank for a multitude of projects within the state. They are currently looking at $75 million in bonding from the state and $135 million in federal funds would seed the bank, while expanding the eligible use of infrastructure bank funds. One way they are looking to expand the use of the funds is to social infrastructure which could include affordable housing and broadband connectivity. We will hopefully have bill language in the next couple of weeks and will keep the membership informed once we do.
Lastly, there are rumors that we will be back in the building in the next couple of weeks in a limited capacity. What that means and what it looks like are unknown at this time, but one thing is for sure, less screen time is better not just for our eyes, but for the legislative process.
Jon & Kerrie
Jonathan Leleu, Lobbyist/Attorney
jleleu@argentumnv.com
Kerrie Kramer, Lobbyist
kerrie@argentumnv.com
Argentum Partners
(702) 692-8037
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA
