It’s not exactly as welcome as the swallows’ annual return to Capistrano, or for some it’s more annoying than the buzzing that announces the arrival of years-dormant cicadas to a neighborhood near you.

But with the biennial session of the state Legislature in full motion, it’s time once again to consider — however fleetingly — starting the arduous process of amending the Nevada Constitution’s property tax provisions in the name of fairness, modernity and, of course, increased revenue for niceties such as public education.

With Assm. Natha Anderson (D-Sparks) as its primary sponsor, AJR1 attracted sizable support to Thursday night’s Assembly Committee on Revenue meeting. Those in favor see it as a way to close a loophole through which billions of dollars in potential property tax revenues are lost thanks to the antiquated constitutional provision. It flies under the flag of the Property Tax Fairness Amendment.

The constitutional change would come only after passage in the current session and the 2027 Legislature before proceeding to a statewide vote. But it’s worth taking a look at — if only to see what we may be missing out on.

Anderson reminded colleagues that Nevada is the only state to apply a depreciation formula to real estate. The rate is 1.5 percent for 50 years.

If AJR1 clears all hurdles and becomes law, property tax benefits associated with decades of depreciation on real estate will no longer carry over to a new owner. The property tax rate would reflect the property’s current value, and the 50-year depreciation schedule would begin anew.

“If you chose to stay where you are, you, me, anybody on this committee, nothing would change about their tax bill,” AJR1 advocate Dylan Shaver of Pinyon Public Affairs said. But for the new owner, “The depreciation would reset, more or less, at the value they bought the home for, and then it would continue to tick down over time.”

Anderson argued that existing law favors large investors. The system as it is results in a weakened tax base for what she termed “everyday property owners.” For support she pointed to a 2017 Legislative Counsel Bureau fiscal study conducted by Applied Analysis that projected the fiscal impact of resetting property tax depreciation at point of sale. She painted the constitutional change as a revenue panacea for counties and the state with a projected $13.2 billion generated over 12 years. One particularly attractive target in a state forever scrambling to address its K-12 performance: an additional $3.2 billion available for statewide school operations.

Revenues would also roll down to the county and municipal levels.

“It is that challenge, that depreciation that ends up creating pretty significant holes and gaps and services at the local level that really cannot be resolved.” Shaver said, pointing to the rising costs of infrastructure, labor and police and fire protection. “The thing that funds all of that is property taxes, which is linked to a ticking clock that ticks ever downward. So naturally as the costs of these services increase for our local governments, they have no choice but to pare them back.”

The logical question at this point is: If this is such a good idea, why wasn’t this changed long ago?

It just might be that the property tax depreciation law as it exists enables wealthy investors to save a bundle on real estate, and wealthy investors are known to spend a bundle to elect their favored candidates. Buyers of older homes purchased at current market value also enjoy the built-in benefit of steeply depreciated property taxes.

It’s also possible that increasing numbers of skeptical taxpayers look around at Nevada’s struggling public school system and government services and conclude, “Is this all we get for our money?”

Many of those who spoke in support of AJR1 came from groups representing teachers and firefighters. Nevada State Education Association President Dawn Etcheverry, for example, called AJR1 “a critical step toward fully funding our public schools” and fixing the property tax loophole “one of the only viable solutions.”

Washoe Education Association President Calen Evans delivered one of the more impassioned statements.

“Let’s be blunt,” he said. “Nevada is the only state in the nation using a property tax formula based on the replacement cost. Every other state has moved on, and for good reason. They understand how regressive and frankly absurd this approach is. It shields the wealthiest property owners and starves the public services our communities rely on.”

Opposition to the resolution also fell along equally predictable lines largely summarized by Janine Hansen of Nevada Families for Freedom. She reminded lawmakers, “This money will go out of the productive community and go into the government community, which doesn’t make any money. … More government and taxes is not the answer to our problems.”

Others echoed the sentiment: “We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.”

Speaking from a neutral position, Nevada Assessors Association President Chris Sarman of Washoe County said the proposal would add another layer of complexity to the current property tax formula.

Apropos of the moment, Sarman suggested that if the constitutional change is eventually approved, sufficient funds would be needed to expand the staff at the assessor’s office.

John L. Smith is an author and longtime columnist. He was born in Henderson and his family’s Nevada roots go back to 1881. His stories have appeared in New Lines, Time, Readers Digest, Rolling Stone, The Daily Beast, Reuters and Desert Companion, among others.