Esmeralda - Nevada...Esmeralda Nye County NYE COUNTY TREASURER Treasurer's Report & Bank...

Esmeralda

Nye County

NYE COUNTY TREASURER Treasurer's Report

& Bank Reconciliation

Nye CountyTreasurer Report

Tentative ‐ November 2019 Pending Auditor adjusting entries

Fund Description10101 County General 4,978,562.20 3,487,497.85 (2,474,522.90) (994,054.26) 4,997,482.8910202 Compensated Absences 1,507.16 1,507.1610203 Trust Property Expenses 352.93 352.9310204 Land Sales Costs 1,268.10 1,268.1010205 Road 4,527,312.83 5,997.40 (368,239.54) 28,883.49 4,193,954.1810206 Regional Streets & Highways 6,630.55 6,630.5510207 Regional Trans Comm 1,272,555.06 1,272,555.0610208 Public Transit 1,265,169.30 152,849.99 1,418,019.2910209 Airport 24,181.30 119.41 (1,177.81) (81.08) 23,041.8210210 Veterans 53,606.96 (4,000.00) 49,606.9610213 911 Emergency Systems 58,150.57 48,692.22 (11,967.40) 94,875.3910214 Museum 49,426.63 11,826.64 (7,450.27) 53,803.0010216 Parks and Recreation 45,588.68 45,588.6810218 Agricultural Extension 78,021.34 17,934.91 (11,819.90) 84,136.3510220 State/County Room Tax 7,449.60 13,368.06 (9,739.33) 11,078.3310230 Juvenile Probation 223,953.71 127,492.69 (120,903.97) 230,542.4310231 Forensic Services 31,718.46 120.00 31,838.4610232 Forfeitures 71,582.83 71,582.8310233 Public Safety Sales Tax 0.00 0.0010234 Public Safety Sales Tax Sheriff 61,463.56 5,511.98 (228.50) 66,747.0410235 Public Safety Sales Tax ‐ Fire 285,352.61 5,511.99 290,864.6010236 Nye County Jail Fund (82,293.24) 11,302.49 (506,598.36) 288,122.10 (289,467.01)10241 Victims Restitution Fund 3,719.51 3,719.5110242 DA Bad Check Program 96.16 96.1610243 Offender Registration 0.00 0.0010244 J P Court Collections Fees 1,018,684.43 12,410.65 (354.00) 1,030,741.0810245 J P Court Fines/NRS 176 431,328.59 3,911.00 (514.52) 434,725.0710246 J P Facility Assessment 503,497.20 7,993.26 511,490.4610247 District Court Improvement 89,116.77 (600.17) 88,516.6010248 Drug Court Proceeds 108,181.39 10,653.00 (18,527.73) (2,771.36) 97,535.3010249 Law Library 166,496.40 166,496.4010250 Impact Fees 3,221,310.74 25,639.97 3,246,950.7110253 Public Improvement Fees 3,907,524.82 10,553.00 (3,533.60) 3,914,544.2210254 Building Department 603,575.53 70,653.18 (75,076.30) 599,152.4110255 Renewable Energy Projects 14,727.77 24.18 14,751.95

Balance per GLOctober 2019(tenative)

Total Receipts

Vendor & PayrollCash Disbursements

FinanceJournal Entries

ReconciledBalance

Nov. 2019 ‐ FY20

1



Fund Description


Total Receipts



ReconciledBalance

Nov. 2019 ‐ FY2010256 Economic Development 0.00 0.0010257 Public Lands 0.00 0.0010269 Mining Maps 193,553.92 950.00 (2,274.62) 192,229.3010281 Senior Nutrition Spec Rev 86,417.07 86,417.0710282 Ambulance & Health 775,888.88 92,826.11 (21,002.14) (47.19) 847,665.6610283 Indigent 758,985.57 119,700.30 (43,770.05) (8,755.45) 826,160.3710284 Dedicated Medical Indigent 948,150.36 30,097.21 (441,323.00) 536,924.5710285 Health Clinics 184,625.08 16,322.58 (15,376.24) (235.64) 185,335.7810286 Child Support IV‐D Incentive 0.00 0.0010291 County‐Owned Buildings 165,318.41 5,203.82 (13,547.95) 156,974.2810301 Nye Co Spec Projects 25,118.85 25,118.8510302 Educational Endowment 0.00 0.0010303 Health Endowment 0.00 0.0010304 Emergency Endowment 0.00 0.0010320 Recorder Technology 558,259.03 5,863.75 (126,252.52) 437,870.2610321 District Court Technology 1,701.61 1,701.6110322 Assessor Technology 396,848.35 54,353.81 (11,641.00) 439,561.1610323 Clerk Technology 2,765.76 2,765.7610330 Yucca On‐Site Oversight 0.00 0.0010331 Yucca Public Safety 0.00 0.0010332 Yucca Transportation 0.00 0.0010333 Yucca Early Warning Drilling 0.00 0.0010334 Yucca Interest 0.00 0.0010335 Yucca Scientific Grant 0.00 0.0010336 Yucca Project Oversight 0.00 0.0010340 Grants (17,267.83) 112,330.09 (109,500.48) 1,432,043.01 1,417,604.7910341 Brownfields Revolving 131,672.52 131,672.5210391 County Debt Service 25,404.58 (16,096.77) 16,096.77 25,404.5810401 Capital Projects 9,155,443.64 (104,906.39) (295,723.33) 8,754,813.9210402 Special Capital Projects 969,422.05 74,876.32 (76,341.78) 967,956.5910451 Bonds ‐ County Jail 2010 1,177,738.22 1,177,738.2210493 Capital Projects Endowment 0.00 0.0010510 Solid Waste 4,765,892.99 54,786.31 (230,377.75) (286.75) 4,590,014.8010511 Solid Waste ‐ Open & Close 7,042,674.54 1,133.02 (3,958.35) 7,039,849.2110512 Landfill Financial Assur. 2,721,534.64 2,721,534.6410602 Radio Communication 0.00 0.00

2



Fund Description


Total Receipts



ReconciledBalance

Nov. 2019 ‐ FY2010603 Property Self Insurance 36,676.56 36,676.5610604 Employee Health Insurance 170,341.08 6,582.57 176,923.6510650 Payroll Control 462,060.71 17.74 58,622.76 520,701.2110655 Payroll Control ‐ All Other 0.00 0.0010680 Inventory Control 0.00 0.0010701 Trust Property Proceeds 1,100,852.82 1,100,852.8210702 Foreclosure Mediation (SB490) 4,856.67 4,856.6710704 Nye County OPEB Fund 508,741.89 (124,548.36) 384,193.5310720 F H Flint Scholarship 26,390.42 26,390.4210801 General Long Term Debt 0.00 0.0021101 Tonopah Town 2,304,922.63 133,842.11 (83,980.57) (4,266.61) 2,350,517.5621201 Special Revenue Tourism Fund 68,455.11 (10,047.56) 58,407.5521202 OPEB Reserve ‐ Tonopah & TPU 244,220.47 244,220.4721215 Tonopah Convention Center 0.00 0.0021220 Tonopah State Room Tax 5/8 79,421.88 5,010.41 84,432.2921234 Public Safety Sales Tax ‐ Sheriff 110,909.85 8,855.82 (5,698.19) 114,067.4821235 Public Safety Sales Tax ‐ Fire 121,102.92 8,855.82 129,958.7421290 Tonopah Mural Fund 20,854.37 20,854.3721299 Tonopah Mining Park 0.00 0.0021391 Tonopah Debt Service 0.00 0.0021401 Tonopah Capital Projects 488,035.82 (41,756.73) 446,279.0921402 Tonopah Special Capital Projects 49,170.19 49,170.1921410 Tonopah Mining Park Capital Projects 64,272.10 64,272.1021502 TPU Water 1,158,001.63 71,410.30 (76,119.28) (20,417.43) 1,132,875.2221503 TPU Sewer 1,054,089.90 41,995.29 (72,505.82) 1,023,579.3721515 TPU Deposits 5,051.05 225.00 (121.30) 5,154.7521516 TPU Privilege Fee 0.04 0.0421517 TPU Surcharge 10,298.37 10,298.3721532 TPU Water Construction Arsenic 0.00 0.0021533 TPU Sewer Construction ‐ Reuse 0.00 0.0021542 TPU Water Construction 6,663.25 6,663.2521543 TPU Sewer Construction 16,610.50 16,610.5021551 TPU Arsenic Debt Services 26,917.98 (11,604.00) 11,604.00 26,917.9821552 TPU Water Debt Service 44.00 44.0021553 TPU Sewer Debt Service 0.00 0.0021554 2014 Water Revenue Bond Debt Service 33,290.26 (6,181.00) 6,181.00 33,290.26

3



Fund Description


Total Receipts



ReconciledBalance

Nov. 2019 ‐ FY2021555 TPU ‐ Grant Depreciation 471,436.12 54,779.50 (2,000.00) 524,215.6221561 TPU Arsenic Debt Reserve 97,696.24 97,696.2421562 Water Revenue Bond 24.04 24.0421563 TPU Sewer Revenue Bond Reserve 0.00 0.0021564 2014 Water Revenue Bond Reseerve 32,975.10 2,632.43 35,607.5321650 Payroll Control ‐ Tonopah 0.00 0.0022101 Round Mountain Town 3,581,192.27 42,758.26 (154,571.58) 3,469,378.9522205 Round Mountain Road 483,299.53 483,299.5322234 Public Safety Sales Tax Sheriff 108,467.76 2,809.43 (114.25) 111,162.9422235 Public Safety Sales Tax Fire 127,321.68 2,809.43 (1,145.00) 128,986.1122401 Round Mountain Capital Projects 84,059.33 84,059.3322402 Round Mountain Special Capital Projects 153,617.17 153,617.1722502 Round Mountain Water 342,187.92 24,039.04 (9,416.02) 356,810.9422503 Round Mtn. Utility Capital Projects 4,684.69 4,684.6922650 Payroll Control ‐ Round Mountain 0.00 0.0023101 Gabbs Town 582,266.51 16,399.51 (10,324.34) (708.11) 587,633.5723234 Public Safety Sales Tax ‐ Sheriff 28,967.53 885.58 (38.08) 29,815.0323235 Public Safety Sales Tax ‐ Fire 39,192.63 885.58 40,078.2123402 Gabbs Special Capital Projects 20,409.15 20,409.1523502 Gabbs Water 167,777.41 6,156.97 (7,373.37) (256.21) 166,304.8023503 Gabbs Sewer 8,368.59 701.55 9,070.1423504 Gabbs Standpipe 4,959.69 4,959.6923512 Gabbs Water Utility Cash Reserve Fund 62,455.95 62,455.9523552 Gabbs Water Debt Service 0.00 0.0023553 Gabbs Sewer Debt Service 0.00 0.0023704 Gabbs Town OPEB Fund 0.00 0.0024101 Beatty Town 2,545,526.73 54,084.75 (24,572.05) 2,575,039.4324220 Beatty Room Tax 169,830.27 10,693.55 (8,076.79) 172,447.0324234 Public Safety Sales Tax Sheriff 100,223.46 3,298.03 (139.64) 103,381.8524235 Public Safety Sales Tax Fire 106,400.80 3,298.03 109,698.8324401 Beatty Capital Projects 518,176.57 518,176.5724402 Beatty Special Capital Projects 196,310.34 196,310.3424403 Beatty Room Tax Capital Projects 113,659.52 2,138.76 115,798.2824704 Beatty Town OPEB Fund 9,649.00 (875.25) 8,773.7525101 Pahrump Town 4,358,579.66 181,968.83 (241,822.12) 2,979.03 4,301,705.4025205 Pahrump Roads & Streets 158,885.46 (22,353.76) 136,531.70

4



Fund Description


Total Receipts



ReconciledBalance

Nov. 2019 ‐ FY2025217 Pahrump Fall Festival 0.00 0.0025220 Pahrump State Room Tax 5/8 84,030.25 18,826.53 (2,468.27) 5,691.43 106,079.9425221 Pahrump 1/5 Economic Development 553,813.99 (9.75) 553,804.2425222 Pahrump 3/5 Tourism 222,508.00 47,849.83 (23,876.36) 246,481.4725223 Pahrump 1/10 Parks 149,935.81 5,981.21 (390.72) 155,526.3025224 Pahrump 1/10 Arena 580,162.77 5,981.21 586,143.9825225 Pahrump Airport Room Tax 11,860.30 11,860.3025233 Public Safety Sales Tax 0.00 0.0025234 Public Safety Sales Tax ‐ Sheriff 651,703.76 126,317.54 (86,793.62) (54.34) 691,173.3425235 Public Safety Sales Tax ‐ Fire 3,294,669.65 126,317.54 (50,881.92) 3,370,105.2725251 Pahrump Fire Impact Fee 744,196.47 744,196.4725252 Pahrump Parks Impact Fee 391,008.75 391,008.7525268 Pahrump Business License 580,197.80 (7,146.56) 573,051.2425272 Pahrump Cemetery 269,211.83 (3,899.59) 265,312.2425273 Pahrump Cemetery Perpetual 191,980.82 191,980.8225274 Pahrump Pool 208,646.55 9,944.41 (2,782.47) 215,808.4925298 Pahrump Numbering System 0.00 0.0025340 Pahrump Airport 0.00 0.0025391 Pahrump Debt Service 0.00 0.0025401 Pahrump Capital Projects 1,693,641.29 1,693,641.2925402 Pahrump Special Capital Projects 37,038.02 37,038.0225411 Pahrump Arena Capital Projects 82,702.29 82,702.2925412 Pahrump TV Construction 51,253.93 51,253.9325413 Pahrump Vehicle Fire Capital Projects 0.14 0.1425414 Pahrump Room Tax Fairgrounds 2,482,266.94 23,924.90 (6,310.75) 2,499,881.0925415 Pahrump Ambulance Capital Projects 296,874.21 296,874.2125520 Pahrump Ambulance 584,012.12 234,000.00 (268,523.61) (2,712.39) 546,776.1225521 Lakeview Golf Course 385,781.85 11,962.45 (6,033.77) 391,710.5325650 Payroll Control ‐ Pahrump 0.00 0.0025704 Town of Pahrump OPEB Fund 76,917.52 (2,876.37) 74,041.1526101 Amargosa Town 762,871.89 20,651.62 (23,444.90) 50.54 760,129.1526216 Amargosa Community Center & Park 132,539.54 3,716.39 (240.00) 136,015.9326217 Amargosa Events Committee 261.42 261.4226221 Amargosa Economic Development 132,321.39 5,574.58 137,895.9726234 Public Safety Sales Tax ‐ Sheriff 185,323.01 4,580.59 (190.42) 189,713.1826235 Public Safety Sales Tax ‐ Fire 134,070.72 4,580.59 (4,368.65) 134,282.66

5



Fund Description


Total Receipts



ReconciledBalance

Nov. 2019 ‐ FY2026258 Amargosa VFD Committee 0.00 0.0026272 Amargosa Memorial Committee 406.98 406.9826273 Amargosa Cemetery Committee 395.27 395.2726402 Amargosa Special Capital Projects 14,535.65 14,535.6526650 Payroll Control ‐ Amargosa 0.00 0.0027101 Manhattan Town 123,835.71 1,469.04 (91.50) 125,213.2527234 Public Safety Sales Tax ‐ Sheriff 10,016.86 427.52 (19.07) 10,425.3127235 Public Safety Sales Tax ‐ Fire 22,367.33 427.52 22,794.8527402 Manhattan Special Capital Projects 40,166.68 40,166.6827502 Manhattan Water 28,754.01 3,685.00 (5,890.06) (155.26) 26,393.6927503 Manhattan Water Resgtricted Debt Service 6,867.70 6,867.7027504 Manhattan Water Short Lived Assest Res 16,264.87 16,264.8741101 Tonopah Library 477,187.08 10,878.60 (5,661.49) 482,404.1941401 Tonpah Library Capital Projects 15,067.36 15,067.3641702 Tonopah Library Trust 0.00 0.0042101 Smoky Valley Library 410,096.75 17,563.18 (97,069.98) 330,589.9542401 Smoky Valley Library Capital Projects 3,604.31 3,604.3144101 Beatty Library 128,245.25 8,628.46 (4,630.63) 132,243.0844270 Beatty Library Gift 636.73 636.7344271 Beatty Library Other Purpose 2,292.14 2,292.1444391 Beatty Library Debt Service 0.00 0.0044401 Beatty Library Capital Projects 1,957.86 1,957.8645101 Pahrump Library 1,435,685.63 31,367.58 (47,857.65) 1,419,195.5645270 Pahrump Friends of the Library Special Revenue 7,842.19 (120.00) 7,722.1945391 Pahrump Library Debt Service 0.00 0.0045401 Pahrump Library Capital Projects 1,182,962.90 1,182,962.9045702 Marion C. Hutchison Trust 0.00 0.0046101 Amargosa Library 188,785.64 19,584.97 (9,005.10) (81.63) 199,283.8861101 Nye Co Water District 557,714.60 1,170.35 (12,942.39) 545,942.5664101 Beatty Gen Improve Dist 508,217.89 21,387.14 (10,334.19) 519,270.8468101 Smoky Valley TV District (0.61) (0.61)71101 Nye County Schools 1,662,038.30 1,123,224.08 (1,013,987.13) 1,771,275.2571250 NCSD Capital Projects School Impact Fees 93,539.27 21,888.00 (51,200.00) 64,227.2771391 Nye County School District Debt 9,312,389.05 1,390,917.49 (1,300.00) 10,702,006.5472101 Nye Regional Hospital 0.00 0.0072291 Nye Regional Hospital Contract 0.00 0.00

6



Fund Description


Total Receipts



ReconciledBalance

Nov. 2019 ‐ FY2072391 Nye Regional Hospital Debt 0.08 0.0873101 Pahrump Hospital District 0.00 0.0073391 Pahrump Hospital Debt 0.00 0.0073401 Pahrump Hospital Capital Projects 0.00 0.0074101 Northern Nye Hospital District 2,364,597.93 84,346.17 (204,367.13) 2,244,576.9774711 State of Nevada 797,753.41 392,789.55 (243,639.11) 946,903.8574712 State of Nevada Medical Indigent 289,094.14 22,456.89 311,551.0375730 Range Improvement 97,127.94 97,127.9476750 Habitat Cons & Mitigation 6,116.21 6,116.2177750 Endangered Species Act 6,006.02 6,006.02Totals 110,735,194.44 9,078,847.41 (7,416,479.47) 0.00 112,397,562.38

Pending Adjustments 0.00 0.00Adjusted Grand Totals 110,735,194.44 112,397,562.38

112,397,562.38Actual "cash in bank"

7

Nye County Treasurer's Bank Reconciliation

TENATIVE November 2019

Bank Account Name Beginning of MonthBalances

Deposits Withdrawals AdjustmentsEnd of MonthBalances

NSB Sweep A/C 9,283,089.28 4,147,589.83 (3,864,770.90) 9,565,908.21NSB Deposit A/C 75,176.00 10,912,031.79 (10,867,375.79) 119,832.00NSB Tax Receiver A/C 50,000.00 8,540,139.39 (8,540,139.39) 50,000.00NSB Payroll A/C 0.00 2,080,367.13 (2,080,367.13) 0.00NSB Vendor A/C 0.00 8,411,847.71 (8,411,847.71) 0.00NSB Building & Safety 0.00 119,033.31 (119,033.31) 0.00Wells Fargo 99,603,218.55 110,481.28 99,713,699.83WNTC Amargosa Valley Landfill 240,758.66 729.68 241,488.34WNTC Pahrump Landfill Trust 933,044.83 (260.83) 932,784.00WNTC Round Mountain Landfill 652,610.96 1,015.58 653,626.54WNTC Tonopah Landfill Trust 988,230.31 1,295.93 989,526.24State Treasurer LGIP ‐ Nye County 457,223.81 786.92 458,010.73State Treasurer LGIP ‐ Pahrump Library 140,502.78 241.82 140,744.60State Treasurer LGIP ‐ Tonopah Library 195,513.15 336.49 195,849.64Flint Scholarship 26,468.85 16.87 26,485.72

112,645,837.18 34,325,652.90 (33,883,534.23) 0.00 113,087,955.85Interest income not receipted:

Sweep Acct/Deposit Acct (135,304.97) (10,980.91) (146,285.88)Wells Fargo (955,050.21) (110,481.28) (1,065,531.49)Amargosa Landfill 973.53 (729.68) 243.85Pahrump Landfill Trust (15,734.18) 260.83 (15,473.35)Round Mtn. Landfill (6,001.51) (1,015.58) (7,017.09)Tonopah Landfill (10,472.30) (1,295.93) (11,768.23)State Treasurer LGIP (Nye County) (3,716.26) (786.92) (4,503.18)State Treasurer LGIP (Pahrump Library) (1,141.99) (241.82) (1,383.81)State Treasurer LGIP (Tonopah Library) (1,589.10) (336.49) (1,925.59)Flint Scholarship (66.27) (16.87) (83.14)Monthly Analysis Fee ‐ Deposit Account 20,150.15 4,550.60 24,700.75Net of FY19 entries ‐ Pending auditor review ‐ adjusting entry 294,537.26 294,537.26

BANK TRANSFERS:To Sweep from Deposit 0.00 (4,136,608.92) 4,136,608.92 0.00To Tax Receiver from Deposit 0.00 (6,726,216.27) 6,726,216.27 0.00To Tax Receiver from Sweep 0.00 (118,833.31) 118,833.31 0.00To Tax Receiver from B&S 0.00 0.00To B&S from Tax Receiver 0.00 0.00To Deposit from Sweep 0.00 (3,864,770.90) 3,864,770.90 0.00To Deposit from Tax Receiver 0.00 (1,233,240.57) 1,233,240.57 0.00To Vendor from Tax Receiver 0.00 (5,209,913.17) 5,209,913.17 0.00To Payroll from Tax Receiver 0.00 (2,080,367.13) 2,080,367.13 0.00Vendor regular deposits & withdrawals for wires/bonds etc 0.00 (1,390,122.74) 1,390,122.74 0.00

Outstanding checks:Beginning of month:

Vendor account (2,616,700.40) 2,616,700.40 0.00 Payroll account (33,115.34) 33,115.34 0.00

End of month: Vendor account 0.00 (2,083,463.86) (2,083,463.86) Payroll account 0.00 (27,005.86) (27,005.86)

1





Payroll account:

ADJUSTED BANK BALANCE 06.30.19 109,182,605.58 9,439,955.24 (8,579,564.60) 0.00 110,042,996.22

Deposit account:Pending June FY19 adjusting entries:

12/26/17 ‐ 01588600011115020REF 110801551‐ (1,108.88) (1,108.88)12/26/17 ‐ 015886000111150200ref (2,166.91) (2,166.91)12/29/17 ‐ Deposit 7373010983 (0.20) (0.20)03/05/18 ‐ Lockbox Amb 150.00 150.0004/06/18 ‐ Deposit 7373022001 (108.81) (108.81)07/31/18 ‐ Nye Co Amb (709.75) (709.75)08/06/18 ‐ State of NV Deposit not recorded (4,384.78) (4,384.78)08/16/18 ‐ State Deposit not Recorded (6.78) (6.78)05/10/18 ‐ 36 8860001113600112 Ref #018130003155 658.56 658.5612/04/18 ‐ Amb Aetna dep not recorded (4,522.00) (4,522.00)02/11/19 ‐ Amb Deposit not recorded (628.59) (628.59)02/20/19 ‐ DEPOSIT Not Recorded (30.00) (30.00)02/21/19 ‐ State Deposit not recorded (35.00) (35.00)01/28/19 ‐ Ret Chk ‐ Gotto 75.00 75.0002/28/19 ‐ State Deposit not recorded (3,334.71) (3,334.71)03/05/19 ‐ PNP #5954 Amb not recorded (12.96) (12.96)03/27/19 ‐ Unk Bank ADJ credit not recorded (70.00) (70.00)B&S ‐ NSF + fee recovered ‐ 14,220.85 = 14,250.85 (May 2019) (30.00) (30.00)State 08.21 ‐ Pahrump Library ‐ not yet posted (2,500.00) (2,500.00)Back out Eden Receipt r/c to June FY19 ‐ Return of monies SON (38,290.64) (38,290.64)Journal Entry completed for missing Fleet ‐ Round Mountain (8,459.21) (8,459.21)

Bank Adjustments:Deposit account ‐ bank adjustment ‐branch capture no doc's (0.30) (0.30)10.01 ‐ Bank adjust pending advice from bank (1,686.40) 1,686.40 0.00NSF ‐ J. Hendrick ‐ Gabbs water 95.00 95.00NSF ‐ S. Hubbard ‐ Gabbs water 169.22 169.22NSF ‐ Check #213 planning (07.31.19) (12.00) (12.00)Dep acct ‐ NSF ‐ J. Fay (09.30.19) 20.00 20.00Bank Adj ‐ balance conf. fee (10.31.19) 8.00 8.00Admin Dep 08.27 ‐ more than processed in Eden (0.90) (0.90)Bank Adjust ‐ pending review 0.10 0.10

Building & Safety Adjustments:B&S ‐ NSF Brownsfield (30.00) (30.00)B&S ‐ 11.04 PNP ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden October 1,520.85 (1,520.85) 0.00B&S ‐ 11.05 PNP ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden October 515.92 (515.92) 0.00B&S NSF + Fee recovered ‐ Gott (200.00) 200.00 0.00B&S ‐ 12.02 PNP Bank December ‐ Eden November 1,364.10 1,364.10B&S ‐ 12.02 PNP Bank December ‐ Eden November 412.51 412.51

Public Works Adjustments:PW ‐ AR ‐ 10312019pwcc ‐ Bank October ‐ Eden November (512.50) 512.50 0.00PW ‐ 110419ccprmt ‐ PNP ‐ Bank October ‐ Eden November (75.00) 75.00 0.00PW ‐ 110419ccprmt ‐ PNP ‐ Bank October ‐ Eden November (225.00) 225.00 0.00PW ‐ receipt adj for 2018 permit refunded in November (75.00) (75.00)

2





PW ‐ PNP 11.20 (225.00) (225.00)PW ‐ PNP 11.29 (75.00) (75.00)PW ‐ Receipt adjust for permit # (75.00) (75.00)

Planning Adjustments:Planning ‐ PNP refund duplicate payment/application (100.00) (100.00)Planning ‐ 20191104MM1 ‐ Bank October ‐ Eden November (1,795.81) 1,795.81 0.00Planning ‐ 20191104MM ‐ Bank October ‐ Eden November (1,788.26) 1,788.26 0.00Planning ‐ PNP ‐ Bank October ‐ Eden November (206.75) 206.75 0.00Planning ‐ receipt adj ‐R#00014271 (25) & R#0014273 (25) (50.00) (50.00)Planning ‐ PNP multi ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden December (6,917.77) (6,917.77)

Treasurer Adjustments ‐ AR:AR ‐ Rents ‐ 09.23 not yet posted (688.91) (688.91)AR ‐ R#013275 ‐ Bank October ‐ Eden November (2,334.75) 2,334.75 0.00AR ‐ R#013205 & R#013199 18,526.11 18,526.11AR ‐ R#013378 ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden December (217,617.84) (217,617.84)AR ‐ R#013378 ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden December (15,303.64) (15,303.64)

Treasurer Adjustments ‐ GL ‐CR:DEM ‐ 06.14.19 PNP ‐ Bank June (160.00) (160.00)DEM ‐ 07.01 PNP missing Eden posting (550.00) (550.00)DEM ‐ 09.24 ‐ Bank September ‐ not yet posted (1,126.40) (1,126.40)DEM ‐ PNP not yet posted (10.10 & 10.18) (461.24) (461.24)DEM ‐ Batch receipted 2x ‐ R#13919 & R#14029 16,817.31 16,817.31DEM ‐ Dep#11.31 ‐ Bank October ‐ Eden November (33,181.72) 33,182.12 (0.40) 0.00DEM ‐ was part of US treasury total in error ‐ bank 10.31.19 (2,262.00) 2,262.00 0.00DEM ‐ 11.20.19 PNP not yet receipted (R#14435 3,329 ‐ 3,329.20) (0.20) (0.20)DEM ‐ R#14430 ‐ 10.25 receipted in for more than deposited (0.40) 0.40 0.00DEM ‐ 11.08.19 PNP not yet posted (181.14) (181.14)Dep#10.24 ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden October 42,108.62 (42,108.62) 0.00Dep#10.25 ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden October 2,045.55 (2,045.55) 0.00Dep#10.26 ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden October 93,371.04 (93,371.04) 0.00Dep#10.27 ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden October 201,396.98 (201,396.98) 0.00Dep#10.28 ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden October 158,146.57 (158,146.27) 0.30Dep#10.29 ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden October 1,841.15 (1,841.15) 0.00Dep#10.30 ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden October 37,502.10 (37,502.10) 0.00Dep#10.32 ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden October 77,725.26 (77,725.26) 0.00Dep#10.33 ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden October 452,165.88 (452,165.88) 0.00Dep#10.34 ‐ Bank September ‐ Eden November (1,016,149.03) 1,016,149.03 0.00Dep#10.35 ‐ Bank November ‐ Eden October 88,406.56 (88,406.56) 0.00Dep#11.02 ‐ Bank October ‐ Eden November (2,726.06) 2,726.06 0.00Dep#11.03 ‐ Deposited into Tax receiver s/b Deposit Acct 4,465.17 (4,465.17) 0.00Dep#11.18 ‐ Bank October ‐ Eden November (2,874.17) 2,874.17 0.00Dep#11.22 ‐ Bank December ‐ Eden November 168.25 168.25Dep#11.23 ‐ Bank December ‐ Eden November 54,437.44 54,437.44Dep#11.26 ‐ Bank December ‐ Eden November 16,050.00 16,050.00Dep#11.27 ‐ Bank December ‐ Eden November 77,310.62 77,310.62Dep#11.28 ‐ Bank December ‐ Eden November 144,875.40 144,875.40Dep#11.30 ‐ Bank December ‐ Eden November 2,717,029.87 2,717,029.87Dep#11.31 ‐ Bank December ‐ Eden November 1,524.00 1,524.00Dep#11.31 ‐ Bank December ‐ Eden November 299,115.72 299,115.72

3





Dep#11.32 ‐ Bank December ‐ Eden November 35,035.79 35,035.79Dep#11.34 ‐ Bank December ‐ Eden November (5,597.96) 5,597.96 0.00State 07.17 (two dep same amount 07.01 & 07.17) (8,683.23) (8,683.23)

Vendor account:05/17/18 ‐ Replacement Token 20.00 20.0004/15/19 ‐ Fraud pymt Microsoft 99.99 99.9904/24/19 ‐ Fraud pymt to Cox Comm 191.99 191.9904/15/19 ‐ Dep over $5 wire 1550.00 (5.00) (5.00)05.24.19 ‐ Payroll ben/ded ‐ Voya deposit 14,712 s/b 14,712.06 0.06 0.0605.24.19 ‐ Payroll ben/ded ‐ HSA deposited to vendor in error (3,296.72) (3,296.72)07.03.19 ‐ Payroll ben/ded ‐ NCMEA deposited to vendor in error (374.00) (374.00)07.03.19 ‐ Payroll ben/ded ‐ NCEA deposited to vendor in error (2,740.83) (2,740.83)Eden ‐ Sierra 07.18.19 ‐ 540,838.91 ‐ Bank 07.18.19 ‐ 540,838.01 (0.10) (0.10)Payroll Taxes ‐ Eden 07.11.19 ‐ 7,734.11 ‐ Bank ‐ 7,734.09 (0.02) (0.02)Tax receiver ‐ Deluxe Business System Checks 156.00 156.00Pending check deposit for wire ‐ Quarterly State transfer 1,328,126.52 (1,328,126.52) 0.00Pending check deposit for wire ‐ NCSD ‐ Bond payment 483,685.28 (483,685.28) 0.00Pending check deposit for wire ‐ Monthly State transfer 98,619.11 98,619.11Pending check deposit for wire ‐ NCSD ‐ Monthly Transfer ‐ Bond 1,066,487.13 1,066,487.13

Tax receiver:Outstanding checks

Beginning of the month 9,408.49 (9,408.49) 0.00End of the month 0.00 778.80 778.80

Refunds payableBeginning of the month 932,946.40 932,946.40End of the month 0.00 6,408.58 6,408.58

Unapportioned receiptsBeginning of the month (22,875,238.01) (1,695,089.81) 2,778.77 (24,567,549.05)End of the month 21,560,552.84 130,076.78 21,690,629.62

Miscellaneous:JE in error ‐ g178021adj ‐ summarizing to cash (2,098.00) (2,098.00)JE in error ‐ JE19302 ‐ posted directly to cash (1,525.32) (1,525.32)JE in error ‐ JE19305 ‐ posted directly to cash (1,831.45) (1,831.45)To balance to Treasurer's report ‐ new recon $ to research 72,538.46 72,538.46Totals 110,735,194.44 9,078,847.41 (7,416,479.47) 0.00 112,397,562.38

9,078,847.41 (7,416,479.47) 112,397,562.389,078,847.41 (7,416,479.47) 112,397,562.38

0.00 0.00 0.00

4

Activity as of May 31, 2017 (through Period 11)

65% of Year Elapsed

94876.66

59475.1

25391.33 251.1

Fiscal Year Lapsed ‐‐> 42%

Nye County General Fund Revenues:2020Budget

Collected as of 11/30/2019

% Received (of budget)

FY19as of 11/30/2018

Real Property Taxes (installments: Aug, Oct, Jan, Mar) 11,534,018 5,826,434 50.5% 5,945,907 Personal Property Taxes 2,921,951 1,087,668 37.2% 55,148 Centrally Assessed Property Taxes 922,721 635,481 68.9% 563,740 Net proceeds 1,619,031 ‐ 0.0% ‐ Federal in lieu tax 3,100,000 83,009 2.7% ‐ Consolidated tax 16,724,197 4,129,661 24.7% 3,591,640 Intergovernmental ‐ Other 1,362,500 94,074 6.9% 88,580 Charges for services (Department fees) 2,148,850 725,990 33.8% 455,961 Licenses and Permits (Liquor, gaming, etc.) 875,000 (131,702) 0.0% 308,739 Fines and forfeitures (Court fines, etc.) 830,000 347,179 41.8% 282,942 Other (Interest, Tax Penalities, Tax Sale) 818,100 79,631 9.7% 107,958

Total Nye County General Fund Revenue 42,856,369 12,877,423 30.0% 11,400,617

Nye County Budget to Actual Revenue Report

For Fiscal Year 2020As of November 30, 2019

1/22/2020 3:16 PM Prepared by Finance Page 1

FY 2020 FY 2020 Annualization FY 2019

Department Category Budget Actual to Date Encumbrances Balance % Spent% of Year

Elapsed Paid Annual Contracts

Annualization

Estimate

Est. Annual % of

Budget Spent Budget Expenditures % Spent

01‐Commissioners

Salaries 151,860 58,398 ‐ 93,462 38.5% 42.3% ‐ 152,254 100.3% 154,376 62,107 40.2%

Benefits 100,767 36,408 ‐ 64,359 36.1% 42.3% ‐ 96,794 96.1% 94,237 38,204 40.5%

Services & Supplies 71,250 17,165 ‐ 54,085 24.1% 41.7% 2,150 57,721 81.0% 67,750 11,488 17.0%

01 Commissioners Total 323,877 111,971 ‐ 211,906 34.6% 42.1% 2,150 306,769 94.7% 316,363 111,799 35.3%

02‐Administation

Salaries 678,003 289,097 ‐ 388,906 42.6% 42.3% 33,514 691,969 102.1% 566,075 211,254 37.3%

Benefits 321,175 127,963 ‐ 193,212 39.8% 42.3% 9,882 318,222 99.1% 271,453 97,934 36.1%

Services & Supplies 179,960 46,155 42,193 91,612 49.1% 41.7% 29,606 138,727 77.1% 157,760 31,328 19.9%

02 Administation Total 1,179,138 463,216 42,193 673,729 42.9% 42.1% 73,002 1,148,919 97.4% 995,288 340,516 34.2%

03‐Comptroller

Salaries 440,325 170,208 ‐ 270,117 38.7% 42.3% 8,027 432,790 98.3% 403,031 131,094 32.5%Benefits 230,067 83,631 ‐ 146,436 36.4% 42.3% 2,367 219,431 95.4% 216,331 65,090 30.1%

Services & Supplies 208,700 54,663 111,220 42,818 79.5% 41.7% 138,844 192,112 92.1% 178,700 28,050 15.7%03 Comptroller Total 879,092 308,501 111,220 459,371 47.7% 42.1% 149,238 844,333 96.0% 798,062 224,233 28.1%

05‐Information Systems

Salaries 731,943 294,650 ‐ 437,293 40.3% 42.3% 22,386 735,543 100.5% 638,583 259,430 40.6%

Benefits 341,193 125,891 ‐ 215,302 36.9% 42.3% 9,144 328,148 96.2% 301,972 106,525 35.3%

Services & Supplies 1,038,533 412,749 223,873 401,910 61.3% 41.7% 191,778 939,111 90.4% 796,979 356,115 44.7%

05 Information Systems Total 2,111,669 833,291 223,873 1,054,505 50.1% 42.1% 223,308 2,002,802 94.8% 1,737,534 722,070 41.6%

06‐Human Resources

Salaries 305,347 119,127 ‐ 186,220 39.0% 42.3% 9,190 299,724 98.2% 298,324 105,058 35.2%

Benefits 151,091 56,460 ‐ 94,631 37.4% 42.3% 2,710 145,248 96.1% 144,463 53,402 37.0%


06‐Human Resources Total 527,088 232,932 9,859 284,298 46.1% 42.1% 63,518 514,170 97.5% 513,437 169,223 33.0%

08‐Planning

Salaries 550,841 235,367 ‐ 315,474 42.7% 42.3% 20,644 564,917 102.6% 533,790 173,259 32.5%

Benefits 265,353 105,118 ‐ 160,235 39.6% 42.3% 8,432 261,879 98.7% 255,774 75,459 29.5%

Services & Supplies 87,447 14,934 176 72,337 17.3% 41.7% 9,900 61,435 70.3% 87,447 13,291 15.2%

08‐Planning Total 903,641 355,419 176 548,047 39.4% 42.1% 38,976 888,231 98.3% 877,011 262,009 29.9%

10‐Senior Nutrition

Salaries ‐ ‐ 0.0% 42.3% ‐ ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%

Benefits ‐ ‐ 0.0% 42.3% ‐ ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%

Services & Supplies 50,000 8,566 ‐ 41,434 17.1% 41.7% ‐ 50,000 100.0% 50,000 14,187 28.4%

10‐Senior Nutrition Total 50,000 8,566 ‐ 41,434 17.1% 42.1% ‐ 50,000 100.0% 50,000 14,187 28.4%

11‐Public Guardian

Salaries 75,126 28,916 ‐ 46,210 38.5% 42.3% ‐ 75,092 100.0% 72,549 23,538 32.4%

Benefits 48,139 17,826 ‐ 30,313 37.0% 42.3% ‐ 46,481 96.6% 41,261 14,370 34.8%

Services & Supplies 10,450 3,227 65 7,158 31.5% 41.7% ‐ 9,054 86.6% 10,450 4,783 45.8%

11‐Public Guardian Total 133,715 49,969 65 83,681 37.4% 42.1% ‐ 130,627 97.7% 124,260 42,691 34.4%

Nye County General Fund

Fiscal year 2019‐2020 Budget Status

Activity as of Nov 30, 2019 (through Period 5) 42% of Year Elapsed





Annualization

Estimate

Est. Annual % of





18‐Mechanic

Salaries 257,867 87,109 170,758 33.8% 42.3% 2,880 237,599 92.1% 221,330 96,028 43.4%

Benefits 134,075 41,129 92,946 30.7% 42.3% ‐ 118,650 88.5% 115,045 43,434 37.8%

Services & Supplies 251,540 91,636 1,867 158,037 37.2% 41.7% 242,963 96.6% 225,300 101,663 45.1%

18‐Mechanic Total 643,482 219,874 1,867 421,741 34.5% 42.1% 2,880 599,212 93.1% 561,675 241,125 42.9%

20‐Buildings & Grounds

Salaries 435,290 206,574 ‐ 228,716 47.5% 42.3% 45,380 450,496 103.5% 365,479 157,506 43.1%

Benefits 217,849 83,083 ‐ 134,766 38.1% 42.3% 18,215 205,555 94.4% 213,081 80,349 37.7%

Services & Supplies 1,098,633 432,199 120,737 545,697 50.3% 41.7% 118,997 1,043,846 95.0% 1,257,419 519,971 41.4%

20‐Buildings & Grounds Total 1,751,772 721,856 120,737 909,179 48.1% 42.1% 182,592 1,699,897 97.0% 1,835,979 757,827 41.3%

21‐Animal Shelter

Salaries ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.0% 42.3% ‐ ‐ 0.0% ‐ ‐ #DIV/0!

Benefits ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.0% 42.3% ‐ ‐ 0.0% ‐ ‐ #DIV/0!

Services & Supplies 200,000 100,000 100,000 ‐ 100.0% 41.7% 200,000 100.0% ‐ ‐ #DIV/0!

21‐Animal Shelter Total 200,000 100,000 100,000 ‐ 100.0% 42.1% ‐ 200,000 100.0% ‐ ‐ #DIV/0!

25‐Dept Emergency Mgt

Salaries 240,179 77,185 ‐ 162,994 32.1% 42.3% ‐ 212,550 88.5% 292,465 107,698 36.8%

Benefits 132,473 33,267 ‐ 99,206 25.1% 42.3% ‐ 105,229 79.4% 138,924 36,234 26.1%


25‐Emergency Management Total 561,603 165,653 7,802 388,148 30.9% 42.1% 9,785 482,127 85.8% 648,389 200,392 30.9%

26‐Animal Control

Salaries 275,139 85,867 189,272 31.2% 42.3% ‐ 275,106 100.0% 76,901 29,925 38.9%

Benefits 140,511 40,662 99,849 28.9% 42.3% ‐ 133,813 95.2% 32,929 12,083 36.7%

Services & Supplies 86,202 41,910 ‐ 44,292 48.6% 41.7% 190 59,057 68.5% 30,600 1,746 5.7%

26‐Animal Control Total 501,852 168,440 ‐ 333,412 33.6% 42.1% 190 467,976 93.2% 140,430 43,753 31.2%

30‐Assessor

Salaries 817,738 306,386 511,352 37.5% 42.3% ‐ 811,760 99.3% 786,679 294,323 37.4%

Benefits 420,303 154,789 265,514 36.8% 42.3% ‐ 407,653 97.0% 400,522 149,136 37.2%

Services & Supplies 124,188 14,709 53,428 56,051 54.9% 41.7% 880 80,406 64.7% 124,188 44,785 36.1%

30‐Assessor Total 1,362,229 475,884 53,428 832,917 38.9% 42.1% 880 1,299,819 95.4% 1,311,389 488,243 37.2%

31‐Clerk

Salaries 709,235 264,067 ‐ 445,168 37.2% 42.3% ‐ 699,371 98.6% 586,179 253,081 43.2%

Benefits 353,898 132,685 ‐ 221,213 37.5% 42.3% ‐ 345,909 97.7% 309,821 120,833 39.0%


31‐Clerk Total 1,202,376 410,522 19,711 772,143 35.8% 42.1% 8,558 1,131,333 94.1% 988,583 439,663 44.5%

32‐Recorder

Salaries 362,529 138,306 ‐ 224,223 38.2% 42.3% ‐ 362,593 100.0% 342,579 135,683 39.6%

Benefits 178,381 67,360 ‐ 111,021 37.8% 42.3% ‐ 175,216 98.2% 173,961 66,149 38.0%


32‐Recorder Total 639,962 284,829 8,701 346,432 45.9% 42.1% 79,857 636,814 99.5% 632,592 260,057 41.1%





Annualization

Estimate

Est. Annual % of





33‐Treasurer

Salaries 365,907 162,022 ‐ 203,885 44.3% 42.3% ‐ 387,750 106.0% 340,000 114,774 33.8%

Benefits 181,878 63,242 ‐ 118,636 34.8% 42.3% ‐ 172,231 94.7% 180,000 57,137 31.7%


33‐Treasurer Total 608,819 230,618 4,455 373,746 38.6% 42.1% 1,560 598,183 98.3% 581,034 197,045 33.9%

34‐District Attorney

Salaries 1,849,558 820,227 ‐ 1,029,331 44.3% 42.3% 73,352 1,877,967 101.5% 1,810,977 689,925 38.1%

Benefits 884,213 334,149 ‐ 550,064 37.8% 42.3% 28,184 858,573 97.1% 862,955 302,369 35.0%


34‐District Attorney Total 2,836,471 1,182,800 11,508 1,642,162 42.1% 42.1% 115,204 2,818,952 99.4% 2,776,632 1,009,362 36.4%

35‐Child Legal

Salaries 331,259 123,688 ‐ 207,571 37.3% 42.3% ‐ 322,169 97.3% 311,321 125,367 40.3%

Benefits 171,590 62,644 ‐ 108,946 36.5% 42.3% ‐ 163,232 95.1% 167,846 64,074 38.2%

Services & Supplies 8,200 3,596 117 4,487 45.3% 41.7% (140) 490 6.0% 8,200 2,967 36.2%

35‐Child Legal Total 511,049 189,928 117 321,004 37.2% 42.1% (140) 485,890 95.1% 487,367 192,408 39.5%

36‐District Court

Salaries 441,227 193,605 ‐ 247,622 43.9% 42.3% 12,799 466,685 105.8% 506,652 192,648 38.0%

Benefits 218,635 83,541 ‐ 135,094 38.2% 42.3% 5,228 214,800 98.2% 271,847 84,614 31.1%


36‐District Court Total 916,813 339,604 5,000 572,209 37.6% 42.1% 43,857 874,520 95.4% 999,450 342,800 34.3%

38‐Justice Court ‐ Tonopah

Salaries 417,864 162,119 ‐ 255,745 38.8% 42.3% 2,775 416,026 99.6% 394,395 150,936 38.3%

Benefits 195,609 74,327 ‐ 121,282 38.0% 42.3% ‐ 191,021 97.7% 187,945 67,793 36.1%


38‐Justice Court Total 639,162 245,118 934 393,110 38.5% 42.1% 5,835 628,869 98.4% 608,029 228,183 37.5%

38‐Justice Court ‐ Beatty

Salaries 297,877 106,894 ‐ 190,983 35.9% 42.3% 2,775 288,752 96.9% 265,357 99,396 37.5%

Benefits 110,930 39,993 ‐ 70,937 36.1% 42.3% ‐ 107,114 96.6% 95,359 39,298 41.2%


38‐Justice Court Total 432,552 157,152 400 275,000 36.4% 42.1% 10,871 415,764 96.1% 387,461 152,917 39.5%

38‐Justice Court ‐ Pahrump

Salaries 991,072 363,865 ‐ 627,207 36.7% 42.3% 2,175 969,245 97.8% 838,580 331,989 39.6%

Benefits 500,475 174,345 ‐ 326,131 34.8% 42.3% ‐ 468,804 93.7% 440,041 162,554 36.9%


38‐Justice Court Total 1,562,047 564,582 3,768 993,697 36.4% 42.1% 7,996 1,502,771 96.2% 1,409,121 557,178 39.5%

39‐Judicial‐Other

Salaries 77,996 37,486 ‐ 40,510 48.1% 42.3% 4,350 77,947 99.9% ‐ ‐ 0.0%

Benefits 56,427 25,176 ‐ 31,251 44.6% 42.3% ‐ 56,373 99.9% ‐ ‐ 0.0%

Services & Supplies 1,125,000 336,400 601,359 187,241 83.4% 41.7% 525,825 866,597 77.0% 1,125,000 419,140 37.3%

39‐Judicial‐Other Total 1,259,423 399,062 601,359 259,002 79.4% 42.1% 530,175 1,000,917 79.5% 1,125,000 419,140 37.3%





Annualization

Estimate

Est. Annual % of





40:49‐SO Sheriff

Salaries 6,968,757 2,944,685 4,024,072 42.3% 42.3% 200,066 6,956,183 99.8% 7,230,694 3,182,401 44.0%

Benefits 4,332,230 1,349,396 2,982,834 31.1% 42.3% ‐ 3,903,558 90.1% 4,779,687 1,582,677 33.1%

Services & Supplies 731,400 433,376 160,327 137,697 81.2% 41.7% 39,677 969,490 132.6% 1,468,502 697,662 47.5%

40:49‐SO Sheriff Total 12,032,387 4,727,456 160,327 7,144,603 40.6% 42.1% 239,743 11,829,231 98.3% 13,478,883 5,462,740 40.5%

58‐Federal/State Facilities

Salaries 107,663 40,950 ‐ 66,713 38.0% 42.3% 7,591 101,189 94.0% 80,318 31,096 38.7%

Benefits 41,990 16,211 ‐ 25,779 38.6% 42.3% 3,098 39,776 94.7% 30,929 13,110 42.4%

Services & Supplies 25,000 7,210 ‐ 17,791 28.8% 41.7% 2,500 21,132 84.5% 25,000 8,212 32.8%

58‐Federal/State Facilities 174,653 64,370 ‐ 110,283 36.9% 42.1% 13,189 162,097 92.8% 136,247 52,418 38.5%

83‐Public Works

Salaries 66,436 26,495 39,941 39.9% 42.3% 6,803 62,198 93.6% 74,278 23,978 32.3%

Benefits 32,681 13,546 19,135 41.4% 42.3% 2,729 32,027 98.0% 35,707 14,922 41.8%

Services & Supplies 32,600 10,128 3,695 18,777 42.4% 41.7% ‐ 28,259 86.7% 32,600 7,274 22.3%

83‐Public Works Total 131,717 50,169 3,695 77,853 40.9% 42.1% 9,532 122,484 93.0% 142,585 46,174 32.4%

88‐Smoky Valley TV District

Salaries ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.0% 42.3% ‐ ‐ 0.0% ‐ ‐ 0.0%

Benefits ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.0% 42.3% ‐ ‐ 0.0% ‐ ‐ 0.0%

Services & Supplies 5,000 4,100 900 82.0% 42.3% ‐ 2,612 52.2% 115,000 6,221 5.4%

90‐Community Support Total 5,000 ‐ 4,100 900 82.0% 42.3% ‐ 2,612 52.2% 115,000 6,221 5.4%

95‐Miscellaneous

Salaries ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.0% 42.3% ‐ ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0%

Benefits ‐ ‐ 0.0% 42.3% ‐ ‐ 0.0% 1,715,000 665,967 38.8%

Services & Supplies 2,694,420 1,505,045 921,198 268,177 90.0% 42.3% 1,425,544 2,270,420 84.3% 2,300,000 1,310,386 57.0%

95‐Miscellaneous Total 2,694,420 1,505,045 921,198 268,177 90.0% 42.3% 1,425,544 2,270,420 84.3% 4,015,000 1,976,354 49.2%

Contingency 567,660 ‐ ‐ 567,660 0.0% 42.3% NA ‐ 0.0% 800,000 0.0%

Ops Transfer ‐ Airport 25,000 25,000 ‐ ‐ 100.0% 42.3% NA 25,000 100.0% ‐ 0.0%

Ops Transfer ‐ Capital Fund 1,219,031 ‐ 1,219,031 0.0% 42.3% NA 1,219,031 100.0% 1,656,381 0.0%

Ops Transfer ‐ Jail Fund 4,097,533 1,848,767 ‐ 2,248,767 45.1% 42.3% NA 4,097,533 100.0% ‐ 0.0%

Ops Transfer ‐ OPEB Existing Retirees 1,323,780 661,890 ‐ 661,890 50.0% 42.3% NA 1,323,780 100.0% ‐ 0.0%

Ops Transfer ‐ OPEB New Positions 31,024 15,512 ‐ 15,512 50.0% 42.3% NA 31,024 100.0% ‐ 0.0%

Ops Transfer ‐ OPEB Prefunding Retirees 250,001 125,000 ‐ 125,001 50.0% 42.3% NA 250,001 100.0% ‐ 0.0%

Contingency/Intergovernmental Total 7,514,029 2,676,169 ‐ 4,837,861 35.6% 42.3% ‐ 6,946,369 92.4% 2,456,381 ‐ 0.0%

‐

TOTAL 44,290,038 17,242,995 2,416,491 24,630,551 44.4% 42.0% 3,238,301 42,062,108 95.0% 40,249,182 14,960,728 37.2%


FY 2020 FY 2020

FUND # FUND Name Budget Actual to Date Balance %

Received

% of Year

Elapsed Budget Actual to Date Encumbrances Balance % Spent

% of Year

Elapsed10205 ROAD 7,547,844 1,662,801 5,885,043 22% 42% 10,436,212 2,118,885 688,182 7,629,144 27% 42%

10206 REGIONAL STREETS & HIGHWAYS 5,600 774 4,826 14% 42% 11,749 ‐ ‐ 11,749 0% 42%

10207 REG TRANS COMMISSION 9 Cent 2,355,000 406,496 1,948,504 17% 42% 3,450,971 ‐ ‐ 3,450,971 0% 42%

10208 PUBLIC TRANSIT 1/4 Cent 1,451,000 470,501 980,499 32% 42% 2,257,792 ‐ ‐ 2,257,792 0% 42%

10209 AIRPORT 33,350 30,191 3,159 91% 42% 49,082 10,091 16,940 22,051 55% 42%

10210 VETERANS SERVICES 65,000 ‐ 65,000 0% 42% 136,150 19,000 16,397 100,753 26% 42%

10213 EMERGENCY SYSTEMS 509,266 219,569 289,697 43% 42% 544,073 222,960 1,801 319,313 41% 42%

10214 MUSEUMS 125,100 56,941 68,159 46% 42% 150,100 41,453 ‐ 108,647 28% 42%

10218 AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION 316,454 93,699 222,755 30% 42% 320,883 11,820 ‐ 309,063 4% 42%

10220 ROOM TAX 130,000 50,136 79,864 39% 42% 130,000 58,465 ‐ 71,535 45% 42%

10230 JUVENILE PROBATION 1,304,321 580,877 723,444 45% 42% 1,460,809 522,441 84,723 853,645 42% 42%

10231 FORENSIC SERVICES ‐ 4,495 (4,495) 0% 42% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0% 42%

10232 FORFEITURES ‐ ‐ ‐ 0% 42% 69,464 ‐ ‐ 69,464 0% 42%

10233 PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX ‐ Dist Fund 570,000 ‐ 570,000 0% 42% 570,000 ‐ ‐ 570,000 0% 42%

10234 PUBLIC SAFETY SALES SHERIFF ‐ COUNTY 59,566 16,953 42,613 28% 42% 135,990 458 ‐ 135,532 0% 42%

10235 PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX FIRE ‐ COUNTY 59,566 16,953 42,613 28% 42% 322,549 ‐ ‐ 322,549 0% 42%

10236 NYE COUNTY JAIL FUND 7,150,173 2,195,374 4,954,799 31% 42% 7,150,174 2,450,705 667,499 4,031,969 44% 42%

10244 J P COURT COLLECTION FEES 197,300 67,233 130,067 34% 42% 1,148,457 16,294 900 1,131,263 1% 42%

10245 J P COURT FINES ‐ NRS 176 78,450 25,210 53,240 32% 42% 352,755 11,210 10,000 331,545 6% 42%

10246 J P FACILITY ASSESSMENT 133,800 49,815 83,985 37% 42% 559,543 2,823 6,501 550,219 2% 42%

10247 DISTRICT COURT IMPROVEMENT 90,250 32,901 57,349 36% 42% 124,750 2,400 ‐ 122,350 2% 42%

10248 DRUG COURT PROCEEDS 300,300 113,228 187,072 38% 42% 360,274 88,498 88 271,688 25% 42%

10249 LAW LIBRARY 20,150 7,530 12,620 37% 42% 145,568 2,160 ‐ 143,408 1% 42%

10250 IMPACT FEES 625,000 279,055 345,945 45% 42% 3,008,359 ‐ ‐ 3,008,359 0% 42%

10253 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FEES 302,500 37,557 264,943 12% 42% 4,359,782 17,291 ‐ 4,342,491 0% 42%

10254 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1,035,500 475,672 559,828 46% 42% 1,394,463 315,493 318,253 760,716 45% 42%

10255 RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS 10 24 (14) 242% 42% 13,475 ‐ ‐ 13,475 0% 42%

10269 MINING MAPS 65,250 10,783 54,467 17% 42% 246,255 5,760 19,693 220,803 10% 42%

10281 SENIOR NUTRITION 400,200 53,257 346,943 13% 42% 422,267 71,021 ‐ 351,246 17% 42%

10282 AMBULANCE & HEALTH ‐ EMS 710,300 296,270 414,030 42% 42% 1,269,940 130,216 15,392 1,124,332 11% 42%

10283 INDIGENT 1,263,149 568,886 694,263 45% 42% 1,510,458 259,933 12,070 1,238,455 18% 42%

10284 DEDICATED MEDICAL INDIGENT (50/50 Fund) 668,042 454,953 213,089 68% 42% 700,550 37,500 ‐ 663,050 5% 42%

10285 HEALTH CLINICS 172,667 78,651 94,016 46% 42% 309,656 76,082 76,478 157,096 49% 42%

10291 COUNTY ‐ OWNED BUILDINGS 197,500 29,079 168,421 15% 42% 555,098 69,819 26,770 458,509 17% 42%

10301 SPECIAL PROJECTS ENDOWMENT 50 ‐ 50 0% 42% 24,688 24,688 0% 42%

10320 RECORDER TECHNOLOGY 85,200 38,705 46,495 45% 42% 348,760 126,987 103,270 118,503 66% 42%

10321 DISTRICT COURT TECHNOLOGY 450 152 298 34% 42% 1,971 ‐ ‐ 1,971 0% 42%

10322 ASSESSOR TECHNOLOGY 300,000 79,801 220,199 27% 42% 503,835 56,085 265,676 182,074 64% 42%

10323 CLERK TECHNOLOGY 350 890 (540) 254% 42% 2,202 ‐ ‐ 2,202 0% 42%

Other Nye County Funds


Activity as of Nov 30, 2019 (through Period 5) 42% of Year ElapsedREVENUES EXPENDITURES


FY 2020 FY 2020


Received

% of Year


% of Year

Elapsed

Other Nye County Funds



10340 GRANTS 4,168,170 1,063,061 3,105,109 26% 42% 4,168,170 603,599 1,029,490 2,535,081 39% 42%

10341 Grant ‐ Brownfields RLF ‐ ‐ ‐ 0% 42% ‐ ‐ 0% 42%

10391 DEBT SERVICE 2,601,399 1,316,198 1,285,201 51% 42% 2,540,977 1,316,198 ‐ 1,224,779 52% 42%

10401 CAPITAL PROJECTS ‐ COUNTY 1,621,531 50,400 1,571,131 3% 42% 4,318,640 1,930,341 268,531 2,119,769 51% 42%

10402 SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS ‐ CM FUND 791,151 357,566 433,585 45% 42% 1,605,641 405,479 82,007 1,118,155 30% 42%

10451 BONDS ‐ COUNTY JAIL 2010 1,000 ‐ 1,000 0% 42% 1,123,929 ‐ ‐ 1,123,929 0% 42%

10510 SOLID WASTE ‐ ENTERPRISE FUND 2,010,000 1,531,434 478,566 76% 42% 1,960,000 558,447 1,058,653 342,900 83% 42%

10603 PROPERTY SELF INSURANCE 75 ‐ 75 0% 42% ‐ ‐ 0% 42%

10604 EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE 550,000 207,097 342,903 38% 42% 550,000 137,330 243,345 169,325 69% 42%

10704 Nye County OPEB Fund 2,047,432 1,023,716 1,023,716 50% 42% 1,666,408 639,522 ‐ 1,026,886 38% 42%

42,356,761 17,018,901 25,337,860 40% 42% 62,780,214 14,133,196 5,031,622 43,615,396 31% 42%Other Nye County Funds


FY 2020 FY 2020


Received

% of Year


% of Year

Elapsed24101 BEATTY TOWN 533,828 205,301 328,527 38% 42% 1,136,480 150,781 2,403 983,297 13% 42%

24220 BEATTY ROOM TAX 115,350 44,437 70,913 39% 42% 267,128 31,699 328 235,102 12% 42%

24234 PUBLIC SAFETY SALES SHERIFF ‐ BEATTY 35,741 10,144 25,597 28% 42% 117,165 1,409 ‐ 115,756 1% 42%

24235 PUBLIC SAFETY SALES FIRE ‐ BEATTY 35,741 10,144 25,597 28% 42% 134,889 ‐ ‐ 134,889 0% 42%

24401 BEATTY CAPITAL PROJECTS 29,180 ‐ 29,180 0% 42% 547,544 15,886 ‐ 531,658 3% 42%

24402 BEATTY SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 22,075 ‐ 22,075 0% 42% 221,969 ‐ ‐ 221,969 0% 42%

24403 BEATTY ROOM TAX CAPITAL PROJECTS 22,300 8,888 13,413 40% 42% 120,005 ‐ ‐ 120,005 0% 42%

24704 BEATTY TOWN OPEB 26,300 13,150 13,150 50% 42% 11,300 4,376 ‐ 6,924 39% 42%

820,515 292,063 528,452 36% 42% 2,556,480 204,150 2,730 2,349,600 8% 42%Beatty Town Funds

Town of Beatty Fiscal year 2019‐2020 Budget Status


REVENUES EXPENDITURES


FY 2020 FY 2020


Received

% of Year


% of Year

Elapsed23101 GABBS TOWN 191,987 59,316 132,671 31% 42% 306,010 63,339 17 242,654 21% 42%

23234 PUBLIC SAFETY SALES SHERIFF ‐ GABBS 9,620 2,724 6,896 28% 42% 37,462 76 ‐ 37,386 0% 42%

23235 PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX FIRE ‐ GABBS 9,620 2,724 6,896 28% 42% 44,374 ‐ ‐ 44,374 0% 42%

23402 GABBS SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 28,550 ‐ 28,550 0% 42% 50,000 ‐ ‐ 50,000 0% 42%

23502 GABBS WATER ‐ ENTERPRISE FUND 149,310 54,224 95,086 36% 42% 292,204 39,435 ‐ 252,769 13% 42%

23503 GABBS SEWER ‐ ENTERPRISE FUND 10,010 4,176 5,834 42% 42% 42,500 2,263 ‐ 40,237 5% 42%

23704 GABBS OPEB TRUST 7,500 ‐ 7,500 0% 42% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0% 42%

406,597 123,163 283,434 30% 42% 772,550 105,112 17 667,421 14% 42%Gabbs Town Funds

Town of Gabbs Funds




FY 2020 FY 2020


Received

% of Year


% of Year

Elapsed27101 MANHATTAN TOWN 17,710 5,504 12,206 31% 42% 51,500 1,053 ‐ 50,447 2% 42%

27234 PUBLIC SAFETY SALES SHERIFF ‐ Manhattan 4,630 1,315 3,315 28% 42% 16,952 38 ‐ 16,914 0% 42%

27235 PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX FIRE – Manhattan 4,670 1,315 3,355 28% 42% 25,740 ‐ ‐ 25,740 0% 42%

27402 MANHATTAN SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 3,550 3,550 0% 42% 45,567 ‐ 15,260 30,307 33% 42%

27502 MANHATTAN WATER ‐ ENTERPRISE FUND 55,100 21,075 34,025 38% 42% 165,490 30,093 ‐ 135,397 18% 42%

85,660 29,209 56,451 34% 42% 305,249 31,184 15,260 258,805 15% 42%Manhattan Town Funds

Manhattan Town Funds




FY 2020 FY 2020


Received

% of Year


% of Year

Elapsed25101 PAHRUMP TOWN 5,143,908 2,892,503 2,251,405 56% 42% 7,327,971 3,372,055 25,152 3,930,764 46% 42%

25205 PAHRUMP ROADS & STREETS 275,000 44,998 230,002 16% 42% 275,000 67,352 ‐ 207,648 24% 42%

25220 PAHRUMP STATE ROOM TAX 5/8 114,100 45,466 68,634 40% 42% 202,750 53,254 ‐ 149,496 26% 42%

25221 PAHRUMP 1/5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 25,300 ‐ 25,300 0% 42% 522,750 49 ‐ 522,701 0% 42%

25222 PAHRUMP 3/5 TOURISM 401,000 152,967 248,033 38% 42% 603,783 125,472 600 477,711 21% 42%

25223 PAHRUMP 1/10 PARKS 267,019 19,121 247,898 7% 42% 386,500 8,472 ‐ 378,028 2% 42%

25224 PAHRUMP 1/10 ARENA 56,000 19,121 36,879 34% 42% 550,000 ‐ ‐ 550,000 0% 42%

25234 PUBLIC SAFETY SALES SHERIFF ‐ PAHRUMP 1,366,065 388,515 977,550 28% 42% 1,961,032 618,540 1,556 1,340,936 32% 42%

25235 PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX FIRE ‐ PAHRUMP 1,302,500 388,515 913,985 30% 42% 4,113,669 937,399 ‐ 3,176,270 23% 42%

25251 PAHRUMP FIRE IMPACT FEE 76,500 ‐ 76,500 0% 42% 630,000 2,772 ‐ 627,228 0% 42%

25252 PAHRUMP PARKS IMPACT FEE 100,500 ‐ 100,500 0% 42% 380,000 4,000 ‐ 376,000 1% 42%

25268 PAHRUMP BUSINESS LICENSE 150,500 72,700 77,800 48% 42% 574,737 38,261 ‐ 536,476 7% 42%

25272 PAHRUMP CEMETARY 160,100 150,794 9,306 94% 42% 224,300 20,843 ‐ 203,457 9% 42%

25273 PAHRUMP CEMETARY PERPETUAL 5,100 391 4,709 8% 42% ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0% 42%

25274 PAHRUMP POOL DISTRICT 212,845 101,537 111,308 48% 42% 313,482 86,319 ‐ 227,163 28% 42%

25401 PAHRUMP CAPITAL PROJECTS 1,204,000 1,342,838 (138,838) 112% 42% 1,487,500 39,396 ‐ 1,448,104 3% 42%

25402 PAHRUMP SPECIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 30,400 ‐ 30,400 0% 42% 80,000 ‐ ‐ 80,000 0% 42%

25411 PAHRUMP ARENA CAPITAL PROJECTS 1,200 1,525 (325) 127% 42% 60,000 ‐ ‐ 60,000 0% 42%

25412 PAHRUMP TV CONSTRUCTION 200 ‐ 200 0% 42% 30,000 ‐ ‐ 30,000 0% 42%

25414 PAHRUMP ROOM TAX FAIRGROUNDS 291,000 98,483 192,517 34% 42% 2,175,000 48,974 9,037 2,116,988 3% 42%

25520 PAHRUMP AMBULANCE ‐ ENTERPRISE FUND 3,951,000 1,094,500 2,856,500 28% 42% 3,906,940 1,319,900 ‐ 2,587,040 34% 42%

25521 LAKE VIEW GOLF COURSE 170,500 100,978 69,522 59% 42% 536,500 99,746 ‐ 436,754 19% 42%

25704 PAHRUMP TOWN OPEB 87,500 87,500 ‐ 100% 42% 47,500 13,459 34,041 28% 42%

15,392,237 7,002,452 8,389,785 45% 42% 26,389,414 6,856,263 36,346 19,496,805 26% 42%Town of Pahrump Funds

Town of Pahrump Funds




As of June 30, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF TAXATIONDivision of Local Government Services

Annual Local Government Indebtedness

Page Number

INTRODUCTION AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS IDEBT LIMIT GRAPH III

Part A SHOWS THE LEGAL DEBT LIMIT, TOTAL GENERAL OBLIGATION INDEBTEDNESS AND DEBT MARGIN. ALL DEBT DEFINED IN NRS 350.580 IS APPLIED AGAINST THE LEGAL DEBT LIMIT. Counties A-1

Cities A-2Schools A-3

Towns A-4 General Improvement Districts A-6 Library Districts A-8

Hospital Districts A-9Flood Control Districts A-9Sewer Districts A-9Airport Authorities A-10Convention Centers A-10

Fair and Recreation Boards A-11 Fire Protection Districts - Election A-11 Fire Protection Districts A-12 Multicounty Districts A-12 Redevelopment Agencies A-13

Regional Transportation Commissions A-13 Special and Local Acts A-14

Part B SHOWS THE OVERLAPPING TOTAL DEBT FOR EACH COUNTY AND PERCENT OF DEBT TO ASSESSED VALUE. B-1

Part C PROVIDES A FIVE-YEAR DEBT REQUIREMENT PROJECTION. THE INFORMATION INCLUDES COMBINED C-1

PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST FOR EACH TYPE OF INDEBTEDNESS BY ENTITY AND TOTAL COUNTY, AS WELL AS THE FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH FINAL MATURITY WILL OCCUR.

Compiled by Local Government Finance SectionDivision of Local Government Services

Nevada Department of Taxation

INDEX TOANNUAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT INDEBTEDNESS

PURSUANT TO NRS 354.6025As of June 30, 2019

INTRODUCTION

The Annual Local Government Indebtedness Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019 has been prepared in three sections, noted below. Local government entities submit reports each year in compliance with NRS 350.013, 354.6025 and NAC 350.010. Terms appearing below are defined in the Glossary.

Part A – Presents the assessed value, general obligation debt limit, outstanding general obligation debt and debt margin for each category of local government entity, pursuant to the statutes governing that entity. For example, the total bonded indebtedness for school districts cannot exceed 15 percent of the assessed value, pursuant to NRS 387.400.

Part B – Presents the overlapping total debt for each entity and the percentage of debt to assessed value.

Part C – Presents a five-year debt requirement projection, including the principal and interest for each type of indebtedness by entity and for each total county, as well as the fiscal year in which final maturity will occur.

GLOSSARY

Assessed Value – Taxable value times the level of assessment, currently thirty-five percent (35%).

General Obligation Debt Limit – The maximum general obligation indebtedness which could be incurred by a local government entity, as prescribed in the Nevada Revised Statute governing the type of entity. For example, school district’s general obligation debt limit is 15% of assessed value.

Outstanding General Obligation Debt – The amount in whole dollars, of outstanding general obligation bonded debt as of June 30, 2019.

Debt Margin – The calculated difference between debt limit and outstanding general obligation debt.

TYPES OF INDEBTEDNESS

General Obligation Bonds - Those bonds approved by the voters to be retired solely by an ad valorem tax levy. These bonds are secured by the full faith and credit of the entity.

General Obligation/Revenue Bonds – Bonds issued as general obligations that are repaid in whole or in part from non-ad valorem revenues and/or issues sold as general obligations and additionally secured with pledged revenues.

General Obligation Special Assessment Bonds - Bonds payable from the proceeds of special assessments and additionally secured by the full faith and credit of the local government.

I

TYPES OF INDEBTEDNESS (continued)

Medium-Term Obligations (more than one year but no more than ten years) – General Obligation Bonds, Negotiable Notes or Lease/Purchase Agreements issued pursuant to NRS 350.087 through NRS 350.095.

Revenue Bonds – Bonds that pledge specific revenues for the repayment of the obligation. These revenues are the sole source of repayment, are not backed by the full faith and credit of the government entity, and do not count against the statutory debt limit.

Other Debt:

Other Lease/Purchases – Capital lease debt incurred prior to the law change requiring capital leases to be approved using the medium-term obligation requirements.

Mortgages – Indebtedness for local government acquisition of land & buildings for the entity’s use.

Warrants – Instruments issued to pay for goods and services to be repaid from future revenues.

Special Assessment Bonds – Bonds issued to pay for the costs of infrastructure – primarily residential developments. Assessments are made to property owners in the special assessment area and debt service is done by the local government.

Other Debt – Interim debentures and other debt issues not identified in the above categories.

II

June 30, 2015 June 30, 2016 June 30, 2017 June 30, 2018 June 30, 2019

COUNTIES 9,168,919,200 9,981,798,947 10,655,446,371 11,253,487,185 12,061,325,351

CITIES 7,442,251,065 8,261,418,986 8,869,618,516 9,323,120,934 9,863,202,367

SCHOOLS 13,656,861,999 14,890,275,727 15,874,782,949 16,767,577,258 17,974,352,354

III

DEBT LIMITS

-

2,000,000,000

4,000,000,000

6,000,000,000

8,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

12,000,000,000

14,000,000,000

16,000,000,000

18,000,000,000

20,000,000,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

HISTORIC DEBT LIMITS

COUNTIES CITIES SCHOOLS

INDEBTEDNESS REPORTS NOT SUBMITTED FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2019

ENTITY

IV

NONE

DEBT LIMIT BY ENTITY TYPE

PART ACOUNTIES

OTHER OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING AUTHORIZED BUT

2018-2019 DEBT LIMIT GENERAL GENERAL LEGAL UNSOLD GENERALENTITY ASSESSED VALUE (10% OF A. V.) * OBLIGATION BONDS OBLIGATION DEBT DEBT MARGIN OBLIGATION BONDS

CARSON CITY (1),(2) 1,568,475,621 235,271,343 - 186,108,171 49,163,172 - CHURCHILL 840,079,069 84,007,907 - 14,550,298 69,457,609 - CLARK (3) 84,428,728,091 8,442,872,809 - 1,732,653,000 6,710,219,809 - DOUGLAS (6) 3,076,916,940 307,691,694 - 23,911,282 283,780,412 - ELKO (7) 2,191,111,161 219,111,116 - 293,340 218,817,776 - ESMERALDA 72,333,983 7,233,398 - - 7,233,398 - EUREKA 1,407,180,192 140,718,019 - - 140,718,019 - HUMBOLDT 1,326,732,085 132,673,209 - 619,152 132,054,057 - LANDER 1,881,047,549 188,104,755 - - 188,104,755 - LINCOLN 281,018,607 28,101,861 - 384,157 27,717,704 - LYON 1,838,828,115 183,882,812 - 10,184,261 173,698,551 - MINERAL 191,445,849 19,144,585 - 187,444 18,957,141 - NYE 1,999,579,546 199,957,955 - 22,413,545 177,544,410 - PERSHING 338,541,572 33,854,157 - 782,103 33,072,054 - STOREY 892,921,142 89,292,114 - 1,096,000 88,196,114 - WASHOE (4),(5) 16,886,587,798 1,688,658,780 23,424,000 76,601,630 1,588,633,150 - WHITE PINE (8) 607,488,375 60,748,838 - - 60,748,838 -

TOTAL 119,829,015,695 12,061,325,351 23,424,000 2,069,784,383 9,968,116,968 -

DEBT MARGIN" IF "

ALL AUTHORIZEDBONDS WERE SOLD

CARSON CITY (1),(2) 49,163,172CHURCHILL 69,457,609CLARK (3) 6,710,219,809DOUGLAS (6) 283,780,412ELKO (7) 218,817,776ESMERALDA 7,233,398EUREKA 140,718,019HUMBOLDT 132,054,057LANDER 188,104,755LINCOLN 27,717,704LYON 173,698,551MINERAL 18,957,141NYE 177,544,410PERSHING 33,072,054STOREY 88,196,114WASHOE (4),(5) 1,588,633,150WHITE PINE (8) 60,748,838

TOTAL 9,968,116,968

FOOTNOTES:(*) NRS 244A.059 COUNTY'S GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS: COUNTY'S DEBT LIMIT.

1. Subject to the provisions of Chapter 350 of Nevada Revised Statutes, any board, on behalf of the County and in its name, may issue the County's general obligation bonds to acquire, improve and equip (or any combination thereof), any project herein authorized, or any part thereof, and thereby, to defray the cost of the project wholly or in part.

2. A county shall not become indebted by the issuance of bonds or other securities constituting an indebtedness, whether the bonds are issued hereunder or under a special or local law, to an amount in the aggregate, including existing indebtedness of the county, but excluding any outstanding revenue bonds, any outstanding special assessment bonds, or any other outstanding special obligation securities, any short term securities issued in anticipation of and payable from general (ad valorem) taxes levied for the current fiscal year, and any indebtedness not evidenced by notes, bonds or other securities, exceeding 10% of the total last assessed valuation of the taxable property of the county.

(1) Assessed valuation in the amount of $80,709,787 for Carson City Redevelopment Authority is excluded from Carson City.(2) City charter limits indebtedness to 15 percent for both bonds and warrants.(3) Assessed valuations in the amount of $3,004,128,483 for the Redevelopment Agencies in Clark County, Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas, Mesquite and North Las Vegas are excluded from Clark County.(4) Assessed valuations in the amount of $188,814,630 for Reno Redevelopment Agencies are excluded from Washoe County. (5) Assessed valuations in the amount of $227,677,911 for Sparks Redevelopment Agencies are excluded from Washoe County.(6) Assessed valuation in the amount of $51,383,789 for the Douglas County Redevelopment Agency is excluded from Douglas County.(7) Assessed valuation in the amount of $13,705,955 for the City of Elko Redevelopment Agency is excluded from Elko County.(8) Assessed valuation in the amount of $3,126,710 for the City of Ely Redevelopment Agency is excluded from White Pine County.

A-1

CITIES

LEGALDEBT LIMIT OUTSTANDING DEBT MARGIN

OUTSTANDING AUTHORIZED BUT OTHER OTHER OTHER2018-2019 DEBT LIMIT GENERAL LEGAL UNSOLD GENERAL GENERAL GENERAL GENERAL

ENTITY ASSESSED VALUE OBLIGATION BONDS DEBT MARGIN OBLIGATION BONDS OBLIGATION OBLIGATION DEBT OBLIGATION

BOULDER CITY 719,965,019 215,989,506 - 215,989,506 - 143,993,004 - 143,993,004CALIENTE 15,565,023 3,113,005 (2) - 3,113,005 - 3,113,005 55,030 3,057,975CARLIN 37,759,088 7,551,818 (3) - 7,551,818 - 7,551,818 - 7,551,818ELKO 519,385,463 155,815,639 - 155,815,639 - 103,877,093 19,070,000 84,807,093ELY 65,664,670 19,699,401 - 19,699,401 - 13,132,934 394,196 12,738,738FALLON 206,124,442 61,837,333 - 61,837,333 - 41,224,888 8,983,894 32,240,994FERNLEY 715,291,334 214,587,400 - 214,587,400 - 143,058,267 66,531,386 76,526,881HENDERSON 12,877,563,596 1,931,634,539 (1) 4,415,000 1,927,219,539 - 2,575,512,719 168,113,773 2,407,398,946LAS VEGAS 18,339,641,540 3,667,928,308 (2) - 3,667,928,308 - 3,667,928,308 524,678,812 3,143,249,496LOVELOCK 23,960,880 7,188,264 - 7,188,264 - 4,792,176 49,032 4,743,144MESQUITE 791,293,312 237,387,994 - 237,387,994 - 158,258,662 13,080,187 145,178,475NORTH LAS VEGAS 7,113,587,288 1,422,717,458 (2) - 1,422,717,458 55,430,000 1,422,717,458 425,538,433 997,179,025RENO 8,131,411,123 1,219,711,668 (1) - 1,219,711,668 - 1,626,282,225 93,088,691 1,533,193,534SPARKS 2,839,231,639 567,846,328 (3) - 567,846,328 - 567,846,328 32,838,339 535,007,989WELLS 29,337,883 11,735,153 (4) - 11,735,153 - 5,867,577 725,141 5,142,436WEST WENDOVER 140,812,597 42,243,779 - 42,243,779 - 28,162,519 2,730,000 25,432,519WINNEMUCCA 207,311,022 62,193,307 - 62,193,307 - 41,462,204 - 41,462,204YERINGTON 70,107,341 14,021,468 (2) - 14,021,468 - 14,021,468 - 14,021,468

TOTAL 52,844,013,260 9,863,202,367 4,415,000 9,858,787,367 55,430,000 10,568,802,652 1,355,876,914 9,212,925,738

FOOTNOTES: (1) City charter limits bonded indebtedness to 15 percent of assessed value.(2) City charter limits bonded indebtedness to 20 percent of assessed value.(3) City charter limits all indebtedness to 20 percent of assessed value.(4) City charter limits all indebtedness to 40 percent of assessed value.

NRS 266.600(4) GENERAL POWERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING FINANCES, REVENUE AND TAXATION.The city council may: Borrow money on the credit of the city for corporate purposes, in the manner and to the extent allowed by the constitution and the laws, and issue general obligations therefore, but no city may issue or have outstanding at any time bonds to an amount in excess of 30 % of the total assessed valuation of the taxable property within such city as shown by the last preceding tax list or assessment roll, nor warrants, certificates, script or other evidences of indebtedness, excepting the bonded indebtedness, in excess of 20% of the assessed valuation. This subsection does not restrict the power of the cities as to taxation, assessment, borrowing money, contracting debts or loaning their credit for procuring supplies of water.

A-2

SCHOOLS

DEBT MARGINOUTSTANDING AUTHORIZED BUT " IF "

2018-2019 DEBT LIMIT GENERAL LEGAL UNSOLD GENERAL ALL AUTHORIZEDENTITY ASSESSED VALUE (15% OF A. V.) * OBLIGATION BONDS DEBT MARGIN OBLIGATION BONDS BONDS ARE SOLD

CARSON CITY 1,568,475,621 235,271,343 52,503,000 182,768,343 - 182,768,343CHURCHILL 840,079,069 126,011,860 32,147,000 93,864,860 - 93,864,860CLARK 84,428,728,091 12,664,309,214 2,039,725,000 10,624,584,214 435,000,000 10,189,584,214DOUGLAS 3,076,916,940 461,537,541 47,167,000 414,370,541 - 414,370,541ELKO 2,191,111,161 328,666,674 - 328,666,674 - 328,666,674ESMERALDA 72,333,983 10,850,097 - 10,850,097 - 10,850,097EUREKA 1,407,180,192 211,077,029 - 211,077,029 - 211,077,029HUMBOLDT 1,326,732,085 199,009,813 1,931,000 197,078,813 - 197,078,813LANDER 1,881,047,549 282,157,132 - 282,157,132 - 282,157,132LINCOLN 281,018,607 42,152,791 3,914,800 38,237,991 - 38,237,991LYON 1,838,828,115 275,824,217 50,715,000 225,109,217 - 225,109,217MINERAL 191,445,849 28,716,877 2,303,000 26,413,877 - 26,413,877NYE 1,999,579,546 299,936,932 84,158,000 215,778,932 - 215,778,932PERSHING 338,541,572 50,781,236 4,175,559 46,605,677 - 46,605,677STOREY 892,921,142 133,938,171 6,535,500 127,402,671 - 127,402,671WASHOE 16,886,587,798 2,532,988,170 445,945,000 2,087,043,170 - 2,087,043,170WHITE PINE 607,488,375 91,123,256 6,645,000 84,478,256 - 84,478,256

TOTAL 119,829,015,695 17,974,352,354 2,777,864,859 15,196,487,495 435,000,000 14,761,487,495

FOOTNOTES: (*) NRS 387.400 (1) LIMITATION OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT.The total bonded indebtedness of a county school district must at no time exceed an amount equal to 15% of the last assessed valuation of the taxable property, excluding motor vehicles, situated within the county school district.

A-3

TOWNS

OUTSTANDINGOUTSTANDING OTHER AUTHORIZED BUT


CLARK COUNTY BUNKERVILLE 29,790,832 7,447,708 - - 7,447,708 - ENTERPRISE 9,630,708,318 2,407,677,080 - - 2,407,677,080 - INDIAN SPRINGS 11,754,995 2,938,749 - - 2,938,749 - LAUGHLIN 476,841,418 119,210,355 - - 119,210,355 - MOAPA TOWN 68,926,531 17,231,633 - - 17,231,633 - MOAPA VALLEY TOWN 186,690,600 46,672,650 - - 46,672,650 - MT. CHARLESTON TOWN 47,156,003 11,789,001 - - 11,789,001 - PARADISE 15,526,013,135 3,881,503,284 - - 3,881,503,284 - SEARCHLIGHT 34,988,255 8,747,064 - - 8,747,064 - SPRING VALLEY 7,410,730,469 1,852,682,617 - - 1,852,682,617 - SUMMERLIN 2,779,634,217 694,908,554 - - 694,908,554 - SUNRISE MANOR 3,310,302,023 827,575,506 - - 827,575,506 - WHITNEY TOWN 883,336,588 220,834,147 - - 220,834,147 - WINCHESTER 1,445,935,261 361,483,815 - - 361,483,815 -

DOUGLAS COUNTY GARDNERVILLE 192,024,302 48,006,076 - - 48,006,076 - GENOA 13,156,064 3,289,016 - - 3,289,016 - MINDEN 170,276,360 42,569,090 - - 42,569,090 -

ELKO COUNTY JACKPOT 28,108,658 7,027,165 - - 7,027,165 - JARBIDGE - - - - N/A - MONTELLO 1,896,654 474,164 - - 474,164 - MOUNTAIN CITY 1,959,328 489,832 - - 489,832 -

ESMERALDA COUNTY GOLDFIELD 6,378,834 1,594,709 - - 1,594,709 - SILVER PEAK 4,215,737 1,053,934 - - 1,053,934 -

EUREKA COUNTY CRESCENT VALLEY 4,416,188 1,104,047 - - 1,104,047 - EUREKA 15,056,423 3,764,106 - - 3,764,106 -

LANDER COUNTY AUSTIN 4,682,036 1,170,509 - - 1,170,509 - BATTLE MOUNTAIN 48,312,219 12,078,055 - - 12,078,055 - KINGSTON 5,273,717 1,318,429 - - 1,318,429 -

A-4

TOWNS



LINCOLN COUNTY ALAMO 9,965,182 2,491,296 - - 2,491,296 - PANACA 12,917,694 3,229,424 - - 3,229,424 - PIOCHE 17,171,574 4,292,894 - - 4,292,894 -

MINERAL COUNTY HAWTHORNE 46,866,364 11,716,591 - 5,743,190 5,973,401 - LUNING 548,835 137,209 - - 137,209 - MINA 1,838,768 459,692 - - 459,692 - WALKER LAKE 7,016,838 1,754,210 - - 1,754,210 -

NYE COUNTY AMARGOSA 33,607,905 8,401,976 - - 8,401,976 - BEATTY 19,652,045 4,913,011 - - 4,913,011 - GABBS 11,593,243 2,898,311 - 292,267 2,606,044 - MANHATTAN 4,058,379 1,014,595 - 272,792 741,803 - PAHRUMP 1,165,525,634 291,381,409 - - 291,381,409 - ROUND MOUNTAIN 290,495,145 72,623,786 - - 72,623,786 - TONOPAH 231,521,759 57,880,440 - - 57,880,440 -

PERSHING COUNTY IMLAY 2,684,923 671,231 - - 671,231 -

WHITE PINE COUNTY LUND 2,607,496 651,874 - - 651,874 - MCGILL 9,368,887 2,342,222 - 59,153 2,283,069 - RUTH 3,768,483 942,121 - 22,541 919,580 -

TOTAL 44,209,774,319 11,052,443,580 - 6,389,943 11,046,053,637 -

FOOTNOTES: (*) NRS 269.425 TOWN'S DEBT LIMIT.No town shall ever become indebted for any town improvements under the provisions of NRS 269.405 to 269.470, inclusive, or otherwise, by the issuance of such general obligation bonds and other general obligation securities (other than any notes or warrants maturing within 1 year from the respective dates of their issuance), but excluding any outstanding revenue bonds, special assessment bonds, or other special obligation securities, excluding any such outstanding general obligation notes and warrants, and excluding any indebtedness not evidenced by bonds, or other securities, exceeding 25% of the total last assessed valuation of the taxable property in the town.

A-5

GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS



CARSON CITY NO DISTRICTS

CHURCHILL COUNTY CHURCHILL MOSQUITO & WEED ABATEMENT GID 840,079,069 420,039,535 - 54,296 419,985,239 -

CLARK COUNTY BIG BEND WATER DISTRICT 455,162,193 227,581,097 - 2,703,460 224,877,637 - CLARK CO. WATER RECLAMATION 44,578,818,601 22,289,409,301 - 435,097,748 N/A - KYLE CANYON WATER 34,573,686 17,286,843 - - 17,286,843 - MOAPA VALLEY TV N/A N/A - - N/A -

DOUGLAS COUNTY CAVE ROCK ESTATES GID 24,849,002 12,424,501 - - 12,424,501 - DOUGLAS CO. MOSQUITO ABATEMENT 1,842,263,110 921,131,555 - - 921,131,555 - EAST FORK SWIMMING POOL 1,910,271,713 955,135,857 - - 955,135,857 - ELK POINT SANITATION 39,235,478 19,617,739 - - 19,617,739 - GARDNERVILLE RANCHOS GID 254,747,890 127,373,945 - - 127,373,945 - INDIAN HILLS GID 125,037,709 62,518,855 - 1,881,060 60,637,795 - KINGSBURY GID 244,886,107 122,443,054 - 19,052,626 103,390,428 345,904 LAKERIDGE GID 26,547,092 13,273,546 - - 13,273,546 - LOGAN CREEK GID 6,944,406 3,472,203 - - 3,472,203 - MARLA BAY GID 38,892,317 19,446,159 - - 19,446,159 - MINDEN/GARDNERVILLE SANITATION 362,300,662 181,150,331 - - 181,150,331 - OLIVER PARK GID 9,950,837 4,975,419 - - 4,975,419 - ROUND HILL GID 111,764,437 55,882,219 - 896,728 54,985,491 - SIERRA ESTATES GID 4,571,041 2,285,521 - 124,667 2,160,854 - SKYLAND GID 81,708,524 40,854,262 - - 40,854,262 - TAHOE DOUGLAS DISTRICT 611,850,074 305,925,037 - - 305,925,037 - TOPAZ RANCH ESTATES GID 28,590,385 14,295,193 - 353,315 13,941,878 - ZEPHYR COVE GID 23,653,270 11,826,635 - - 11,826,635 - ZEPHYR HEIGHTS GID 40,178,604 20,089,302 - - 20,089,302 - ZEPHYR KNOLLS GID 8,896,173 4,448,087 - - 4,448,087 -

ELKO COUNTY ELKO TELEVISION 1,284,247,734 642,123,867 - - 642,123,867 - STARR VALLEY CEMETERY 6,482,451 3,241,226 - - 3,241,226 - TUSCARORA WATER N/A N/A - - N/A - WEST WENDOVER RECREATION 140,812,597 70,406,299 - 1,805,000 68,601,299 -

ESMERALDA COUNTY NO DISTRICTS

EUREKA COUNTY DEVIL'S GATE GID 3,277,206 1,638,603 - - 1,638,603 - DIAMOND VALLEY RODENT CONTROL 21,757,098 10,878,549 - - 10,878,549 - DIAMOND VALLEY WEED CONTROL 21,757,098 10,878,549 - - 10,878,549 - EUREKA TELEVISION 1,407,180,192 703,590,096 - - 703,590,096 -

A-6




HUMBOLDT COUNTY DENIO TELEVISION N/A N/A - - N/A - GOLCONDA WATER N/A N/A - - N/A - KINGS RIVER GID 6,123,370 3,061,685 - - 3,061,685 - MCDERMITT GID N/A N/A - - N/A - OROVADA COMMUNITY SERVICES 36,607,715 18,303,858 - - 18,303,858 - OROVADA RODENT CONTROL N/A N/A - - N/A - OROVADA WATER GID N/A N/A - - N/A - PARADISE VALLEY SEWER N/A N/A - - N/A - PARADISE WEED CONTROL N/A N/A - - N/A - QUINN RIVER TELEVISION N/A N/A - - N/A -

LANDER COUNTY LANDER CO. GID #1 N/A N/A - - N/A - LANDER CO. SEWER/WATER #2 4,682,036 2,341,018 - - 2,341,018 -

LINCOLN COUNTY ALAMO POWER #3 N/A N/A - - N/A - ALAMO SEWER/WATER N/A N/A - - N/A - COYOTE SPRINGS GID 10,121,494 5,060,747 - - 5,060,747 - LINCOLN CO. TELEVISION N/A N/A - - N/A - SE LINCOLN CO HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN 8,057,519 4,028,760 - - 4,028,760 -

LYON COUNTY CENTRAL LYON VECTOR CONTROL 768,488,072 384,244,036 - - 384,244,036 - FERNLEY SWIMMING POOL 734,479,311 367,239,656 - - 367,239,656 - MASON VALLEY MOSQUITO 210,549,904 105,274,952 - - 105,274,952 - MASON VALLEY SWIMMING POOL 207,782,981 103,891,491 - - 103,891,491 - SILVER SPRINGS GID 29,659,731 14,829,866 - - 14,829,866 - STAGECOACH GID 22,550,351 11,275,176 - - 11,275,176 - WALKER RIVER WEED 51,166,423 25,583,212 - - 25,583,212 - WILLOWCREEK GID 4,249,693 2,124,847 - - 2,124,847 -

MINERAL COUNTY MINERAL CO. TELEVISION 191,445,849 95,722,925 - - 95,722,925 - WALKER LAKE GID 7,016,838 3,508,419 - - 3,508,419 -

NYE COUNTY BEATTY GID 14,709,680 7,354,840 - - 7,354,840 - BEATTY WATER & SANITATION 12,430,613 6,215,307 - - 6,215,307 - PAHRUMP SWIMMING POOL 1,165,525,634 582,762,817 - - 582,762,817 -

PERSHING COUNTY LOVELOCK MEADOWS WATER N/A N/A - - N/A - LOVELOCK VALLEY WEED N/A N/A - - N/A - PERSHING CO. TELEVISION N/A N/A - - N/A -

STOREY COUNTY CANYON GID 20,295,128 10,147,564 - - 10,147,564 - TAHOE-RENO INDUSTRIAL GID 601,389,228 300,694,614 - - 300,694,614 - VIRGINIA DIVIDE SEWER 31,277,371 15,638,686 - - 15,638,686 -

A-7




WASHOE COUNTY GERLACH GID 4,455,741 2,227,871 - - 2,227,871 - GRANDVIEW TERRACE GID 2,483,121 1,241,561 - - 1,241,561 - INCLINE VILLAGE GID 1,666,387,475 833,193,738 - 4,962,361 828,231,377 - PALOMINO VALLEY GID 68,778,667 34,389,334 - - 34,389,334 - SUN VALLEY GID 242,480,786 121,240,393 - 5,911,702 115,328,691 - VERDI TELEVISION 703,970,264 351,985,132 - - 351,985,132 -

WHITE PINE COUNTY BAKER WATER/SEWER GID N/A N/A - - N/A - MCGILL/RUTH SEWER-WATER GID N/A N/A - - N/A - WHITE PINE TELEVISION N/A N/A - - N/A -

TOTAL 61,418,451,751 30,709,225,876 - 472,842,963 8,382,071,360 345,904

LIBRARY DISTRICTS



CLARK COUNTY BOULDER CITY LIBRARY 719,365,019 71,936,502 335,000 - 71,601,502 - HENDERSON DISTRICT PUBLIC LIBRARIES 12,877,563,596 1,287,756,360 - - 1,287,756,360 - LAS VEGAS/CLARK CO. LIBRARY 63,598,612,187 6,359,861,219 - - 6,359,861,219 - NORTH LAS VEGAS LIBRARY 7,095,387,288 709,538,729 - 455,000 709,083,729 -

NYE COUNTY AMARGOSA LIBRARY 39,450,748 3,945,075 - - 3,945,075 - BEATTY LIBRARY 26,197,348 2,619,735 - - 2,619,735 - PAHRUMP LIBRARY 1,165,525,634 116,552,563 - - 116,552,563 - SMOKY VALLEY LIBRARY 314,915,594 31,491,559 - - 31,491,559 - TONOPAH LIBRARY 241,922,379 24,192,238 - - 24,192,238 -

TOTAL 86,078,939,793 8,607,893,979 335,000 455,000 8,607,103,979 -

FOOTNOTES: (*) NRS 318.277 DEBT LIMIT OF DISTRICT. A district may borrow money and incur or assume indebtedness therefore, as provided in this chapter, so long as the total of all such indebtedness (but excluding revenue bonds, assessment bonds, and other securities constituting special obligations which are not debts) does not exceed an amount equal to 50% of the total of the last assessed valuation of the taxable property (excluding motor vehicles) situated within such districts.

FOOTNOTES: (*) NRS 379.0225 ISSUANCE OF BONDS BY CONSOLIDATED OR COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT.1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the trustees of a consolidated or county library district may propose the issuance of general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed 10% of the total last assessed valuation of the taxable property of the district for the purpose of acquiring, constructing or improving buildings and other real property to be used for library purposes or for purchasing books, materials or equipment for newly constructed libraries.2. Any bond issued for purchasing books, materials or equipment for newly constructed libraries must be redeemed within 5 years after its issuance.

A-8

HOSPITAL DISTRICTS



HUMBOLDT COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 1,326,732,085 132,673,209 - - 132,673,209 -

LANDER COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 1,881,047,549 188,104,755 - - 188,104,755 -

LINCOLN COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 281,018,607 28,101,861 - 84,474 28,017,387 -

MINERAL COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 191,445,849 19,144,585 - 86,337 19,058,248 -

NO. NYE COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 665,349,424 66,534,942 - - 66,534,942 -

PERSHING COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 338,541,572 33,854,157 - - 33,854,157 -

SILVER SPRINGS/STAGECOACH HOSPITAL DISTRICT 165,174,361 16,517,436 - - 16,517,436 -

SOUTH LYON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 325,032,642 32,503,264 - - 32,503,264 -

WHITE PINE COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 607,488,375 60,748,838 - 62,831 60,686,007 -

TOTAL 5,781,830,464 578,183,046 - 233,642 577,949,404 -

FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTS


2018-2019 DEBT LIMIT GENERAL GENERAL LEGAL UNSOLD GENERALENTITY ASSESSED VALUE OBLIGATION BONDS OBLIGATION DEBT DEBT MARGIN OBLIGATION BONDS

CLARK CO REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL 84,428,728,091 N/A - 703,310,000 N/A -

SEWER DISTRICTS



DOUGLAS COUNTY LAKE TAHOE SEWER AUTHORITY 149,849,171 5,000 - - 5,000 -

FOOTNOTES: (*) NRS 450.665 POWERS OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES: BORROWING OF MONEY AND INCURRENCE OR ASSUMPTION OF INDEBTEDNESS; LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS.1. The board of trustees may borrow money and incur or assume indebtedness on behalf of the county hospital district if the total of all indebtedness, excluding revenue bonds and other securities constituting special obligations which are not debts, does not exceed an amount equal to 10% of the total of the last assessed valuation of taxable property, excluding motor vehicles, located within the district.2. The board of trustees shall not borrow money or issue securities to evidence such borrowing until the board has obtained the approval of the:(a) County Debt Management Commission; and(b) Board of County Commissioners of the county in which the Hospital District is located.

FOOTNOTES: CREATED UNDER NRS 543.690. FORMS OF BORROWING, APPLICABILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SECURITIES LAW.Subject to the provisions of subsection 1, the board of directors of a district or the board of county commissioners may, on the behalf and in the name of the district or the county, as the case may be, issue the securities, and in connection with any undertaking or facilities authorized in NRS 543.170 to 543.830, inclusive, may otherwise proceed as provided in the Local Government Securities Law. The payment of general obligation securities issued pursuant to subsection 1 may be additionally secured by a pledge of any revenue from a tax imposed pursuant to NRS 543.600 on retail sales and the storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property in the county.

FOOTNOTES: NRS 309.160 POWER TO INCUR DEBTS AND LIABILITIES: LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS.The board of directors may at any time incur an indebtedness not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of $5,000, nor in any event to exceed $1 per acre.

A-9

AIRPORT AUTHORITIES



CARSON CITY AIRPORT AUTHORITY 1,568,475,621 N/A - - N/A -

RENO-TAHOE AIRPORT AUTHORITY 16,885,072,798 N/A - - N/A -

CONVENTION CENTERS


2018-2019 DEBT LIMIT GENERAL GENERAL LEGAL UNSOLD GENERALENTITY ASSESSED VALUE (10% OF A.V.)* OBLIGATION BONDS OBLIGATION DEBT DEBT MARGIN OBLIGATION BONDS

ELKO CONVENTION & VISITORS AUTHORITY 1,491,787,372 149,178,737 - - 149,178,737 -

FOOTNOTES: NRS 496.155 GENERAL PROVISIONS: ISSUANCE OF MUNICIPAL SECURITIES PURSUANT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT SECURITIES LAW; ENTRY INTO CONTRACTS OF PURCHASE AND MEDIUM TERM OBLIGATIONS.1. Subject to the provisions of NRS 496.150 and subsections 2 and 3 of this section, for any undertaking authorized in NRS 496.150, the governing body of a municipality, as it determines from time to time, may, on the behalf and in the name of the municipality, borrow money, otherwise become obligated, and evidence the obligations by the issuance of bonds and other municipal securities, and in connection with the undertaking or the municipal airport, including, without limitation, air navigation facilities and other facilities appertaining to the airport, the governing body may otherwise proceed as provided in the Local Government Securities Law or as provided in subsections 4 and 5.2. General obligation bonds, whether or not their payment is additionally secured by a pledge of net revenues, must be sold as provided in the Local Government Securities Law.3. Revenue bonds may be sold at a public sale as provided in the Local Government Securities Law or at a private sale.

NRS 350.013(5) The provisions of this do not apply to Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority so long as the Authority does not have any general obligationbonds outstanding and does not issue or propose to issue any such bonds.

FOOTNOTES: (*) NRS: SPECIAL AND LOCAL ACTS, CHAPTER 227, STATUTES OF NEVADA 1975Sec 3.1. The Authority shall not incur an indebtedness in excess of 10 percent of the total assessed valuation of the taxable property within the boundaries of the Authority, as shown by the last preceding assessment.

A-10

FAIR AND RECREATION BOARDSOUTSTANDING

OUTSTANDING OTHER AUTHORIZED BUT2018-2019 DEBT LIMIT GENERAL GENERAL LEGAL UNSOLD GENERAL

ENTITY ASSESSED VALUE (3% OF A. V.) * OBLIGATION BONDS OBLIGATION DEBT DEBT MARGIN OBLIGATION BONDS

CARSON CITY CONVENTION AND VISITORS' BUREAU 1,568,475,621 47,054,269 - - 47,054,269 -

ELKO COUNTY RECREATION BOARD 644,334,034 19,330,021 - - 19,330,021 -

LANDER CO. CONVENTION & TOURISM AUTHORITY 1,881,047,549 56,431,426 - - 56,431,426 -

LAS VEGAS CONVENTION & VISITORS AUTHORITY (#) 84,428,728,091 4,221,436,405 - 765,965,000 3,455,471,405 200,000,000

MINERAL CO. FAIR & RECREATION BOARD 191,445,849 5,743,375 - - 5,743,375 -

RENO/SPARKS CONVENTION & VISITORS AUTHORITY 16,886,587,798 506,597,634 - 91,135,149 415,462,485 -

TAHOE-DOUGLAS VISITORS AUTHORITY 3,076,916,940 92,307,508 - - 92,307,508 -

WHITE PINE CO. TOURISM & RECREATION BOARD 250,565,101 7,516,953 - - 7,516,953 -

WINNEMUCCA CONVENTION & VISITORS AUTHORITY N/A N/A - - N/A - TOTAL 108,928,100,983 4,956,417,591 - 857,100,149 4,099,317,442 200,000,000

FIRE DISTRICTS - ELECTIONOUTSTANDING


ENTITY ASSESSED VALUE (5% OF A.V.) * OBLIGATION BONDS OBLIGATION DEBT DEBT MARGIN OBLIGATION BONDS

DOUGLAS COUNTY TAHOE DOUGLAS FIRE 1,165,899,229 58,294,961 - - 58,294,961 -

HUMBOLDT COUNTY WINNEMUCCA RURAL FIRE 103,128,441 5,156,422 - - 5,156,422 -

LINCOLN COUNTY PAHRANAGAT VALLEY FIRE 27,567,714 1,378,386 - - 1,378,386 - PIOCHE FIRE 19,361,633 968,082 - - 968,082 -

LYON COUNTY MASON VALLEY FIRE 141,287,100 7,064,355 - 33,406 7,030,949 - NORTH LYON CO. FIRE 736,254,206 36,812,710 - - 36,812,710 - SMITH VALLEY FIRE 84,574,227 4,228,711 - - 4,228,711 -

WASHOE COUNTY NORTH LAKE TAHOE FIRE 1,667,082,216 83,354,111 - 2,361,000 80,993,111 -

TOTAL 3,945,154,766 197,257,738 - 2,394,406 194,863,332 -

FOOTNOTES: (#) NRS 244A.653 DEBT LIMIT OF COUNTY WHOSE POPULATION IS 700,000 OR MORE.A county whose population is 700,000 or more shall not become indebted for those county recreational purposes under the provisions of NRS 244A.597 to 244A.655 inclusive, by the issuance of general obligation bonds and other general obligation securities, other than any notes or warrants maturing within 1 year from the respective dates of their issuance, but excluding any outstanding revenue bonds, special assessment bonds or other special obligation securities, and excluding any outstanding general obligation notes and warrants, exceeding 5% of the total last assessed valuation of the taxable property in the county. A county whose population is 700,000 or more shall not become indebted in an amount exceeding 10% of that valuation by the issuance of any general obligation securities, other than any such notes or warrants, but excluding any outstanding special securities and excluding any outstanding general obligation notes and warrants.(**) NRS 244A.655 DEBT LIMIT OF COUNTY WHOSE POPULATION IS LESS THAN 700,000.A county whose population is less than 700,000 shall not become indebted for those county recreational purposes under the provisions of NRS 244A.597 to 244A.655, inclusive, by the issuance of general obligation bonds and other general obligation securities, other than any notes or warrants maturing within 1 year from the respective dates of their issuance, but excluding any outstanding revenue bonds, special assessment bonds or other special obligation securities, and excluding any outstanding general obligation notes and warrants, exceeding 3% of the total last assessed valuation of taxable property in the county. A county whose population is less than 700,000 shall not become indebted in an amount exceeding 10% of that valuation by the issuance of any general obligation securities, other than any such notes or warrants, but excluding any outstanding special securities and excluding any oustanding general obligation notes and warrants.

FOOTNOTES: (*) NRS 474.220 COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS - AUTHORITY TO BORROW MONEY BY ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NEGOTIABLE BONDS; PURPOSES; LIMITATION ON AMOUNT.1. The board of directors of any county fire protection district formed under the provisions of NRS 474.010 to 474.450 inclusive, may prepare, issue, and sell bonds to provide money for the purchase of fire fighting equipment, the acquisition of property, the construction of buildings and improvements of district owned property for use in that county fire protection district. 2. The provisions of NRS 474.514 apply to a county fire protection district specified in subsection 1. (NRS A 2001,362)NRS 474.514 LIMIT ON INDEBTEDNESS. No indebtedness, as defined in NRS 350.586, including outstanding indebtedness, shall be incurred by any district organized pursuant to NRS 474.460 in an aggregate principal amount exceeding 5 percent of the total last assessed valuation of taxable property (excluding motor vehicles and cattle) situated within the district.

A-11

FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTSOUTSTANDING


ENTITY ASSESSED VALUE (5% OF A. V.) * OBLIGATION BONDS OBLIGATION DEBT DEBT MARGIN OBLIGATION BONDS

CLARK COUNTY CLARK COUNTY FIRE SERVICE 42,861,253,965 2,143,062,698 - - 2,143,062,698 - MOAPA VALLEY FIRE 187,849,311 9,392,466 - - 9,392,466 -

DOUGLAS COUNTY EAST FORK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1,911,111,464 95,555,573 - 1,173,000 94,382,573 1,000,000

ELKO COUNTY NORTHEAST NEVADA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 644,334,034 32,216,702 - - 32,216,702 -

HUMBOLDT COUNTY GOLCONDA FIRE 1,004,385,526 50,219,276 - - 50,219,276 - HUMBOLDT FIRE 332,245,112 16,612,256 - - 16,612,256 - MCDERMITT FIRE 4,482,738 224,137 - - 224,137 - OROVADA FIRE 36,607,715 1,830,386 - - 1,830,386 - PARADISE FIRE 46,296,331 2,314,817 - - 2,314,817 - PUEBLO FIRE 31,101,378 1,555,069 - - 1,555,069 -

LINCOLN COUNTY LINCOLN COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 32,354,928 1,617,746 - - 1,617,746 - PANACA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 10,121,494 506,075 - 15,559 490,516 -

LYON COUNTY CENTRAL LYON FIRE 781,919,660 39,095,983 - 988,556 38,107,427 -

STOREY COUNTY STOREY COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 892,921,142 44,646,057 - - 44,646,057 -

WASHOE COUNTY TRUCKEE MEADOWS FIRE 4,036,892,458 201,844,623 - - 201,844,623 -

WHITE PINE COUNTY WHITE PINE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 417,405,869 20,870,293 - - 20,870,293 -

TOTAL 53,231,283,125 2,661,564,156 - 2,177,115 2,659,387,041 1,000,000

MULTICOUNTY DISTRICTSOUTSTANDING


ENTITY ASSESSED VALUE OBLIGATION BONDS OBLIGATION DEBT DEBT MARGIN OBLIGATION BONDS

MULTICOUNTY-WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT CARSON WATER SUBCONSERVANCY DISTRICT 5,072,263,071 N/A - - N/A - CARSON/TRUCKEE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT 24,454,849,135 N/A - - N/A - MULTICOUNTY SPECIAL NV COMMISSION - V & T RAILWAY 1,568,475,621 N/A - - N/A -

FOOTNOTES: (*) NRS 474.514 COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS-LIMIT ON INDEBTEDNESS. No indebtedness, as defined in NRS 350.586, including outstanding indebtedness, shall be incurred by any district organized pursuant to NRS 474.460 in an aggregate principal amount exceeding 5 percent of the total last assessed valuation of taxable property (excluding motor vehicles and cattle) situated within the district.

FOOTNOTES: MULTI-COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICTSNRS 541.340 (1) ACQUISITION OF WORKS, PROCEDURE FOR CREATION OF INDEBTEDNESS; ELECTIONS.Whenever the board of a district incorporated under this chapter, by resolution adopted by a majority of the board, determines that the interests of the district and the public interest or necessity demand the acquisition, construction or completion of any source of water supply, waterworks, or other improvements, or facility, or the making of any contract with the United States, the State of Nevada, or other persons to carry out the objects or purposes of the district, wherein the indebtedness or obligations required will be a greater expenditure than the ordinary annual income and revenue of the district permits, the board shall order the submission of the proposition of issuing such obligations or indebtedness, for the purpose set forth in the resolution, to such qualified electors of the district as have paid a tax on property in the district in the year preceding the election, at a special election or the next primary or general election. In the order submitting such propositions to the electors the board shall if it is proposed that the indebtedness be secured by pledge of any revenues of the district, so state, and and shall designate the revenue to be so pledged. Carson City, Churchill, Douglas and Lyon Counties are included in the Carson Water Subconservancy; Carson City, Churchill, Douglas, Lyon, Storey and Washoe Counties are included in the Carson/Truckee Water Conservancy.NEVADA COMMISSION FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE V & T RAILWAYNRS 566, SPECIAL AND LOCAL ACTS, SECTION 9(2)Upon final determination and allocation of the costs by agreement of the governing bodies, each governing body shall include its portion of the costs in its budget for the purposes of chapter 354 of NRS and shall fund its share of the cost by issuing bonds pursuant to chapter 350 of NRS. Carson City, Douglas, Lyon, Storey and Washoe Counties are included in the Nevada Commission for Reconstruction of the V & T Railway.MULTICOUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTSNRS 473.060 AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE NEGOTIABLE BONDS; PURPOSE; LIMITATION ON AMOUNT.The board of directors may prepare, issue and sell negotiable coupon bonds not exceeding $50,000 in amount, exclusive of interest, for the purpose of providing money for the purchase of fire-fighting equipment and other necessary facilities for the use in the respective fire protection districts eligible for federal aid. Carson City and Douglas County are included in the Sierra Forest Fire Protection District.

A-12

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES



80,709,787 N/A - 530,000 N/A -

39,593,038 N/A - - N/A - 591,387,828 N/A - - N/A - 873,430,795 N/A - - N/A -

1,274,337,568 N/A - - N/A - 145,280,875 N/A - - N/A -

80,098,379 N/A - - N/A -

51,383,789 N/A - - N/A -

13,705,955 N/A - - N/A -

106,543,855 N/A - - N/A - 82,270,775 N/A - - N/A -

113,456,316 N/A - - N/A - 114,221,595 N/A - - N/A -

3,126,710 N/A - - N/A -

TOTAL 3,569,547,265 N/A - 530,000 N/A -

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONS



84,428,728,091 N/A - - N/A -

16,886,587,798 N/A - - N/A -

LINCOLN COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION * N/A N/A - - N/A -

TOTAL 101,315,315,889 N/A - - N/A -

CARSON CITY REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

BOULDER CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

RENO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY #2SPARKS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY #1 SPARKS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY #2

ELY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

CLARK COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCYHENDERSON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCYLAS VEGAS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCYMESQUITE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF WASHOE COUNTY

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA

NORTH LAS VEGAS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

DOUGLAS COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

CITY OF ELKO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

RENO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY #1

FOOTNOTES: NRS 279.638(2) LIMITATION OF INDEBTEDNESS.Unless the full faith and credit of a community is pledged, the bonds and other obligations of any agency are not a debt of the community, the state or any of its political subdivisions and neither the community, the state nor any of its political subdivisions is liable on them, nor in any event shall the bonds or obligations be payable out of any funds or properties other than those of the agency; and such bonds and other obligations shall so state on their face. Unless the full faith and credit of a community is pledged, the bonds do not constitute an indebtedness within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitations or restrictions.

FOOTNOTES: NRS 377A.080 Creation and authority of Regional Transportation Commission(Section 3) The commision may draw money out of the public transit fund only for: (d) The payment of principal and interest on notes, bonds of other securities issued to provide money for the cost of projects described in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c); or (d) Any combination of those purposes. RTC of Washoe County has one Medium Term Obligation that limits their total outstanding debt to a maximum amount of $8 million. Typically RTC of Washoe County issues an amount less than 8 million and typically pays it off in the same fiscal year. (*) NRS 373 Creation and authority of Regional Transportation Commission

A-13

SPECIAL AND LOCAL ACTS



CLARK COUNTY LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT N/A N/A - 797,943,969 N/A - MOAPA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 184,796,968 N/A - 5,353,972 N/A - SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY N/A N/A - 2,826,477,877 N/A - STADIUM AUTHORITY N/A 750,000,000 - 644,075,000 N/A - VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 809,233,777 N/A - 15,658,040 N/A -

ELKO COUNTY CENTRAL DISPATCH ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY N/A N/A - - N/A -

LINCOLN COUNTY LINCOLN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT N/A N/A - - N/A -

NYE COUNTY NYE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT N/A N/A - - N/A -

WASHOE COUNTY TRUCKEE MEADOWS WATER AUTHORITY N/A N/A - - N/A - WESTERN REGIONAL WATER COMMISSION N/A N/A - - N/A -

TOTAL 994,030,745 N/A - 4,289,508,858 - -

FOOTNOTES:CLEAN WATER COALITION - NRS 277.080 to 277.180, inclusive. The Clean Water Coalition (CWC) is an entity created in 2002 by a cooperative agreement among the City of Henderson, the City of Las Vegas, the City of North Las Vegas and the Clark County Water Reclamation District. CWC was created by the members which share a common environmental, economic and regulatory interest in the efficient and responsible collection, treatment, reuse and discharge of municipal effluent. Coalition was disssolved effective March 19, 2013.

LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT - NRS 167 SPECIAL AND LOCAL ACTS , 1947, SECTION 15 LIMITATION ON INCURRING DEBT OR LIABILITY. The board of directors, or other officers of the district, shall have no power to incur any debt or liability whatever, either by issuing bonds or otherwise, in excess of the provisions of this act, and any debt or liability incurred in excess of such express provisions shall be and remain absolutely void. Outstanding debt for LVVWD reported above. Debt issued on behalf of SNWA is reported under that entity.

MOAPA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT - NRS 477, SPECIAL AND LOCAL ACTS, 1983, SECTION 3. An election must be held before incurring a general obligation.

SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY - NRS 277.080 to 277.180, inclusive. The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) is an entity created in 1991 by a cooperative agreement among the Big Bend Water District, the City of Boulder City the City of Henderson, the City of Las Vegas, the City of North Las Vegas, the Clark County Water Reclamation District and the Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD). SNWA was created to secure additional supplies of water for southern Nevada and to effectively manage existing supplies of water through the cooperative action of its member agencies. In 1997 session, the Nevada Legislature authorized SNWA to sell bonds directly. Previously, any debt was issued by LVVWD on behalf or SNWA. The principal source of revenues for the repayment of SNWA's outstanding debt is wholesale delivery charges.

STADIUM AUTHORITY - SB1 as approved by the 30th Special Session 2016 of the Nevada State Legislature, signed by the Governor on October 17, 2016, provided for the creation of a stadium Capital Project Fund, established for the purpose of accounting for the capital expenditures associated with the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of a National Football League. The fund's primary revenue source is the proceeds of long-term debt as authorized by SB1. In addition, transient lodging tax collections making up the difference between the procceeds of long term debt and the $750 million limit of the public contribution to stadium construction were transferred in from the Stadium Authority's operating fund. The project isa 65,000-seat domed stadium that will be the home field of the National Football League's Raiders franchise and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) football team. The total estimated project cost is $1.8 billion, with the Stadium Authority's contribution being $750 million. Construction began in November 2017 and is estimated to be completed by July 2020. Upon completion, the stadium and land will be publicly owned by the Clark County Stadium Authority.

VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT - NRS 100, SPECIAL AND LOCAL ACTS, 1993, SECTION 3. An election must be held before incurring a general obligation.

CENTRAL DISPATCH ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY - NRS 277.080 to 277.180, inclusive. The Central Dispatch Administrative Authority (CDAA) is an entity created in 1993 by a cooperative agreement among Elko County, the City of Carlin, the City of Elko and the City of Wells. CDAA was created for the purpose of organizing and administering a central dispatch system that serves the law enforcement and public safety needs of the member entities.

LINCOLN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - NRS 474, SPECIAL AND LOCAL ACTS, 2003, SECTION 11 (5). The District, created in 2003, has the power to incur indebtedness pursuant to NRS 271, issue bonds and provide for medium-term obligations pursuant to NRS 350 for projects as stated in this section. For purposes of NRS 350.572, sections 6-16, inclusive, of this act do not expressly or impliedly require an election before the issuance of a security or indebtedness pursuant to NRS 350.500 to 350.720, inclusive, if the obligation is payable solely from pledged revenues, but an election must be held before incurring a general obligation.

NYE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - NRS 542, SPECIAL AND LOCAL ACTS, 2007, SECTION 8. The District, created in 2011, has the power to incur indebtedness pursuant to NRS 271 and NRS 318 and to issue bonds and provide for medium-term obligations pursuant to NRS 350 for projects as stated in this section. For purposes of NRS 350.572, sections 1-12, inclusive, of this act do not expressly or impliedly require an election before the issuance of a security or indebtedness pursuant to NRS350.500 to 350.720, inclusive, if the obligation is payable solely from pledged revenues, but an election must be held before incurring a general obligation.

TRUCKEE MEADOWS WATER AUTHORITY - NRS 277.080 to 277.180, inclusive. The Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA) is an entity created in 2001 by a cooperative agreement among Washoe County, the City Reno and the City of Sparks. TMWA was created to secure additional supplies of water for the Truckee Meadows and to effectively manage existing supplies of water through the cooperative action of its member agencies.

WESTERN REGIONAL WATER COMMISSION - Created by SB 487, 2007 session. The Commission will provide advise and assistance relating to regional management and conservation of water resources in certain portions of Washoe County.

A-14

OVERLAPPING DEBT

GENERAL GENERAL PERCENT INTERIM PERCENTOBLIGATION/ OBLIGATION/ DEBT LIMIT FEDERAL AND OTHER PERCENT

GENERAL REVENUE SPECIAL MEDIUM-TERM DEBT TO REVENUE SPECIAL PROGRAM OTHER DEBT TOTAL DEBTENTITY OBLIGATION SUPPORTED ASSESSMENTS FINANCING A. V . BONDS ASSESSMENTS LOANS DEBT TO A. V. TOTAL TO A. V.

CARSON CITY COUNTY/CITY - 176,698,233 - 9,409,938 11.87% 13,148,000 - - - 0.84% 199,256,171 12.70% SCHOOLS 52,503,000 - - - 3.35% - - - 5,059,000 0.32% 57,562,000 3.67% CARSON AIRPORT AUTH. - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% CARSON CONVENTION AUTH. - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% CARSON REDEVELOPMENT - 530,000 - - 0.66% - - - - 0.00% 530,000 0.66%

TOTAL 52,503,000 177,228,233 - 9,409,938 15.25% 13,148,000 - - 5,059,000 1.16% 257,348,171 16.41%

CHURCHILL COUNTY COUNTY - 14,550,298 - - 1.73% - - - 691,127 0.08% 15,241,425 1.81% SCHOOLS 32,147,000 - - 808,100 3.92% - - - - 0.00% 32,955,100 3.92% FALLON - 8,060,377 - 923,517 4.36% 6,234,000 - - 546,255 3.29% 15,764,149 7.65% CHURCHILL MOSQUITO & WEED - - - 54,296 0.01% - - - - 0.00% 54,296 0.01%

TOTAL 32,147,000 22,610,675.00 - 1,785,913 6.73% 6,234,000 - - 1,237,382 0.89% 64,014,970 7.62%

CLARK COUNTY COUNTY - 1,663,883,000 63,370,000 5,400,000 2.05% 3,675,680,000 65,366,879 - 2,862,205 4.43% 5,476,562,084 6.49% SCHOOLS 2,039,725,000 516,010,000 - 134,620,000 3.19% - - - - 0.00% 2,690,355,000 3.19% BOULDER CITY - - - - 0.00% 24,955,000 - - - 3.47% 24,955,000 3.47% HENDERSON 4,415,000 155,683,842 - 12,429,931 1.34% 960,703 - - - 0.01% 173,489,476 1.35% LAS VEGAS - 427,885,000 - 96,793,812 2.86% 21,194,125 2,900,132 - 180,262,302 1.11% 729,035,371 3.98% MESQUITE - 13,080,187 - - 1.65% - 9,840,000 - - 0.00% 22,920,187 2.90% NORTH LAS VEGAS - 420,453,433 - 5,085,000 5.98% - - - - 0.00% 425,538,433 5.98% BUNKERVILLE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% ENTERPRISE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% INDIAN SPRINGS - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% LAUGHLIN - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MOAPA - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MOAPA VALLEY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MT CHARLESTON - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% PARADISE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% SEARCHLIGHT - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% SPRING VALLEY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% SUMMERLIN - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% SUNRISE MANOR - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% WHITNEY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% WINCHESTER - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% BIG BEND WATER - 2,703,460 - - 0.59% - - - - 0.00% 2,703,460 0.59% BOULDER CITY LIBRARY 335,000 - - - 0.05% - - - - 0.00% 335,000 0.05% BLDR CITY REDEVELOPMENT - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% CLARK CO. FLOOD CONTROL - 703,310,000 - - 0.83% - - - - 0.00% 703,310,000 0.83% CLARK CO. FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% CLARK CO. REDEVELOPMENT - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A CLARK CO. STADIUM AUTHORITY - 644,075,000 - - N/A - - - - N/A 644,075,000 N/A CLARK CO. WTR RECLAMATION - 435,097,748 - - 0.98% - - - - 0.00% 435,097,748 0.98% HENDERSON DIST LIBRARIES - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% HENDERSON REDEVELOPMENT - - - - 0.00% 8,670,000 - - 969,983 1.10% 9,639,983 1.10% KYLE CANYON WATER - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% LAS VEGAS/CLARK LIBRARY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% LAS VEGAS CONVENTION - 765,965,000 - - 0.91% 784,570,000 - - - 0.93% 1,550,535,000 1.84% LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% LAS VEGAS REDEVELOPMENT - - - - 0.00% - - - 115,497,754 9.06% 115,497,754 9.06% LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER * - 797,943,969 - - N/A - - - - N/A 797,943,969 N/A

PART BOVERLAPPING DEBT

B-1




CLARK COUNTY MESQUITE REDEVELOPMENT - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MOAPA VALLEY FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MOAPA VALLEY WATER - 5,353,972 - - 2.90% - - - - 0.00% 5,353,972 2.90% MOAPA VALLEY TELEVISION - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A N LAS VEGAS LIBRARY - - - 455,000 0.01% - - - - 0.00% 455,000 0.01% N LAS VEGAS REDEVELOPMENT - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% REGIONAL TRANS. COMMISSION - - - - 0.00% 749,490,000 - - - 0.89% 749,490,000 0.89% SO NV WATER AUTHORITY * - 2,826,477,877 - - N/A - - - 400,000,000 N/A 3,226,477,877 N/A OVERTON POWER NO. 5 - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A VIRGIN VALLEY WATER - 12,693,040 - 2,965,000 N/A 1,793,000 - - - 0.22% 17,451,040 N/A

TOTAL 2,044,475,000 9,390,615,528 63,370,000 257,748,743 13.92% 5,267,312,828 78,107,011 - 699,592,244 7.16% 17,801,221,354 21.08%

DOUGLAS COUNTY COUNTY - 19,454,628 - 4,456,654 0.78% 11,706,000 - - - 0.38% 35,617,282 1.16% SCHOOLS 47,167,000 - - 2,281,000 1.61% - - - - 0.00% 49,448,000 1.61% GARDNERVILLE - - - - 0.00% - - - 0.00% - 0.00% GENOA - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MINDEN - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% CAVE ROCK ESTATES GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% DOUGLAS CO. MOSQUITO - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% DOUGLAS CO. REDEVELOPMENT - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% DOUGLAS CO. LAKE TAHOE SEWE - - - - 0.00% 937,097 - - - 0.63% 937,097 0.63% EAST FORK FIRE DISTRICT - - - 1,173,000 0.06% - - - - 0.00% 1,173,000 0.06% EAST FORK SWIMMING POOL - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% ELK POINT SANITATION - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% GARDNERVILLE RANCHOS GID - - - - 0.00% 1,439,207 - - - 0.56% 1,439,207 0.56% INDIAN HILLS GID - 1,881,060 - - 1.50% 2,938,255 - - - 2.35% 4,819,315 3.85% KINGSBURY GID - 19,052,626 - - 7.78% - - - - 0.00% 19,052,626 7.78% LAKERIDGE GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% LOGAN CREEK GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MARLA BAY GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MINDEN/GRDNRVLE SANITATION - - - - 0.00% - - 810,250 - 0.22% 810,250 0.22% OLIVER PARK GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% ROUND HILL GID - 896,728 - - 0.80% - - - - 0.00% 896,728 0.80% SIERRA ESTATES GID - 124,667 - - 2.73% - - - - 0.00% 124,667 2.73% SKYLAND GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% TAHOE DOUGLAS FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% TAHOE DOUGLAS DISTRICT - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% TAHOE DOUGLAS VISITORS AUTH - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% TOPAZ RANCH ESTATES GID - 353,315 - - 1.24% - - 4,243,440 - 14.84% 4,596,755 16.08% ZEPHYR COVE GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% ZEPHYR HEIGHTS GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% ZEPHYR KNOLLS GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00%

TOTAL 47,167,000 41,763,024 - 7,910,654 3.15% 17,020,559 - 5,053,690 - 0.72% 118,914,927 3.86%

* Footnote LVVWD: The total does NOT include $2,323,620,000 in outstanding debt incurred by Las Vegas Valley Water District on behalf of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. This amount is included in the outstanding debt for SNWA. SNWA was established in 1991 in recognition of the importance of addressing water issues on a regional, rather than an individual purveyor basis.

B-2




ELKO COUNTY COUNTY - - - 293,340 0.01% - - - - 0.00% 293,340 0.01% SCHOOLS - - - 1,169,585 0.05% - - - - 0.00% 1,169,585 0.05% CARLIN - - - - 0.00% - - 131,035 - 0.35% 131,035 0.35% ELKO - 16,900,000 - 2,170,000 3.67% - - - - 0.00% 19,070,000 3.67% WELLS - 667,192 - 57,949 2.47% - - - - 0.00% 725,141 2.47% WEST WENDOVER - - - 2,730,000 1.94% 9,567,177 - - 166,620 6.91% 12,463,797 8.85% JACKPOT - - - - 0.00% 1,509,107 - - - 5.37% 1,509,107 5.37% JARBIDGE - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A MONTELLO - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MOUNTAIN CITY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% NORTHEAST NV FIRE PROTECT D - - - - N/A - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% CNTRL DISPATCH ADMIN AUTH. - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A ELKO CONV. & VISITORS AUTH. - - - - 0.00% - - - 7,661,714 0.51% 7,661,714 0.51% ELKO COUNTY RECREATION BD - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% ELKO TELEVISION - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% STARR VALLEY CEMETERY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% TUSCARORA WATER - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A WEST WENDOVER RECREATION - 1,805,000 - - 1.28% - - - - 0.00% 1,805,000 1.28%

TOTAL - 19,372,192 - 6,420,874 1.18% 11,076,284 - 131,035 7,828,334 0.87% 44,828,719 2.05%

ESMERALDA COUNTY COUNTY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% SCHOOLS - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% GOLDFIELD - - - - 0.00% 1,466,573 - - - 22.99% 1,466,573 22.99% SILVER PEAK - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00%

TOTAL - - - - 0.00% 1,466,573 - - - 2.03% 1,466,573 2.03%

EUREKA COUNTY COUNTY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% SCHOOLS - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% CRESCENT VALLEY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% EUREKA - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% DEVIL'S GATE GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% DIAMOND VALLEY RODENT - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% DIAMOND VALLEY WEED - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% EUREKA TELEVISION - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00%

TOTAL - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00%

B-3




HUMBOLDT COUNTY COUNTY - - - 619,152 0.05% - - - - 0.00% 619,152 0.05% SCHOOLS 1,931,000 - - 147,000 0.16% - - - - 0.00% 2,078,000 0.16% WINNEMUCCA - - - - 0.00% 17,598,745 - - - 8.49% 17,598,745 8.49% DENIO TELEVISION - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A GOLCONDA FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% GOLCONDA WATER - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A KINGS RIVER GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% HUMBOLDT FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% HUMBOLDT CO. HOSPITAL - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MCDERMITT FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - 92,102 - 2.05% 92,102 2.05% MCDERMITT GID - - - - N/A - - 224,875 - N/A 224,875 N/A OROVADA COMMUNITY SVCS - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% OROVADA FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% OROVADA GID - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A OROVADA RODENT - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A PARADISE VALLEY FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% PARADISE VALLEY SEWER - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A PARADISE VALLEY WEED - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A PUEBLO FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% QUINN RIVER TELEVISION - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A WINNEMUCCA CONV & VISITORS - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A WINNEMUCCA RURAL FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00%

TOTAL 1,931,000 - - 766,152 0.20% 17,598,745 - 316,977 - 1.35% 20,612,874 1.55%

LANDER COUNTY COUNTY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% SCHOOLS - - - 1,263,000 0.07% - - - - 0.00% 1,263,000 0.07% AUSTIN - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% BATTLE MOUNTAIN - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% KINGSTON - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% LANDER CONVENTION & TRSM - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% LANDER CO GID #1 - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% LANDER CO. HOSPITAL - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% LANDER SEWER & WATER #2 - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00%

TOTAL - - - 1,263,000.00 0.07% - - - - 0.00% 1,263,000 0.07%

LINCOLN COUNTY COUNTY - - - 384,157 0.14% - - - - 0.00% 384,157 0.14% SCHOOLS 3,914,800 - - - 1.39% - - - - 0.00% 3,914,800 1.39% CALIENTE - - - 55,030 0.35% 1,133,751 197,020 - - 8.55% 1,385,801 8.90% ALAMO - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% PANACA - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% PIOCHE - - - - 0.00% 188,421 - - - 1.10% 188,421 1.10% ALAMO POWER #3 - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A ALAMO SEWER/WATER - - - - N/A 198,200 - - 198,441 N/A 396,641 N/A COYOTE SPRINGS GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% LINCOLN CO FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% LINCOLN CO. HOSPITAL - - - 84,474 0.03% - - - - 0.00% 84,474 0.03% LINCOLN CO. TELEVISION - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A LINCOLN COUNTY RTC - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A LINCOLN COUNTY WATER - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A PAHRANAGAT VALLEY FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% PANACA FIRE - - - 15,559 0.15% - - - - 0.00% 15,559 0.15% PIOCHE FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% SE LINCOLN CO HABITAT CONS - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00%

TOTAL 3,914,800 - - 539,220 1.58% 1,520,372 197,020.00 - 198,441 0.68% 6,369,853 2.27%

B-4




LYON COUNTY COUNTY - 10,184,261 - - 0.55% 6,567,382 - - - 0.36% 16,751,643 0.91% SCHOOLS 50,715,000 - - - 2.76% - - - - 0.00% 50,715,000 2.76% FERNLEY - 66,531,386 - - 9.30% - - - 2,372,000 0.33% 68,903,386 9.63% YERINGTON - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% CENTRAL LYON FIRE - - - 988,556 0.13% - - - - 0.00% 988,556 0.13% CENTRAL LYON VECTOR - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% FERNLEY SWIMMING POOL - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MASON VALLEY FIRE - - - 33,406 0.02% - - - - 0.00% 33,406 0.02% MASON VALLEY MOSQUITO - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MASON VALLEY SWIM POOL - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% NORTH LYON FIRE - - - - 0.00% 461,514 - - - 0.06% 461,514 0.06% SILVER SPRINGS GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% SILVER SPR/STAGECOACH HOSP - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% SMITH VALLEY FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - 251,538 0.30% 251,538 0.30% SOUTH LYON HOSPITAL - - - - 0.00% - - - 683,059 0.21% 683,059 0.21% STAGECOACH GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% WALKER RIVER WEED - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% WILLOWCREEK GID - - - - 0.00% 929,611 - - - 21.87% 929,611 21.87%

TOTAL 50,715,000 76,715,647 - 1,021,962 6.99% 7,958,507 - - 3,306,597 0.61% 139,717,713 7.60%

MINERAL COUNTY COUNTY - - - 187,444 0.10% - - - - 0.00% 187,444 0.10% SCHOOLS 2,303,000 - - 1,238,045 1.85% - - - - 0.00% 3,541,045 1.85% HAWTHORNE - 5,627,437 - 115,753 12.25% - - - - 0.00% 5,743,190 12.25% LUNING - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MINA - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% WALKER LAKE (TOWN) - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MINERAL FAIR & RECREATION - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MINERAL CO. HOSPITAL - - - 86,337 0.05% - - - - 0.00% 86,337.00 0.05% MINERAL CO. TELEVISION - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% WALKER LAKE GID - - - - 0.00% - - 230,194 - 3.28% 230,194 3.28%

TOTAL 2,303,000 5,627,437 - 1,627,579 4.99% - - 230,194 - 0.12% 9,788,210 5.11%

NYE COUNTY COUNTY - 20,085,000 - 2,328,545 1.12% - - - - 0.00% 22,413,545 1.12% SCHOOLS 84,158,000 - - 810,000 4.25% - - - - 0.00% 84,968,000 4.25% AMARGOSA VALLEY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% BEATTY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% GABBS - 292,267 - - 2.52% - - - - 0.00% 292,267 2.52% MANHATTAN - 272,792 - - 6.72% - - - - 0.00% 272,792 6.72% PAHRUMP - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% ROUND MOUNTAIN - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% TONOPAH - - - - 0.00% 5,157,938 - - - 2.23% 5,157,938 2.23% AMARGOSA LIBRARY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% BEATTY GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% BEATTY LIBRARY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% BEATTY WATER & SANITATION - - - - 0.00% - - - 745,754 6.00% 745,754 6.00% NO. NYE COUNTY HOSPITAL DIST. - - - - N/A - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% NYE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A PAHRUMP LIBRARY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% PAHRUMP SWIMMING POOL - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% SMOKY VALLEY LIBRARY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% TONOPAH LIBRARY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00%

TOTAL 84,158,000 20,650,059 - 3,138,545 5.40% 5,157,938 - - 745,754 0.30% 113,850,296 5.69%

B-5




PERSHING COUNTY COUNTY - - - 782,103 0.23% - - - - 0.00% 782,103 0.23% SCHOOLS 4,175,559 - - - 1.23% - - - - 0.00% 4,175,559 1.23% LOVELOCK - - - 49,032 0.20% 3,872,843 - - - 16.16% 3,921,875 16.37% IMLAY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% LOVELOCK MEADOWS WATER - - - - N/A 4,205,857 - - - N/A 4,205,857 N/A LOVELOCK VALLEY WEED - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A PERSHING CO HOSPITAL - - - - 0.00% 5,709,803 - - - 1.69% 5,709,803 1.69% PERSHING CO TELEVISION - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A

TOTAL 4,175,559 - - 831,135 1.48% 13,788,503 - - - 4.07% 18,795,197 5.55%

STOREY COUNTY COUNTY - 1,096,000 - - 0.12% 6,678,430 - 1,651,799 - 0.93% 9,426,229 1.06% SCHOOLS 6,535,500 - - - 0.73% - - - - 0.00% 6,535,500 0.73% CANYON GID - - - - 0.00% 1,640,051 - - - 8.08% 1,640,051 8.08% STOREY CO FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% TAHOE-RENO INDUSTRIAL GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% VIRGINIA DIVIDE SEWER - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00%

TOTAL 6,535,500 1,096,000 - - 0.85% 8,318,481 - 1,651,799 - 1.12% 17,601,780 1.97%

WASHOE COUNTY COUNTY 23,424,000 76,601,630 - - 0.59% 33,251,531 4,104,668 - - 0.22% 137,381,829 0.81% SCHOOLS 445,945,000 285,000,000 - 4,252,601 4.35% - - - - 0.00% 735,197,601 4.35% RENO - 81,845,375 9,481,920 1,761,396 1.14% 369,219,760 - - 9,284,000 4.65% 471,592,451 5.80% SPARKS - 19,508,339 - 13,330,000 1.16% 97,867,979 7,091,667 - 4,218,271 3.85% 142,016,256 5.00% GRANDVIEW TERRACE GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% GERLACH GID - - - - 0.00% - - 379,005 - 8.51% 379,005 8.51% INCLINE VILLAGE GID - 4,962,361 - - 0.30% 1,144,565 - - - 0.07% 6,106,926 0.37% NO. LAKE TAHOE FIRE - 1,831,000 - 530,000 0.14% - - - - 0.00% 2,361,000 0.14% PALOMINO VALLEY GID - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% REGIONAL TRANS. COMMISSION - - - - 0.00% 346,612,000 - - - 2.05% 346,612,000 2.05% RENO REDEVELOPMENT #1 - - - - 0.00% - - - 18,285,000 17.16% 18,285,000 17.16% RENO REDEVELOPMENT #2 - - - - 0.00% - - - 641,000 0.78% 641,000 0.78% RENO/SPARKS CONVENTION - 91,135,149 - - 0.54% - - - - 0.00% 91,135,149 0.54% SPARKS REDEVELOPMENT #1 - - - - 0.00% 8,105,000 - - - 7.14% 8,105,000 7.14% SPARKS REDEVELOPMENT #2 - - - - 0.00% 12,962,000 - - - 11.35% 12,962,000 11.35% SUN VALLEY GID - 5,911,702 - - 2.44% - - - 3,635,138 1.50% 9,546,840 3.94% TRUCKEE MEADOWS FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% TRUCKEE MEADOWS WTR AUTH - - - - N/A 357,173,397 - - - N/A 357,173,397 N/A VERDI TELEVISION - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% WESTERN REGIONAL WTR COM - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A

TOTAL 469,369,000 566,795,556 9,481,920 19,873,997 6.31% 1,226,336,232 11,196,335 379,005 36,063,409 7.54% 2,339,495,454 13.85%

B-6




WHITE PINE COUNTY COUNTY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% SCHOOLS 6,645,000 - - 642,000 1.20% - - - 165,370 0.03% 7,452,370 1.23% ELY - - - 394,196 0.60% 2,210,597 - - 255,851 3.76% 2,860,644 4.36% LUND - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% MCGILL - - - 59,153 0.63% - - - - 0.00% 59,153 0.63% RUTH - - - 22,541 0.60% - - - - 0.00% 22,541 0.60% BAKER WATER & SEWER - - - - N/A 196,549 - - - N/A 196,549 N/A MCGILL/RUTH SEWER & WATER - - - - N/A 1,123,004 - - - N/A 1,123,004 N/A WHITE PINE CO FIRE - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% WHITE PINE TOURISM & REC. - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% WHITE PINE TELEVISION - - - - N/A - - - - N/A - N/A WHITE PINE CO. HOSPITAL - - - 62,831 0.01% - - - - 0.00% 62,831 0.01%

TOTAL 6,645,000 - - 1,180,721 1.29% 3,530,150 - - 421,221 0.65% 11,777,092 1.94%

MULTICOUNTY CARSON TRUCKEE WATER - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% CARSON WATER SUBCON. - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00% NV COMMISSION - V & T RAILWAY - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.00%

TOTAL - - - - 0.00% - - - - 0.00% - 0.01%

STATE TOTAL 2,806,038,859 10,322,474,351 72,851,920 313,518,433 11.28% 6,600,467,172 89,500,366 7,762,700 754,452,382 6.22% 20,967,066,183 17.50%

B-7

FIVE YEAR DEBT REQUIREMENT

FINALENTITY MATURITY

(*) FUTURE BALLOON PAYMENT IN THIS CATEGORY 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 YEAR

CARSON CITY

CARSON CITY G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 16,706,891 16,951,978 17,058,258 16,307,968 15,913,222 2046 REVENUE BONDS 1,580,215 1,579,634 1,580,471 1,580,055 1,580,173 2030 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 948,268 787,703 787,293 659,559 659,204 2027 INSTALLMENT PURCHASE 382,438 388,229 394,179 417,185 423,946 2037

TOTAL 19,617,812 19,707,544 19,820,201 18,964,767 18,576,545

CARSON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT G/O BONDS 6,037,544 5,428,375 5,527,065 5,323,517 5,103,655 2037 INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT 303,770 357,210 364,910 373,190 381,020 2035

TOTAL 6,341,314 5,785,585 5,891,975 5,696,707 5,484,675

CARSON CITY REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 281,200 280,800 - - - 2021

TOTAL CARSON CITY REQUIREMENTS 26,240,326$ 25,773,929$ 25,712,176$ 24,661,474$ 24,061,220$

CHURCHILL COUNTY

CHURCHILL COUNTY G/O REVENUE - LONG-TERM CAPITAL LEASE 706,804 706,804 706,804 706,804 706,804 2049 CAPITAL LEASE PURCHASE 97,208 84,332 81,696 81,696 81,696 2029

TOTAL 804,012 791,136 788,500 788,500 788,500

CHURCHILL COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT G/O BONDS 3,120,119 3,006,474 2,987,733 3,006,958 3,011,655 2034 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS (QZAB) 213,428 213,091 212,520 213,405 - 2023

TOTAL 3,333,547 3,219,565 3,200,253 3,220,363 3,011,655

FALLON G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 785,982 786,783 786,840 786,154 784,726 2036 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 240,253 171,127 170,087 116,622 116,622 2025 REVENUE BONDS 535,296 535,117 535,655 534,909 534,879 2032 CAPITAL LEASE PURCHASE 155,603 155,602 155,602 57,909 20,315 2026

TOTAL 1,717,134 1,648,629 1,648,184 1,495,594 1,456,542

CHURCHILL COUNTY MOSQUITO AND WEED ABATEMENT DISTRICT MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - NOTES/BONDS 54,296 - - - - 2,020

TOTAL CHURCHILL COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 5,908,989$ 5,659,330$ 5,636,937$ 5,504,457$ 5,256,697$

PART CFIVE YEAR DEBT REQUIREMENT

C-1




CLARK COUNTY

CLARK COUNTY G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 151,155,051 144,566,473 144,629,951 144,723,569 144,807,677 2038 G/O SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 5,011,900 4,741,575 4,719,125 4,704,425 4,682,350 2038 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 301,816,627 - - - - 2019 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - NOTES/BONDS 401,306 1,751,306 1,751,306 1,450,327 1,350,000 2023 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - CAPITAL LEASE ( * ) 582,582 582,582 582,582 582,582 582,582 2040 REVENUE BONDS ( * ) 328,282,349 326,172,671 559,740,970 309,889,876 259,966,448 2059 OTHER DEBT - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 11,641,691 9,934,019 8,767,372 8,778,403 8,755,071 2038

TOTAL 798,891,506 487,748,626 720,191,306 470,129,182 420,144,128

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT G/O BONDS 266,777,983 263,868,000 230,607,750 231,084,250 231,412,000 2039 G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 86,070,740 93,744,940 90,160,240 74,076,040 71,921,133 2035 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS * 27,859,325 21,264,025 21,262,975 21,270,175 18,486,750 2028

TOTAL 380,708,048 378,876,965 342,030,965 326,430,465 321,819,883

BOULDER CITY REVENUE BONDS 2,324,506 2,323,662 2,326,768 2,325,068 2,326,250 2036

HENDERSON G/O BONDS 4,553,210 - - - - 2020 G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 12,563,962 15,082,562 15,082,887 15,072,837 14,683,563 2035 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 2,320,125 2,383,000 2,443,000 2,504,750 2,572,625 2027 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - INSTALLMENT PURCHASE 148,310 148,310 148,310 - - 2022 REVENUE BONDS 87,337 87,337 87,337 87,337 87,337 2030

TOTAL 19,672,944 17,701,209 17,761,534 17,664,924 17,343,525

LAS VEGAS G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 55,286,476 34,999,794 32,708,444 31,684,273 30,917,698 2044 G/O SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 504,200 489,127 494,881 488,756 317,365 2032 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 16,303,057 16,288,151 16,308,911 12,131,644 12,142,093 2029 REVENUE BONDS 2,711,113 947,463 931,100 931,100 931,100 2035 OTHER - CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION 182,381,226 1,047,500 1,020,475 992,777 964,390 2040

TOTAL 257,186,072 53,772,035 51,463,811 46,228,550 45,272,646

MESQUITE G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 1,451,171 1,451,171 1,451,171 1,451,171 1,451,171 2030 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 877,373 873,050 867,963 871,938 875,313 2038

TOTAL 2,328,544 2,324,221 2,319,134 2,323,109 2,326,484

NORTH LAS VEGAS G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 30,713,581 32,151,015 32,280,205 32,360,516 32,285,235 2040 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 2,650,512 2,649,236 - - - 2021

TOTAL 33,364,093 34,800,251 32,280,205 32,360,516 32,285,235

BIG BEND WATER DISTRICT G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 517,423 517,423 517,423 517,423 517,423 2025

BOULDER CITY LIBRARY DISTRICT G/O BONDS 342,203 - - - - 2020

C-2




CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 51,301,121 55,613,825 55,533,967 55,443,014 56,349,478 2039

CLARK COUNTY STADIUM AUTHORITY G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 33,978,750 34,660,000 35,352,750 36,059,500 36,782,500 2048

CLARK COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 32,249,806 32,254,556 32,258,056 32,258,806 32,265,056 2039

HENDERSON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REVENUE BONDS 618,300 620,425 616,925 617,800 617,925 2040 OTHER DEBT - NOTES (*) 969,983 - - - - 2020

TOTAL 1,588,283 620,425 616,925 617,800 617,925

LAS VEGAS CONVENTION & VISITORS AUTHORITY G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 60,899,566 47,958,986 50,855,481 47,134,101 52,950,078 2047 REVENUE BONDS 34,687,318 36,740,583 39,415,923 47,966,506 46,340,498 2049

TOTAL 95,586,884 84,699,569 90,271,404 95,100,607 99,290,576

LAS VEGAS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REVENUE BONDS (TAX INCREMENT) 9,927,459 9,899,243 9,876,860 9,851,717 9,817,666 2045

LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 70,457,009 71,707,055 71,839,371 71,957,287 71,928,195 2048

MOAPA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 824,433 826,308 571,808 568,933 434,058 2038

NORTH LAS VEGAS LIBRARY DISTRICT MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 474,929 - - - - 2020

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SO. NV REVENUE BONDS ( * ) 88,598,863 87,958,888 87,799,075 87,538,468 87,236,723 2038

SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 254,998,019 255,015,616 255,080,009 255,025,479 254,584,485 2046 OTHER DEBT - COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM 410,580,000 - - - - 2019

TOTAL 665,578,019 255,015,616 255,080,009 255,025,479 254,584,485

VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 1,494,278 1,497,470 1,496,473 1,003,233 1,008,047 2033 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 460,471 459,151 456,656 458,940 459,956 2025 REVENUE BONDS 215,817 214,724 215,589 214,396 215,162 2028

TOTAL 2,170,566 2,171,345 2,168,718 1,676,569 1,683,165

TOTAL CLARK COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 2,548,071,461$ 1,613,491,222$ 1,810,260,089$ 1,544,077,417$ 1,493,025,401$

C-3




DOUGLAS COUNTY

DOUGLAS COUNTY G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 2,668,403 2,473,006 1,875,453 1,723,971 2,291,151 2036 REVENUE BONDS 947,837 947,243 945,589 947,752 949,605 2037 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 1,068,230 1,068,038 1,067,435 1,066,423 - 2023 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - CAPITAL/LEASE PURCHASE 115,246 115,246 65,267 65,267 65,267 2024

TOTAL 4,799,716 4,603,533 3,953,744 3,803,413 3,306,023

DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT G/O BONDS 2,602,845 2,952,644 2,998,263 3,049,925 3,077,660 2042 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - CAPITAL LEASE/PURCHASES 522,667 522,947 522,967 522,751 322,589 2023

TOTAL 3,125,512 3,475,591 3,521,230 3,572,676 3,400,249

DOUGLAS COUNTY LAKE TAHOE SEWER AUTHORITY REVENUE BONDS 140,497 140,497 140,497 140,497 140,497 2028

EAST FORK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - NOTES/BONDS 328,190 149,917 151,764 151,425 152,933 2026

GARDNERVILLE RANCHOS GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DIST REVENUE BONDS 324,083 324,083 324,083 324,083 206,487 2025

INDIAN HILLS GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 277,831 230,386 235,586 235,486 230,286 2031 REVENUE BONDS 259,686 259,685 259,685 259,687 237,751 2052

TOTAL 537,517 490,071 495,271 495,173 468,037

KINGSBURY GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 1,938,321 1,937,789 1,937,241 1,936,679 1,624,904 2035

MINDEN GARDNERVILLE SANITATION DISTRICTFEDERAL STIMULUS INTEREST-FREE LOAN 77,167 77,167 77,167 77,167 77,167 2030

ROUND HILL GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 102,166 102,166 102,166 102,166 102,166 2032

SIERRA ESTATES GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 15,973 15,973 15,973 15,973 15,973 2028

TOPAZ RANCH ESTATES GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DIST G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 24,781 24,781 24,781 24,781 24,781 2036 OTHER DEBT - USDA LOAN 168,960 168,960 168,960 168,960 168,960 2056

TOTAL 193,741 193,741 193,741 193,741 193,741

TOTAL DOUGLAS COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 11,582,883$ 11,510,528$ 10,912,877$ 10,812,993$ 9,688,177$

C-4




ELKO COUNTY

ELKO COUNTY MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - GO BONDS 65,633 65,633 65,633 - - 2022 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - LEASES/PURCHASES 107,721 - - - - 2020

TOTAL 173,354 65,633 65,633 - -

ELKO COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - CAPITAL LEASE/PURCHASES 607,363 607,363 - - - 2021

CARLIN OTHER DEBT - USDA LOAN - SENIOR CENTER 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 2034

TOTAL 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100 12,100

ELKO MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - GO BONDS 1,679,661 1,673,583 1,677,440 1,676,148 1,677,006 2025 G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 333,981 337,231 335,313 333,281 336,081 2035

TOTAL 2,013,642 2,010,814 2,012,753 2,009,429 2,013,087

WELLS REVENUE BONDS 114,033 85,223 80,105 72,480 74,855 2048 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - CAPITAL LEASE/PURCHASES 5,851 5,851 5,851 5,851 5,851 2025 OTHER DEBT - CAPITAL LEASE/PURCHASE 9,188 9,188 9,189 - - 2021

TOTAL 129,072 100,262 95,145 78,331 80,706

WEST WENDOVER MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - NOTES/BONDS 499,133 505,781 513,031 521,845 469,866 2026 REVENUE BONDS 777,764 625,614 625,614 625,614 625,614 2056 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - CAPITAL LEASE/PURCHASE 36,656 36,656 36,656 76,960 2023

TOTAL 1,313,553 1,168,051 1,175,301 1,224,419 1,095,480

ELKO CONVENTION & VISITOR'S AUTHORITY CAPITAL LEASE 565,868 565,868 565,868 565,868 565,868 2041

JACKPOT REVENUE BONDS 62,676 62,676 62,676 62,676 62,676 2052

WEST WENDOVER RECREATION DISTRICT G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 626,594 625,300 628,525 - - 2022

TOTAL ELKO COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 5,504,222$ 5,218,067$ 4,618,001$ 3,952,823$ 3,829,917$

ESMERALDA COUNTY

GOLDFIELD REVENUE BONDS 65,814 65,814 65,814 65,814 65,814 2058

TOTAL ESMERALDA COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 65,814$ 65,814$ 65,814$ 65,814$ 65,814$

C-5




EUREKA COUNTY

TOTAL EUREKA COUNTY REQUIREMENTS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

HUMBOLDT COUNTY

HUMBOLDT COUNTY MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - LEASES/PURCHASES 194,399 194,399 182,658 82,536 7,772 2024

HUMBOLDT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT G/O BONDS 224,909 216,197 215,593 218,881 221,949 2029 OTHER DEBT - CHARTWELLS NOTE 77,341 76,826 - - - 2021

TOTAL 302,250 293,023 215,593 218,881 221,949

WINNEMUCCA REVENUE BONDS 692,160 692,160 692,160 692,160 692,160 2057

MCDERMITT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OTHER DEBT - USDA LOAN 5,738 5,738 5,738 5,738 5,738 2043

MCDERMITT GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DIST OTHER DEBT - USDA LOAN 14,359 14,359 14,359 14,359 14,359 2046

TOTAL HUMBOLDT COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 1,208,906$ 1,199,679$ 1,110,508$ 1,013,674$ 941,978$

LANDER COUNTY

LANDER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 228,092 227,766 227,305 227,698 227,931 2025

TOTAL LANDER COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 228,092$ 227,766$ 227,305$ 227,698$ 227,931$

LINCOLN COUNTY

LINCOLN COUNTY MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - NOTES/BONDS 24,428 - - - - 2020 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - LEASE PURCHASES 20,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 2026

TOTAL 44,428 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000

LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT G/O BONDS 498,484 498,538 483,017 483,010 483,020 2029

CALIENTE MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - NOTES/BONDS 12,208 12,208 12,208 12,208 11,135 2024 REVENUE BONDS 97,872 97,872 97,872 97,872 97,872 2045 OTHER - POWERLINE ASSESSMENTS 50,304 50,304 50,304 69,693 2023

TOTAL 160,384 160,384 160,384 179,773 109,007

PIOCHE REVENUE BONDS 19,006 11,168 11,168 11,168 11,168 2048

ALAMO SEWER & WATER DISTRICT REVENUE BONDS 22,881 12,283 12,283 12,283 12,283 2045 OTHER DEBT 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 2037

TOTAL 37,281 26,683 26,683 26,683 26,683

LINCOLN COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - NOTES/BONDS 38,998 21,069 21,069 3,512 - 2022

PANACA FIRE DISTRICT MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - NOTES/BONDS 4,203 4,201 4,201 4,187 - 2023

TOTAL LINCOLN COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 802,784$ 762,043$ 746,522$ 748,333$ 669,878$

C-6




LYON COUNTY

LYON COUNTY DAYTON SEWER BOND 758,826 758,826 758,826 758,826 758,826 2036 REVENUE SUPPORTED 274,032 274,032 274,032 274,032 274,032 2056

TOTAL 1,032,858 1,032,858 1,032,858 1,032,858 1,032,858

LYON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT G/O BONDS 7,200,400 7,437,817 7,607,131 6,391,665 6,081,638 2036

FERNLEY G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 4,960,568 4,950,665 4,840,007 4,839,565 4,840,406 2038 OTHER DEBT - INSTALLMENT PURCHASE 367,705 368,113 367,342 368,381 368,218 2026

TOTAL 5,328,273 5,318,778 5,207,349 5,207,946 5,208,624

CENTRAL LYON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - NOTES/BONDS 11,315 11,315 11,315 11,315 11,315 2030 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - INSTALLMENT PURCHASE-USDA 339,275 339,275 258,793 - - 2021

TOTAL 350,590 350,590 270,108 11,315 11,315 MASON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - CAPITAL LEASE 8,987 8,987 8,987 8,987 - 2023

NORTH LYON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT REVENUE BONDS 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 2034

SMITH VALLEY FIRE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT OTHER DEBT - INSTALLMENT PURCHASE - USDA 24,560 24,560 24,560 24,560 24,560 2034

SOUTH LYON HOSPITAL DISTRICT OTHER DEBT - RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN-USDA 103,618 103,618 103,618 103,618 103,618 2027

WILLOWCREEK GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT REVENUE BONDS 55,312 55,312 55,312 55,312 55,312 2048

TOTAL LYON COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 14,146,598$ 14,374,520$ 14,351,923$ 12,878,261$ 12,559,925$

MINERAL COUNTY

MINERAL COUNTY MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - LEASE/PURCHASE (*) 41,005 41,005 41,005 41,005 18,701 2026

MINERAL COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT G/O BONDS 267,714 267,010 267,165 267,152 267,970 2029 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - LEASE/PURCHASE 141,192 143,708 147,240 27,569 2023

TOTAL 408,906 410,718 414,405 294,721 267,970

HAWTHORNE TOWN G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED - SEWER 222,952 221,742 245,532 245,532 245,532 2052 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - NOTES/BONDS 28,154 28,154 28,154 28,154 28,154 2024

TOTAL 251,106 249,896 273,686 273,686 273,686

MT GRANT GENERAL HOSPITAL MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING- LEASE/PURCHASE 38,038 38,038 19,019 - - 2022

WALKER LAKE GID OTHER DEBT - RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN-USDA 18,621 18,621 18,621 18,621 18,621 2039

TOTAL MINERAL COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 757,676$ 758,278$ 766,736$ 628,033$ 578,978$

C-7




NYE COUNTY

NYE COUNTY G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 1,422,116 1,423,062 1,422,613 1,420,129 1,415,846 2041 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - LEASE/PURCHASE 711,443 577,237 577,237 532,949 220,500 2023

TOTAL 2,133,559 2,000,299 1,999,850 1,953,078 1,636,346

NYE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT G/O BONDS 30,985,942 8,034,702 7,766,892 7,491,859 7,316,577 2030 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - LEASE/PURCHASE 216,599 217,186 216,606 216,887 2023

TOTAL 31,202,541 8,251,888 7,983,498 7,708,746 7,316,577

GABBS G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 43,028 43,083 43,143 43,207 43,276 2029

MANHATTAN G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 13,924 13,924 13,924 13,924 13,924 2053

TONOPAH REVENUE BONDS 213,420 213,420 213,420 213,420 213,420 2043

BEATTY WATER & SANITATION DISTRICTOTHER DEBT - USDA 44,796 44,796 44,796 44,796 44,796 2047

TOTAL NYE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 33,651,268$ 10,567,410$ 10,298,631$ 9,977,171$ 9,268,339$

PERSHING COUNTY

PERSHING COUNTY LEASE/PURCHASE 138,982 138,982 138,982 138,982 138,982 2026

PERSHING COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT G/O BONDS 423,331 418,521 415,360 416,828 418,792 2030

LOVELOCK MEDIUM-TERM LEASE PURCHASE 20,244 20,244 10,064 - - 2022 REVENUE BONDS 251,581 251,581 251,581 251,581 251,581 2053

TOTAL 271,825 271,825 261,645 251,581 251,581

LOVELOCK MEADOWS WATER DISTRICT REVENUE BONDS 241,811 241,811 241,811 241,811 241,811 2042

PERSHING COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT REVENUE BONDS 350,953 363,216 363,216 363,216 363,216 2050

TOTAL PERSHING COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 1,426,902$ 1,434,355$ 1,421,014$ 1,412,418$ 1,414,382$

C-8




STOREY COUNTY

STOREY COUNTY G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 149,141 149,328 149,280 148,997 149,454 2028 OTHER DEBT - USDA/PROMISSORY NOTE 142,640 142,640 142,640 142,640 142,640 2035 REVENUE BONDS 250,850 250,850 250,850 250,850 250,850 2057

TOTAL 542,631 542,818 542,770 542,487 542,944

STOREY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT G/O BONDS 750,369 752,442 778,792 799,628 804,472 2029

CANYON GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT REVENUE BONDS 99,619 99,619 99,619 99,619 99,619 2050

TOTAL STOREY COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 1,392,619$ 1,394,879$ 1,421,181$ 1,441,734$ 1,447,035$

WASHOE COUNTY

WASHOE COUNTY G/O BONDS 3,005,736 3,003,893 3,014,521 3,011,154 3,010,017 2030 G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 9,488,018 9,486,795 9,011,006 8,250,219 8,268,976 2036 REVENUE BONDS 2,758,588 2,828,368 2,917,396 2,955,314 3,052,283 2058 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 425,075 428,580 427,172 431,385 425,949 2032

TOTAL 15,677,417 15,747,636 15,370,095 14,648,072 14,757,225

WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT G/O BONDS 53,473,405 54,247,235 54,919,547 54,375,887 53,547,326 2046 G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 11,734,650 15,337,275 16,800,275 16,799,150 16,798,900 2049 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - GO/BONDS 2,001,442 1,205,273 802,783 399,036 - 2023

TOTAL 67,209,497 70,789,783 72,522,605 71,574,073 70,346,226

RENO G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 9,994,718 10,136,204 10,279,215 10,428,502 10,580,620 2041 G/O SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 1,691,815 1,685,893 1,681,048 1,631,673 1,578,845 2042 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 109,250 109,750 110,000 105,000 - 2023 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - NOTES/BONDS 61,389 30,246 - - - 2021 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - CAPITAL LEASE 428,776 428,776 428,776 - - 2022 REVENUE BONDS 17,382,096 17,540,915 17,709,045 17,853,328 18,882,849 2059 OTHER DEBT - IPA 1,477,308 1,488,406 1,499,504 1,509,346 1,518,737 2027

TOTAL 31,145,352 31,420,190 31,707,588 31,527,849 32,561,051

SPARKS G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 3,429,395 3,242,469 3,024,069 2,596,885 2,323,172 2030 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 2,101,750 2,101,250 2,101,500 2,098,800 2,100,400 2026 REVENUE BONDS (*) 22,916,074 12,175,843 12,327,281 12,481,604 12,642,099 2028 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS 974,869 965,858 962,241 952,935 944,498 2027 OTHER DEBT - RENO SRF CLEAN WATER WAY 812,544 822,091 831,590 841,363 851,414 2025

TOTAL 30,234,632 19,307,511 19,246,681 18,971,587 18,861,583

C-9




GERLACH GID OTHER DEBT - RD LOAN-USDA 24,703 24,703 24,703 24,703 24,703 2043

INCLINE VILLAGE GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 791,551 790,351 791,958 796,308 400,909 2032 REVENUE BONDS 242,226 242,226 242,225 242,226 113,648 2025

TOTAL 1,033,777 1,032,577 1,034,183 1,038,534 514,557

NORTH LAKE TAHOE FIRE PROTECTION G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 388,029 389,921 392,579 396,978 395,071 2024 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 112,960 115,193 112,358 114,455 111,485 2024

TOTAL 500,989 505,114 504,937 511,433 506,556

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF WASHOE REVENUE BONDS 24,553,552 24,503,489 24,501,042 24,493,354 24,487,476 2043

RENO REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY #1 OTHER DEBT - TAX ALLOCATION BONDS 2,871,050 2,870,285 2,868,570 2,870,655 2,866,000 2027

RENO REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY #2 OTHER DEBT - TAX ALLOCATION BONDS 48,572 48,748 47,911 49,063 48,177 2035

RENO-SPARKS CONVENTION & VISITORS AUTHORITY G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 9,067,370 8,842,438 9,127,278 9,240,024 9,234,151 2033

SPARKS REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY #1 OTHER DEBT - TAX INCREMENT BONDS 2,290,006 2,289,225 2,290,475 2,291,725 - 2023

SPARKS REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY #2 OTHER DEBT - TAX INCREMENT BONDS 1,540,538 1,542,997 1,545,526 1,544,102 1,542,784 2029

SUN VALLEY GID G/O REVENUE SUPPORTED 858,064 858,064 858,064 858,064 858,064 2028

TRUCKEE MEADOWS WATER AUTHORITY REVENUE BONDS 20,044,771 30,385,871 29,960,721 30,380,596 30,364,096 2040 OTHER DEBT - COMMERCIAL PAPER 23,500,000 30,385,871 29,960,721 30,380,596 30,364,096 2020

TOTAL 43,544,771 60,771,742 59,921,442 60,761,192 60,728,192

TOTAL WASHOE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 230,600,290$ 240,554,502$ 241,571,100$ 240,404,430$ 237,336,745$

C-10




WHITE PINE COUNTY

WHITE PINE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT G/O BONDS 579,430 578,630 576,230 574,980 573,430 2034 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 193,434 193,258 193,572 96,363 - 2023 OTHER LEASE/PURCHASES (*) 84,750 87,966 - - - 2021

TOTAL 857,614 859,854 769,802 671,343 573,430

ELY OTHER DEBT - AMBULANCE 49,385 49,385 49,385 49,385 49,385 2026 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - G/O BONDS 29,736 29,736 29,736 29,736 29,736 2031 MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - LEASE/PURCHASES 32,678 32,678 32,678 15,427 - 2023 REVENUE BONDS 175,788 175,788 175,788 175,788 175,788 2042

TOTAL 287,587 287,587 287,587 270,336 254,909

MCGILL TOWN MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - INTERGOV 9,140 9,140 9,474 9,474 9,474 2025

RUTH TOWN MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - INTERGOV 3,483 3,483 3,610 3,610 3,610 2025

BAKER WATER & SEWER DISTRICT REVENUE BONDS 18,912 18,912 18,912 18,912 18,912 2035

MCGILL/RUTH WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT REVENUE BONDS 74,256 74,256 74,256 74,256 74,256 2044

TOTAL 74,256 74,256 74,256 74,256 74,256

WHITE PINE COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT MEDIUM-TERM FINANCING - LEASE/PURCHASES 71,093 1,681 - - - 2021

TOTAL WHITE PINE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS 1,322,085$ 1,254,913$ 1,163,641$ 1,047,931$ 934,591$

TOTAL STATEWIDE REQUIREMENTS 2,882,910,914$ 1,934,247,235$ 2,130,284,455$ 1,858,854,661$ 1,801,307,008$

C-11

04-23-19 CLGF Committee Meeting Minutes – DRAFT Page 1

DRAFT Minutes of the Meeting

COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE August 27, 9:00 a.m.

The meeting was held at the Nevada State Legislative Building, 401 South Carson Street, Room 2134, Carson City, Nevada with videoconference to Grant Sawyer Office Building, 555 East Washington Ave, Room 4412, Las Vegas, Nevada. This meeting was also part of a teleconference.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Marvin Leavitt, Chairman Marty Johnson Beth Kohn-Cole Mary Walker Jeff Cronk Tom Ciesynski Gina Rackley Paul Johnson Jessica Colvin Jim McIntosh

COUNSEL TO COMMITTEE: Peter Keegan

DEPT OF TAXATION STAFF PRESENT: Melanie Young Jeff Mitchell Kelly Langley Evelyn Barragan Kellie Grahmann Christina Griffith Denesa Johnston Hector Sepulveda

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Representing Savannah Rucker Nye County John Koenig Nye County Marla McDade Williams Strategies 360 Jason Goudie Clark County School District Jennifer Tucker Griffin Co. Brenda Pearson CCEA John Prudhont Nye County Cindy Creighton NV Taxpayers Assoc Dan McArthur Self

ITEM 1. ROLL CALL AND OPENING REMARKS Member Christine Vuletich was absent. All other members were present. ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. ITEM 3. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA AS SUBMITTED OR REVISED No changes were made to the Agenda. ITEM 4. FINANCIAL CONDITION REPORTS BY THE DEPARTMENT; CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDERS (a) For Possible Action: Discussion and Consideration of Clark County School District Financial

Condition 1. Report by Clark County and the Department on the Following Matters:

a) Discussion & Report Regarding the School District’s Projected Cash Flow Reports for FY 19/20

b) Discussion regarding Additional Reports to be Provided to the Committee to Ensure Full Understanding of Current and Projected Financial Condition


c) Report by Clark County School District Regarding Update on Employee Negotiations with Each Group and what is included in The Final Budget regarding Salary & Benefit Increases vs. Current Projections of Expenditures

d) Update on Recent Legal Proceedings

Member Kohn Cole recused herself regarding this item.

Kelly Langley, with the Department of Taxation, discussed the material provided. She clarified changes brought to her attention regarding Clark County School District’s (CCSD) budget. She introduced Jason Goudie, with CCSD.

Mr. Goudie noted the $52 million was accounted for in their final budget and the $63 million is their proposed amended final budget. He stressed that they do not have agreements with their bargaining units. They submitted offers and will follow up on them. Additional money through SB551 is coming but there are concerns with potential lawsuits and outcomes at the State level. They are still reviewing AB309 money and believe they will have approximately $12-12.5 million available for general operations based on the block grant provided by the state. Their ending fund balance (EFB) is projected to increase slightly. He noted they are meeting the 2% and working to get back to 4%. They have a strategic plan in place. The most recent update on their current financial situation is that they are still projected to do slightly better.

They are in the process of closing the books for CCSD. Mr. Goudie explained changes made, positions that have been frozen, and central service cuts made. He added that CCSD’s cash flow has improved. They are committed to continuing that path. He requested o the Committee anything they can do to support the importance of maintaining EFB and increasing EFB, to the legislature, Governor’s office, and the public, would be appreciated.

Chairman Leavitt thinks the Committee has made their concern on CCSD’s low EFB clear. He mentioned it is hard for the Committee to get a handle on where CCSD’s finances are while they are in negotiations. He asked Mr. Goudie for the audit status and if he expects it to be completed by November 30 per statute. Mr. Goudie replied that they are on track and he thinks their audits will be there in a week or less. Chairman Leavitt would like a resolution of the employee contracts, an amended final budget to discuss their financial condition, and cash projections for the rest of the year. He understands anything now is tentative.

Member Walker noted she read the previous minutes and conferred with some of the members to make sure she understood they have two budgets and asked if that was correct. Mr. Goudie replied they only have one, and internal summaries. He explained there is no budget to actual, costs are built into this high level. The budget to actual analysis will not take place until they get the numbers from their union group agreements. Member Walker asked if the State approved, Board approved, legal budget was in their financial system. Mr. Goudie stated they are working on their final budget which includes everything to that point, they have not adjusted the revenue or expenditure side; those will be made in the next round.

Member McIntosh asked him to clarify the Final to Amended Final Budget comparison, and if those numbers are attributed to the 2% roll up and 3% cost of living adjustment. Mr. Goudie confirmed, adding it also includes the 4% increase in healthcare contribution for all employees. Member McIntosh asked if they have preliminary enrollment numbers. Mr. Goudie replied that the projected is lower than last year, they will adjust as necessary after they get to the enrollment date.

Member Paul Johnson commented on Mr. Goudie’s request for assistance to protect EFB. The proposed new formula will be effective during the next biennium, an exempt fund reserve of 16.67%, but it does not say what type of fund balance.

Ms. Langley asked the Committee if they would like to see any other reports on a regular basis. Member Walker asked if they receive the updated cash flow monthly, Ms. Langley confirmed. Chairman Leavitt requested CCSD provide the Department with updated revenue and expenditures as soon as the labor contracts are resolved, at the least as soon as the teacher contracts are approved, noting the Department could provide that to the members, even in advance of the next meeting. Member Ciesynski requested quarterly reports, budget to actual, especially once the labor contracts are solidified.


Ms. Langley asked Mr. Goudie if those reports would be available and if there were issues or concerns in sharing them. Mr. Goudie stated there were no issues, once the union agreements are complete, he would be happy to provide a summary to explain what the agreements mean and the dollar amount impacts, as well as the quarterly reports that are required under statute.

(b) For Possible Action: Discussion and Consideration of Nye County Financial Condition

1. Report by Nye County and the Department on the following matters:

a) Update on Treasurer’s Office Monthly Bank Reconcilements and Treasurer’s Reports b) Report by Nye County regarding Preparation for the 2019 Annual Audit and any Concerns

that need to be addressed

Ms. Langley explained staff has weekly conference calls with Nye County. The auditor, commissioner, treasurer staff, and comptroller’s office participate. The Department struggles to get reports from them. She noted that Moody’s upgraded Nye County from an A3 to an A2. The Department understands the county may look to refinance jail bonds due to lower interest rates. The treasurers report and bank reconciliation provided to the Board of County Commissioners does not balance. They discussed that during their last conference call. She said the Department made it clear these reports need to balance. Dan McArthur, their auditor, will help with that. Savannah Rucker provided a calendar summary. The Department has made it clear to Nye County that their goal is to ensure the audit is produced timely this year. She introduced Dan McArthur and John Prudhont. Chairman Leavitt asked when the Committee could expect an up to date reconciliation of balances. Mr. Prudhont responded that they were working under directions that it was more important to get the treasurers report in. They brought back the previous Chief Deputy Treasurer to complete the reports and are going back to July of last year correcting errors found in the reports. Chairman Leavitt asked again when they anticipate a corrected version to be available. Mr. Prudhont replied it should be complete by the end of next month. Chairman Leavitt asked him to let Kelly know so she can let the Committee know. He asked Savannah if she expects the audit report to be timely. She replied that she expects it to be completed in November, assuming the treasurer’s office completes the balanced bank reconciliations. Chairman Leavitt assumes they will have a lot of recommendations and possible violations as a result of this not being done. She agreed it is possible, it’s likely they will see pulled cash and investment findings with regards to the bank reconciliations, and cross training again. The reconciling items are revenue based. Expenditures are in line. When the reconciling item journal entries are done to record the revenues, they will be in a better position. Chairman Leavitt stated Nye County will not come off fiscal watch until they have a full year of cash reconciliations, on time with an audit report reflecting that. The soonest would be November of 2020 when the audit report is due, assuming everything takes place. He does not think they will recommend any change in that status until the Committee is convinced Nye County is past this. Member Walker agreed. She congratulated Nye County on their bond rating increase. She asked if expenditures were in line and revenues were off. Ms. Rucker clarified there were clerical errors and believes the variant is about 400k, there were $1 million in clerical errors. Member Walker asked if they have an idea where it is. Ms. Rucker explained the bank reconciliation format and treasurers report is new, she thinks there are formula errors and will work with the treasurer’s office to get a revised version to the Committee. Mr. Prudhont noted the previous Chief Deputy Treasurer included checks carried over from 2011. They are in the process of cleaning up what has been there for 10 years. It will not show until July and August but should see a clean reconciliation by then. Their phone meeting on Thursday informed them to go back and add the unidentified line item to the other prior reconciliation reports so they balance. A lot were clerical errors and other unidentified amounts. He assured the Committee they will see results. Member Ciesynski senses they are working together with the finance office. Ms. Rucker confirmed, noting that with the Treasurer’s office being behind it has been a rush to get them to the Committee. When they close the books on September 3rd, they will have a chance to dig into this and have a current report to work on to make changes together.


Chairman Leavitt asked them to promise to have an update, everything to current, on the treasurer’s report that will balance, without errors for the next meeting. Ms. Rucker and Mr. Prudhont agreed. Chairman Leavitt stated he would not forget that. Member Beth Kohn-Cole asked about the negative on the grants in the report detailing cash accounts, if it is from reimbursement requests out and if they were already out, Ms. Rucker confirmed. Member Kohn-Cole verified with Ms. Rucker it was just timing of the billing. Member Kohn-Cole noted there is nothing regarding revenue and expenditures and where they are at budget to actual, she thinks that needs to pull together to show the Committee where they are financially. She hopes they will have that after the audit after November 30. She expects the bank reconciliations will be current through the current year, Ms. Rucker agreed. Chairman Leavitt asked if they anticipate over expenditures for the June year end. Ms. Rucker replied the Sheriff’s office is under budget, the Board of County Commissioners approved a couple augmentations in June to tidy the record for the end of the fiscal year. There are currently no funds with expenditures in excess of appropriations. The ambulance fund, which is an enterprise fund that does record the liability for PERS retirement, does create a deficit, and they will see that on the audit, it is unavoidable. Outside of that they don’t see any other issues. AP closed last week, receipts close next week. John Koenig, with Nye County, commented that the Board of Commissioners budgets the actuals every month. They review it with Savannah’s help. It is in good shape now. Chairman Leavitt noted that their financial position has improved greatly, and that should be congratulated. If they could get the reporting and technical things resolved with an audit report without a bunch of violations, they will be where they need to be. Ms. Langley expressed concern about their desire to place blame on past treasurers, at some point the reports need to get fixed. Even today she hears it is because of the prior treasurer. The prior treasurer was there to train. Ms. Langley is concerned training has not occurred. To feel confident that they will be timely depends on their staff and the back up being trained. 2011 outstanding items can’t be taken off till they are off the books. For 2011 through 2014 or 2017, it was under $100K. She realizes Mr. Prudhont has only been there since the first of the year but he knew there was a problem that needed to be fixed. The Department just wants it done, she wants to see the reports and go forward. Mr. Prudhont addressed Ms. Langley’s comment, stating it is not about blame, but to explain why things are the way they are. He asked how Ms. Langley was able to make a judgement call on their training. Ms. Langley replied that she based it off their weekly conference calls. Mr. Prudhont noted he advised on the training happening on a daily basis, the bank reconciliation training is not happening because the format changed for it to make more sense to the person doing it to clear up the problems. They are, and have been, moving forward. He disagrees with Ms. Langley’s assessment. Chairman Leavitt noted at the December meeting, the Committee would like an update on training, and confirmation that it is complete and that multiple people can do these things. Mr. Ciesynski noted he thinks the expertise is not totally in place yet, and it needs to get there. Chairman Leavitt asked the County Commissioner to take personal responsibility to be sure training is taking place prior to the December meeting. Mr. Koenig noted it is one of his concerns, and he will do his best to do so, adding that he has no direct supervision over the Treasurer, but can attempt to make it happen. Chairman Leavitt noted that Mr. Koenig can bring it up at the County Commissioners meetings. Mr. Prudhont replied that they have done the training and the steps from the treasurer’s report side. The bank reconciliation side is far more complicated. They have someone highly qualified in the Chief Deputy position going back and doing it right, it takes time. It is not a training issue. She put together a new format so people can see where the numbers come from. Chairman Leavitt clarified that beyond any one person, if someone leaves or something happens, this problem does not happen again. Mr. Koenig agreed, that he is concerned no one behind her can do her job. Member Marty Johnson suggests the county provide a summary of the training by the person who did the training and who was trained, that may help with Kelly’s concerns as well. Chairman Leavitt agreed.


Member Colvin mentioned a similar problem in Clark County, and it is not necessarily having the expertise, but not having the bandwidth to keep up with the day to day duties and write up procedures. They hired an independent auditor to reconcile the account, put in tools to go forward, and created operating procedures. She understands training in place, they went through it for two years, until they brought someone in from the outside. Ms. Langley agreed, adding that she has been recommending that they need more staff. Also, if they have contacted the person that trained them, and if they contacted that person with questions, noting no calls have been made. Sometimes training is Excel spreadsheet training, not where to look or how to investigate. The June reconciliation shows clerical errors. She agrees with Jessica and feels that is what they need. She thought the former treasurer was going to do that but doesn’t feel the training happened. She thinks there is some animosity that they feel when the Department says they aren’t doing the training. They need more time in the day, and they need to get over that hurdle. Chairman Leavitt asked for any other comments or questions. There were none. ITEM 5. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: REVIEW OF RULES OF PRACTICE REQUIRED BY NRS 233B.050 AND DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING A SUBCOMMITTEE(S): Chairman Leavitt stated they discussed at the last meeting writing regulations relating to expected reports and things required of entities under fiscal watch. They also talked about GASB84 as it relates to school districts. He noted it has been a long time since they reviewed their forms and regulations. He also noted the reporting as related to the More Cops situation, and Mary had brought up an item relating to drafting language for SB48. He suggested establishing 2 subcommittees, one for regulations regarding entities on fiscal watch and SB48, and a second for accounting things including restricted and unrestricted funds. He assigned Member Walker as the Chair for the subcommittee regarding Fiscal watch and SB48, and Member Colvin as Chair to the accounting subcommittee. He also assigned members to each subcommittee. Member Paul Johnson suggested changing the subcommittee on regulations to “changes to statute”. Chairman Leavitt agreed noting it could also be changes in statute. He stated that he expects a preliminary report by the next meeting. Peter Keegan suggested the Chairman have a motion passed to establish the subcommittees. Motion was passed unanimously. ITEM 6. BRIEFING TO AND FROM THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE STAFF (a) Report by Department of Local Government Finance “Audit Summaries 2009–2018” as prepared for the Committee

Ms. Langley explained the Audit Summaries included in the material and asked for questions or suggestions for future years. Chairman Leavitt noted the restricted and unrestricted fund balance on the Audit Summaries was helpful. He would like a discussion about Mineral County’s financial situation on the next agenda. He requested the members review the Audit Summaries and let him know if there are other areas of concerns at the next meeting. Ms. Langley noted that in addition to GASB 68, that will be reviewed. One of the concerns is that CCSD brought up a trust account they brought over to a special revenue account, money students put in for various activities. It is a year end adjustment, and year after year it will show up. She anticipates other school districts will do the same and would like to know if there is a better way to show these. Member Walker commented on the Audit Summaries. She was surprised how many entities are doing better, and she thanked Ms. Langley for putting it together. Ms. Langley noted that staff works hard on it. ITEM 7. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES

(a) For Possible Action: CLGF Committee Meeting – July 12, 2019 Motion was passed unanimously, minutes were approved.


ITEM 8. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: SCHEDULE DATE AND REVIEW AGENDA TOPICS FOR THE NEXT MEETING Chairman Leavitt asked Ms. Langley when amended budgets are due. She replied they are due in December. He suggested the next meeting in the first part of January, so they know where they stand with budgets. He wants CCSD and Nye County to return, preliminary reports from the subcommittee’s, amended December budgets, Washoe County School District, and Mineral County. Ms. Langley noted the indebtedness report will be prepared for the committee as well. He would like a discussion on that also, and about schools as a result of the legislature changes noting they will see the impact in Washoe and Clark counties, with a discussion on the rural areas. Member Ciesynski stated Member Paul Johnson may have a comment on that as he will be serving on the New Formula Committee scheduled to meet in September. Member Paul Jonson replied that he hadn’t heard on the finalization of that committee, they were still trying to find members, September was the targeted date. He noted there will be some significant changes, they may need a presentation from Mr. Jeremy Aguero to explain it to this committee as well. Chairman Leavitt agreed that would be a good idea. Ms. Langley believes there are large impacts in large counties that receive Net Proceeds, and maybe along with the rural, they could have Jeremy as well. Member Kohn-Cole asked if a summary of legislative changes regarding local government finance can be provided to the members. Ms. Langley noted there is a completed summary, she will see what she can do to get it to them. Member Colvin noted legislative changes have significantly increased the liabilities on workers compensation claims, adding that it is only an estimate, but the self-funded internal service funds for FY20 will now be in a negative net position. She wants the Committee to be aware that they may see these insurance funds. Chairman Leavitt thinks they should discuss how to handle that. He thinks the subcommittee looking at the accounting changes and its effect on regulations and statutes could look at that. Member Colvin noted that she will add it to the list. She also added that she will get with Kelly and the subcommittee members on this matter. ITEM 9. PUBLIC COMMENT (See Note 2) There was none. ITEM 10. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: ADJOURNMENT Chair Leavitt adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m.

10-16-19 CLGF Sub Committee Meeting Minutes – DRAFT Page 1

;DRAFT Minutes of the Subcommittee Meeting of the

COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE October 16, 2019, 8:30 a.m.

The meeting was held at the Nevada Department of Taxation, 1550 College Pkwy, Large Conference Room, Carson City, Nevada with videoconference to Nevada Department of Taxation, Training Room, 2550 Paseo Verde Pkwy, Henderson, Nevada. This meeting was also part of a teleconference.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Walker, Chairman Marty Johnson Tom Ciesynski Paul Johnson Jim McIntosh


DEPT OF TAXATION STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Mitchell Christina Griffith Denesa Johnston Hector Sepulveda

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Representing Beth Kohn-Cole Self Sherry Wideman Churchill County Maria Gueder Clark County School District Vinson Guthreau NACO

ITEM 1. ROLL CALL AND OPENING REMARKS All members were present. ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. ITEM 3. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA AS SUBMITTED OR REVISED No changes were made to the Agenda. ITEM 4. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF REGULATORY MATTERS

AND SB48

(a) To discuss opening a regulation to describe conditions and reports necessary for entities on fiscal watch

(b) Discussion on SB48 and impact on local governments and determination if regulations or guidance is needed and review of ballot language templates.

(c) Discussion on various legislation changing ending fund balance from 25% to 16.6% for school districts and 16.67% for local governments and action needed.

Chairman Walker explained she discussed the differences in the law regarding NAC and NRS with the Department of Taxation (Department). Fiscal watch provisions center around severe fiscal emergency. The Committee of Local Government Finance (CLGF) and the Department believe it is time to look at fiscal watch provisions. The Department has received little response from entities when requesting information to determine if a local government is financially sound. This meeting is to look at developing a NAC to require the submittal and preparation of certain records. Member Marty Johnson recalled when this subcommittee was created, he brought the school districts 3yr declining balance to Chairman Leavitt’s attention; and suggested putting parameters in place to expand it to other entities. He is unsure if that fits into today’s Agenda, but if this subcommittee goes further, he would like it discussed.


Chairman Walker mentioned one item to look at on this Agenda is fund balance. Member Ciesynski noted when an entity is on fiscal watch, they don’t always bring their CEO to the CLGF meetings. He thinks they should be aware of what is going on. Chairman Walker agreed, adding the fiscal watch letter should be sent to the entity and a copy to the CEO and the CFO. Member Marty Johnson suggested it be acknowledged at a public board meeting. Chairman Walker agreed. Member Paul Johnson echoed Member Ciesynski comment, adding that the School Board and executive officers do not have to take recommendations from the CLGF. He thinks the board and superintendent are insulated from the scrutiny of the CLGF and thinks it would be good to bring them up front. Member McIntosh agreed, while working with the Clark County School District, he noted having to answer to the Department doesn’t always rise to the level of the superintendent or Board of Trustees. He is not sure the finance departments understand what fiscal watch means. Chairman Walker agreed and asked if fiscal watch is defined. Jeffrey Mitchell, with the Department, read the NAC definition for fiscal watch. Chairman Walker had Mr. Mitchell read the first paragraph on the handout NAC 354.XXX regarding fiscal watch. He clarified it is a rough draft to see if there is a need to open this up for a regulation change. Chairman Walker suggested adding governing board to the third line, and on the fifth line where it reads “local governments shall provide” to add “prepare and provide”. Regarding the second paragraph, Member Ciesynski suggested changing amended final budgets to any final budgets. Member Marty Johnson suggested it read budgets for the current fiscal year, so the committee can see changes from the amended to the final budgets. Chairman Walker noted the Department will have the budgets. Mr. Mitchell confirmed clarifying this stems from the language during the legislative session “local governments may submit amended final budget after the close of legislature”. Member Ciesynski added the key issue was the word may. Chairman Walker noted this would be a requirement if the Department chose to get the amended, suggesting they add “the preparation and submittal of” to paragraph 2 where it says such documentation may include but is not limited to. She would add amended final budgets under A, including budgets impacted by the Legislature, as that was the issue. Member Ciesynski agreed, Member Marty Johnson mentioned if they do not do an amended budget they won’t have anything to provide. Chairman Walker clarified this would allow the Department to require them to do one if they are on fiscal watch. Member McIntyre expressed concern that the NAC would supersede what the law says. Peter Keegan, with the Attorney General’s Office, commented that at the beginning of the regulation they can refer to that noting “notwithstanding provisions of NRS 354.598005 or any applicable law”. Chairman Walker questioned if they should be more specific on the projected cash flow for a requested period and fund type or leave it general for the Department to provide that direction. She thinks the more definitive they can be to take pressure off the Department. She noted the historical cash flow is important to see how they got to the point of having financial problems. She would like to say at least two years of historical cash flow by fund by month. On the projected cash flow, she thinks it needs to be five years by fund by month. If they just bring it all together like Clark County Schools did it gets hidden. Otherwise they can just take money from other funds for their general fund, which is illegal. Some do it as long as they aren’t getting caught. She thinks having all funds, by month, for these time periods are important so if they are deficit in some funds they can see where they are pulling the money from. Some funds are restricted by law. Member Ciesynski clarified five years for the projected cash flow, Chairman Walker confirmed. He added school districts generally only know their funding for two years and suggested it only be two years. Anything more is guesswork for school districts. Member Marty Johnson agreed it would be guesswork for any local government to go five years out and the school districts would have a tough time with that. Chairman Walker then suggested a minimum of two years. They agreed, noting the historical could go back at least four. Chairman Walker suggested a minimum of two years on both and let the Department make that decision. Members Marty Johnson and Ciesynski agreed. Member Marty Johnson cautioned them not to get so specific they tie the hands for what they are asking for and not receive what they are asking for. He suggested when the local governments give them the funds, they can


specify if any are restricted. Chairman Walker agreed, noting she would like to try and do what they can to eliminate conflicts or push backs from a local government to the Department of Taxation. Mr. Mitchell commented that his idea of this is to let the local governments know what may be requested, so if they are approaching fiscal watch, they can take steps to avoid getting there. He added that each instance is unique and does not think they should limit themselves; the Department may not need the same information for each entity depending on why they are on fiscal watch. Chairman Walker asked Mr. Mitchell if this language would work for him. He stated it would. Member McIntosh agrees, and agreed with Member Ciesynski’s comments regarding the issues for school districts. Mr. McIntosh mentioned school districts may be able to project their expenditures. Member Marty Johnson agreed, adding that would give them more information. Chairman Walker asked if it should be a minimum two years projected revenue and expenditures, without that they can’t do cash flows. Member Paul Johnson agreed and thinks that ties in with the quarterly economic reports (QES), noting school districts do not necessarily have restricted funds, but do have grants and donations. Regarding a report by fund type, he envisions they would need to provide the general fund, revenue and expenditures, state grants rolled into one category, and federal grants in one category. He asked if that was what they meant by fund type. Chairman Walker believes it is. she thinks it needs to be by requested fund or fund type and leave the decision up to the Department. She noted they don’t want them to put it all together, so if there is a deficit they can see where they are taking it from. Mr. Mitchell suggested historical expenditures and revenues for a requested time period and fund or fund type. Chairman Walker agreed suggesting adding fund or fund type. Member Ciesynski suggested requesting a quarterly budget to actual report for entities on fiscal watch to check their progress. Chairman Walker agreed. Member Marty Johnson mentioned if they are not completing bank reconciliations, they don’t know how much cash they have. Member Ciesynski agreed. Member Paul Johnson agreed with Marty’s comment about creating more work for already distressed entities and the possibility of setting them up for failure. Chairman Walker noted during their meeting Ms. Langley brought up a timeline of the annual audit. Requiring a schedule of the annual audit delineating how the local government will meet the statutory audit deadline. She thinks it is important and a good planning tool. It may help with staff turnover to organize the workload. She doesn’t believe it is more than what they should already be doing and would be defining it to eliminate conflict. Chairman Walker noted Member Marty Johnson had a good idea to have the notice of fiscal watch go to the governing board and for them to acknowledge receipt at a public meeting. It is the boards job to provide the resources to do the fiscal work. She thinks that may help a lot. Member Paul Johnson agrees and thinks the CLGF or the Department should receive minutes reflecting acknowledgement. It would need a fiscal officer or CPA to provide a session in front of an outside entity to say we have had recommendations for resources, but that hasn’t happened, and here is the consequence. Chairman Walker noted they will add minutes from the governing board acknowledging receipt of the fiscal watch letter from the Department. She stated they need to be told the board must acknowledge receipt. Peter Keegan suggested it say they must place it on their next agenda as a discussion item, noted he would come up with that wording. Member Ciesynski added they need to get the CEO and a board member along with the finance officer, or their designee to be present at the CLGF meetings. Peter Keegan noted when looking at the statute that authorizes fiscal watch, it is a little bit of a paper tiger. The CLGF and Chairman Leavitt have instructed the subcommittee to give fiscal watch more power, having those individuals there is up to the governing body, and to request technical assistance from the CLGF. Fiscal watch is “don’t do that”, it is up to the local governing body to ask for assistance. The law allows the CLGF to ask for everything, but it remains up to the local body to ask for technical assistance. That thereby gives the CLGF and the Department authority to make definitive recommendations which can be appealed to the Tax Commission, and that they can’t be removed or get out of that position. Subsection 2 of 354.675 says the governing body “may” adopt a resolution requesting permission to order the Department in consultation with the CLGF. Chairman Walker noted they can also handle this themselves.


Member McIntosh agrees they need the board, CEO’s, city managers and superintendents to be involved in the process. There needs to be regular communication, maybe a quarterly letter. The local governments should have a plan to get off fiscal watch, and that should be approved by their board. Maybe on a quarterly or semi-annual basis there should be a report that has to be acknowledged by the board explaining when they were put on fiscal watch, what the plan to get off was and where they are now. It keeps them in the loop and lets them know they can request technical assistance because he doesn’t believe any board knows they can do that, and they need to be reminded regularly. Member Marty Johnson agreed nobody knows they can ask for technical assistance. He thought they were trying to accomplish making sure the boards understand. The finance guy comes, they beat him up, he goes back, and the CLGF has no control after that. He thinks Jim’s suggestions are excellent. Chairman Walker noted they will add the plan to get off fiscal watch, and that it must be approved by their board. She asked if they wanted to add quarterly updates to the board. Member Marty Johnson suggested periodic. Peter Keegan asked what the effect of fiscal watch is on a local government’s bond rating. Member Marty Johnson recalled that when Clark County School District was placed on fiscal watch, it did not affect their bond rating. Chairman Walker thinks it would affect it if it goes to severe financial emergency. Mr. Keegan asked if the bond agency’s look at these meetings and see if a local government is placed on fiscal watch. Member Marty Johnson noted in terms of the bond rating process; they have their own version of fiscal watch. Downgrading or negative outlook, they take their own action. He added many entities in this state were downgraded that were never on fiscal watch, they do their own independent analysis. Chairman Walker asked if this would be the place for Marty and Tom to talk about the 3 years declining fund balance for school districts. Member Marty Johnson noted it would likely be a separate thing. She asked if they have jurisdiction over 387. Mr. Mitchell does not believe so, Mr. Keegan will look into it. Member Marty Johnson noted they may not be able to do anything about what 387 says, but they can put something in 354 that says if the fund balance is still over 8.3 to send a letter, if below, CLGF will want to see them. Chairman Walker noted they could have another NAC changed to add what they are talking about. Mr. Mitchell noted that 354.685 shows possible items that if a government qualifies they are put on fiscal watch. One of the qualifications is they have a declining ending fund balance (EFB) and general fund balance for the past two years. He added that this is a little more restrictive than 387. Member Marty Johnson believes they should be trying to get a handle on it before they are put on fiscal watch. Chairman Walker noted this is for once they are on fiscal watch. Mr. Mitchell explained decline is defined to mean a decline of 20% or more in the balance. Member Ciesynski noted there have been times when there were 3 years of declining fund balance and an entity had to come before the CLGF, they still had an adequate balance of 8% and the committee didn’t understand why they were there. Mr. Mitchell noted he would work on that. Chairman Walker mentioned they may want to meet again in mid-December, as it was not on the Agenda. Mr. Mitchell noted he would also hold a workshop. Chairman Walker asked if the CLGF needs this to go before them before a workshop, Mr. Keegan believes the CLGF would have to request the workshop. Mr. Mitchell noted they could have another meeting and he could submit language to LCB and bring that to the CLGF for approval. Chairman Walker added the Full Committee can comment on it then as well. Mr. Mitchell noted if they don’t start the process soon July 1st will come up quick. Member Paul Johnson noted the reason they request the documentation is to get a better understanding of what is going on in the local government. He noted that the QES asks for detailed information, and wonders if they should ask for that as well. Chairman Walker noted the Department receives QES reports, Mr. Mitchell confirmed. Chairman Walker added the quarterly reports are one of the flags used to determine if someone should be on fiscal watch. Mr. Mitchell’s intent in paragraph three is for a government on fiscal watch to have an out to explain why this wouldn’t be probable or possible to provide, they don’t want to be overly burdensome. Chairman Walker would say instead of the request for documentation that the petition doesn’t go to the Committee but to the Department instead. On the last line she would change it to the decision of the CLGF or the Department is final, if they say


no, and the next meeting is months away, the Department is left with nothing. She thinks the Department should have final say on granting extensions. Mr. Mitchell warned the Department may or may not go along with the Committee’s desire for more information. Chairman Walker suggested the Department work with the Chairman regarding that. Member Marty Johnson suggested a recommendation to the Committee if someone is on fiscal watch to create a subcommittee for the item. It would be an easier group to get together, they could get on the phone and meet, Chairman Walker agreed, noting a subcommittee could be created informally. Member McIntosh noted they didn’t discuss employee contracts, or the impacts of them and is not sure if that is something they will require in session two. Chairman Walker went over a list of possible required documentation. They talked about periodic updates. The petition will go to the Department, and at the end, the decision of the Committee or the Department will be final. Member Paul Johnson questioned what happens if the local government is not progressing, if there is something in statute for receivership. Chairman Walker noted under severe financial emergency there is a notice that if they don’t do it, they lose their job. She thinks they have the same provision under over expenditures and could add that. She added one of their goals is to make things easier for the Department, add some teeth to make it easier for them to get these things. Chairman Walker discussed SB48, regarding the special fuel tax. She noted the Board can enact this by a vote of the board or a vote at a general election. The CLGF is required to provide forms for submitting a question to the voters. The last time they provided ballot templates was in 2012. They now need one for this 5-cent tax. It can be an advisory question or one to enact the tax. Member Marty Johnson questioned if this is more of a fee imposition, Chairman Walker confirmed. Chairman Walker thinks it needs to be stated in a way that is legally consistent with SB48. They went over sample language and decided they need both an advisory question and a ballot question. She will draft language to bring back to the subcommittee. Member Marty Johnson noted getting the entities to follow the template may be an issue. Member Ciesynski questioned if the bond council was involved in the original templates. Chairman Walker noted they were and will need to be again. Member Marty Johnson clarified this is only for counties with populations under 100,000. Chairman Walker brought up the EFB balance changes with SB111, from 25% to 16.67%, as well as SB543 which allowed a school district to have a 16.6% fund balance not subject to negotiations. She wasn’t sure if a NAC was needed, there are two NRS’s. After discussing it with the Department she thinks they do for educational value and because the NAC has more to it than the NRS. She referred to NAC 354.660, NRS does not address special revenue funds. Beth Kohn-Cole requested they talk about budgeted vs EFB, there is a huge difference and it needs to be clear. Chairman Walker agreed and read the terms, noting they would keep those terms. Member Paul Ciesynski thinks they need to differentiate the type of fund balance. Chairman Walker replied that would require legislation, the law does not address it, this will provide more financial stability. ITEM 5. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: SCHEDULE DATE AND REVIEW AGENDA TOPICS FOR THE NEXT MEETING Chairman Walker noted she will work with Peter and the Department and bring some things back to the subcommittee. She requested the next meeting be in mid-December. She would like to add the declining fund balance requirements to the next meeting. ITEM 6. PUBLIC COMMENT (See Note 2) There was none. ITEM 7. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:53 a.m.


DRAFT Minutes of the Subcommittee Meeting of the

COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE October 18, 2019, 1:00 p.m.

The meeting was held at the Nevada Department of Taxation, 1550 College Pkwy, Large Conference Room, Carson City, Nevada with videoconference to Nevada Department of Taxation, Training Room, 2550 Paseo Verde Pkwy, Henderson, Nevada. This meeting was also part of a teleconference.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jessica Colvin, Chairman Beth Kohn-Cole Jeff Cronk Gina Rackley


DEPT OF TAXATION STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Mitchell Kelly Langley Keri Gransbery Penny Hampton Christina Griffith Denesa Johnston Hector Sepulveda

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Representing Sherry Wideman Churchill County Jeffrey Share Clark County Finance Dept Maria Gueder Clark County School District Jeanette Duque Clark County School District

ITEM 1. ROLL CALL AND OPENING REMARKS All members were present. ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. ITEM 3. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA AS SUBMITTED OR REVISED No changes were made to the Agenda. ITEM 4. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: REVIEW OF RULES OF PRACTICE REQUIRED BY NRS 233B.050 AND

DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF ANY RECENT CHANGES TO GASB AND DETERMINE IF FURTHER GUIDANCE IS NECESSARY

(a) To determine if regulations or guidance is needed to provide clarification on fund balance in regards to restricted vs unrestricted ending fund balance

Chairman Colvin asked the Department to give the background on this meeting. Jeffrey Mitchell, with the Department of Taxation, explained the term restricted and unrestricted has come up, specifically with one of the qualifications of placing an entity on fiscal watch. He thinks there is some confusion. He specified this is a general question if the Committee feels the Department of Taxation (Department) should do a guidance letter, or if the regulations should be opened. Chairman Colvin asked if he was referring to the actual budget submission. Member Kohn-Cole believes that is already in the budget, noting that GASB defines restricted and unrestricted so it does not need to be in the regulations. She mentioned Mary Walkers subcommittee was addressing that. She personally would not change it. Member Cronk asked the Department where the confusion is, what current common practice is, and what guidance the Department has given. Mr. Mitchell responded that the only confusion he has seen is the most recent entity placed on fiscal watch, one of the elements cited was an ending fund balance below the threshold


outlined in NRS and NAC and they had asked if the Department was looking at restricted or unrestricted funds. The Department responded that it is the ending fund balance as stated. Member Cronk asked for clarification if the Department makes that determination based on what is in the state document. Kelly Langley, with the Department, confirmed, adding that it is not specified in their budgets. It is beginning and ending fund balance. The Department does not differentiate. The Committee on Local Government has been asked if it is restricted or unrestricted. That is sometimes provided in the audits, but when the Department looks at the budget, they don’t look at the audits and they don’t track that. She thought maybe the Committee would like to see that differentiated on the reports the Department provides. Member Cronk asked if the concern is mainly for fiscal watch, or if there are other issues where this comes up. Mr. Mitchell replied that it isn’t necessarily a concern on the Departments part but something that was brought up and he feels it was worthy of discussion. Ms. Langley added from the local governments point of view, especially when on fiscal watch, they want the Department to start differentiating between restricted and unrestricted. Specifically, regarding GASB 84, she wonders if they and the Committee should be more concerned with it now. Member Cronk stated that it raises some difficulty. The problem is that those distinctions are not made until after the books are closed, so they aren’t prepared to put that in the budget. He thinks if there is an avenue where they could speak to it, to explain it, he thinks that would be sufficient. Chairman Colvin noted that Clark County has a way to estimate that and separate restricted from unrestricted. It is a long process. She thinks if their revenue is in a special revenue or capital project fund, it is not a concern to the Committee or the Department, they are more worried about the General Fund. She thinks it could be beneficial to know how much of the General Fund is restricted. There is also an issue with GASB 84 where some of the trusts and fiduciary funds become part of the General Fund and the Department wants to know how much of that is restricted. She agrees it creates a lot more work to do that. She suggested they maybe ask for just for fiscal watch to have the differentiated funds. Member Kohn-Cole noted that the other subcommittee is addressing that. She also suggested putting the budget stabilization funds in the budget forms. Penny Hampton, with the Department, explained the stabilization funds are typically moved over in the audit.

(b) To discuss GASB 84 and any other recent accounting changes in GASB that may require regulation or guidance

Chairman Colvin noted the changes in GASB 84 change the definition to reporting models. She added that the question is whether the Department will be impacted. She is not sure this will cause additional concern for the Department, but could for local governments, they may need to change the year end or have additional audits done. Member Kohn-Cole asked for clarification if the new component units will be part of the local government budget, or if they will need to submit their own budgets. Ms. Hampton noted it would be included in their budgets as a separate fund. Chairman Colvin noted that per statute OPEB submits their own budget to the Department and wondered if component units would need to do a separate one. Ms. Langley stated the Department currently gets those within the budget as a separate fund. Ms. Hampton added that they do submit budgets. Chairman Colvin stated that OPEB trusts are not funds, they are separate entities. Member Kohn-Cole noted Washoe County has an OPEB trust and asked Ms. Langley how that is reported. She replied that she believes it is in their budget as a fund. It is being filed as a fund within Washoe County. Member Kohn-Cole stated their may be other entities that are not already pulling this into their budget. Chairman Colvin noted with the implementation, when pulling these funds in to the financial statement, a budget would also need to be filed.


Member Kohn-Cole asked if the Department should send an email to the local governments to see how many will be impacted by GASB 84. Member Cronk thinks it would be very few of them. Ms. Hampton thinks it would mostly be the counties, school districts, cities and smaller governments. Ms. Langley suggested sending it out with the budget package as a reminder. Chairman Colvin stated it should be noted if they had a 457 or 401A plan it could roll into this as well if they had a government match requirement. She likes the idea of sending a questionnaire to see what the impact would be. Member Kohn-Cole questioned if they just have a 457 plan if it would automatically come in or if there are control issues. Mr. Keegan noted on page 4 of the PDF, it identifies that. Chairman Colvin thinks there are entities that have a 457 that are employee contribution only, but the 401A plan that is employer contribution only could be brought in. Member Kohn-Cole thinks this may take some smaller local governments by surprise. Ms. Hampton noted the smaller governments are likely part of PERS. Member Rackley agrees with Ms. Hampton. Chairman Colvin suggested putting together a questionnaire to get an idea of the impact and provide guidance on things to think about. Year end could mess them up. Ms. Langley asked the subcommittee to assist the Department with the questionnaire. Chairman Colvin stated her staff could help, and maybe Eide Bailey as well. Member Kohn-Cole asked if Chairman Colvin’s staff could put something together to send to the rest of the committee. Chairman Colvin agreed noting she would forward it to the Department. Member Kohn-Cole noted that the new terminology is Net Position instead of Fund Balance. Net Position is not defined, she thinks maybe they should add something for that. Chairman Colvin agreed. Member Colvin referred to GASB 87, regarding leases. All leases can now be capitalized. She thinks these should be reported under schedule C1 in the budget documents. Clark County has over 50 leases, she wonders if they want some other category for these. Member Kohn-Cole thinks FASB was extended the lease provision another year, she is not sure on GASB. Chairman Colvin believes it is the next 2 years. She wondered if they want to change the budget form. Member Rackley pulled up the GASB website noting it states December 15, 2019. Member Kohn-Cole thought they extended it. Ms. Hampton noted they don’t treat leases as debt. Member Kohn-Cole stated it is the new standard. Member Kohn-Cole added that it might not affect the budgeted, Member Cronk added that it might not need to be reported. Chairman Colvin agrees, adding the payment needs to be reported. Member Kohn-Cole added that it would move out of services and supplies to debt service, Chairman Colvin confirmed. She thinks they should look closely at how the Department wants to see that information. Chairman Colvin asked if someone on the committee could provide the Department with an update on GASB 87 regarding the implementation date. Member Kohn-Cole volunteered. Chairman Colvin noted if the effective date is December 2019, that would mean they will see it July 1, 2020. Member Kohn-Cole stated she would check and send an email.


Ms. Langley noted if they want to change any of their forms it would need to be done before January to be effective for July 2020. Member Kohn-Cole will look at that and email the committee. Chairman Colvin asked the members to look at their leases and see how that will impact them. Ms. Langley agreed. Mr. Mitchell asked if they meet in early December, if they would like the Department to bring possible changes to their forms. They agreed. He noted one of the ones he sees is the C1a or b. Ms. Hampton noted C1 has different types of debt. Member Kohn-Cole noted it would be nice to have all the leases on a separate one. Member Cronk noted that could be a lot of leases, that maybe they could combine them as another option. Ms. Langley liked that option. Chairman Colvin liked that as well, she added that she would reach out to the airports. Member Kohn-Cole referred to the Eide Bailey website, stating the standard is not applicable until a period after December 15, 2019. She confirmed that is this budget period coming up, so this needs to be addressed. Chairman Colvin asked if there were any other GASB changes. Member Kohn-Cole thinks all local governments should have a footnote this year. Ms. Langley asked if there should be a separate notice to them. Member Kohn-Cole noted if they are doing GASB 84, they should highlight GASB 87 at the same time. Member Cronk agreed. Member Kohn-Cole asked if they meet in November if the survey could be back in time. Chairman Colvin stated they should be able to get something sent out next week, giving them two weeks to reply. ITEM 5. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: SCHEDULE DATE AND REVIEW AGENDA TOPICS FOR THE NEXT MEETING Chairman Colvin stated for the next meeting they will go through the surveys on GASB 84 and discuss what guidance they should provide. The Department will bring options for GASB 87 regarding budget reporting. Member Cronk asked if they should discuss Net Position more. Mr. Mitchell noted they will be opening regulations on fiscal watch, and they could look at that then during the workshop. Ideas can be handled through the workshop, he has this on his radar. Member Kohn-Cole noted she will double check that GASB 87 didn’t get extended. ITEM 6. PUBLIC COMMENT (See Note 2) There was none. ITEM 7. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 1:18 p.m.


DRAFT Minutes of the Subcommittee Meeting of the

COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE December 19, 2019, 1:00 p.m.

The meeting was held at the Nevada Department of Taxation, 1550 College Pkwy, Large Conference Room, Carson City, Nevada with videoconference to Nevada Department of Taxation, 1st Floor Conference Room, Grant Sawyer Office Building, 555 E. Washington Ave, Las Vegas, Nevada. This meeting was also part of a teleconference.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Walker, Chairman Marty Johnson Tom Ciesynski Paul Johnson Jim McIntosh


DEPT OF TAXATION STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Mitchell Kelly Langley Kellie Grahmann Keri Gransbery Evelyn Barragan Christina Griffith Chali Spurlock Hector Sepulveda

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Representing Robert Erickson City of Fallon Jeff Cronk CLGF Debbie Sanchez West Wendover Maria Gueder Clark County School District Elizabeth Enrique Nye County Seth Autamirano Town of Minden Wendy Kramer Humboldt County School Dist Carrie Webb Las Vegas Conv & Visitor Auth Erin Las Vegas Conv & Visitor Auth

ITEM 1. ROLL CALL AND OPENING REMARKS All members were present. ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. ITEM 3. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: REPORT AND COMMENT ON WORKSHOP REGARDING ENDING FUND BALANCE AND FISCAL WATCH Chairman Walker requested Kelly Langley, with the Department of Taxation (Department), to go over the changes made at the workshop. Ms. Langley noted the only change made during the workshop regarding NAC 354.660 was on the bottom of paragraph 1, will now say revenues from property taxes or local government tax distribution account. Chairman Walker asked for any comments, there were none. She asked Ms. Langley to go over any changes for the fiscal watch NAC. Ms. Langley referred to page 2, section 3 subsections a through k, they would like to add an additional item between f and g. They would like to add projected timeline for corrective action for any audit findings, and the responsible area and their plan to accomplish. Debbie Sanchez, with West Wendover, asked what Ms. Langley meant by responsible area. Ms. Langley replied that it would be based on the corrective action recommended by their audit, and who would be making those changes so the Department and Committee of Local Government Finance would know who to talk to regarding those corrections. Chairman Walker also noted Member Ciesynski had brought up an item and asked Ms. Langley to explain.


Ms. Langley referred to the bottom of the (a) through (k), they would like to add item (l). The purpose was to have the CFO, CEO and/or Chairperson, and other officers shall attend as requested to the Committee of Local Government meetings. Ms. Sanchez asked if a notice of the meetings would be received. Ms. Langley responded that they would and explained that the board member generally sends a delegate to appear in their place. They want to ensure that if the CFO as well as the board is requested, that they both attend. The request to appear would indicate that. Chairman Walker noted those were the two changes. Ms. Langley added that also on paragraph 4, the sentence beginning with “the committee” where it reads “or department” it will say “the department”. Member Marty Johnson suggested changing in number 2, where it reads “requested from”, it should say “requested by”. Chairman Walker agreed confirming that was in paragraph 2, line 2. Chairman Walker asked for any other comments or suggestions. Member Marty Johnson asked, where it is currently labeled as “j”, he asked what they envision the proof of notice to consist of. Ms. Langley noted that normally in the minutes of the local government there would be a comment that it was received and maybe some discussion. Member McIntosh clarified that it would be the expectation of an Agenda item being brought to their board. Ms. Langley and Chairman Walker agreed. Member Marty Johnson asked if they want to be that specific. Ms. Langley asked if he means instead of proof of notice that it would be an Agenda item of the board or committee of the fiscal watch and plan of correction action. He doesn’t suggest going that far. He referred to paragraph b, suggesting they add to that sentence that it is reflected in the minutes of that meeting, whether in 3(j) or 2(b), maybe some mention that the notice will be reflected in the minutes of the meeting. Ms. Langley suggested the wording to be “In a formal meeting of the board be reflected in the Agenda”. He added it can either be in the Agenda or the minutes. She asked Member McIntosh if he wants that in 2(b) or 3(j). He stated it does not matter, but it appears to already be on 2b. Chairman Walker suggested taking 3(j) out, Member Marty Johnson thinks they should leave both. They want to make sure it is documented that it was presented to the board, it may not require an Agenda item at that time. Member McIntosh clarified that 2(b) would be the notice, and 3(j) would be the proof. Member Marty Johnson 2(b) is when they get the notice of being placed on fiscal watch, 3(j) would be the notice and their plan to address it, the time for corrective action. Member McIntosh is okay with having both. Member Ciesynski agrees that both items should be reflected in the minutes, the notice as well as the corrective action, he thinks they need minutes in both. Ms. Langley sees 2(b) changing to “and reflected in the minutes”, and 3(j) leaving as is. Member Marty Johnson and Member McIntosh were satisfied with that. Member Ciesynski agreed. Peter Keegan noted that 3(j) only needs to be proof of being on the agenda or minutes with presentation of plan of corrective action. Ms. Langley agreed and noted they could change that. Chairman Walker had Ms. Langley read 3(j) as it will be written. “proof of plan of correction action being presented to governing board as reflected in the minutes”. Member Marty Johnson agreed. Chairman Walker clarified that the plan of corrective action in 3(j) is relating to fiscal watch, maybe it should state that. She read that it would read “plan of fiscal watch corrective action being presented to governing body as reflected in the minutes”. Peter Keegan stated his notes show 3(j) was intended to be a plan to get off fiscal watch and suggested that maybe that is put in there to make it clear that it is different than 3(i). Chairman Walker noted that the decision of getting off fiscal watch is with the Department and the Committee of Local Government Finance. She added that their plan may not be accepted and doesn’t think that should be in there. Ms. Langley doesn’t believe it was intended for the plan to get off fiscal watch, she believes it is for documentation the Department is requesting. Ms. Sanchez noted the intent would probably be that having completed those things they would get off fiscal watch.


Chairman Walker thinks what they are doing is requesting the proposal for their plan to be removed from fiscal watch presented to the governing board, and then be sent to the Department for their review. Ms. Langley agreed, adding that it doesn’t have anything to do with them getting off fiscal watch, they would remain on fiscal watch until the Committee and depart believe the need to be on fiscal watch no longer exists. Ms. Langley clarified 3(j) would read “proof of plan of fiscal watch corrective action as reflected in the minutes”. Chairman Walker added “in the governing board minutes”. Members Ciesynski, McIntosh, and Marty Johnson agreed. Chairman Walker mentioned a couple of changes to the fund balance regulation to more closely align it to NRS. In paragraph 2 regarding school districts, she would like to put in "for a school district for the purposes of chapter 288 of NRS,” and then what is there, “a budgeted ending fund balance of not more than 16.60 percent…” to mirror the law. The second change, under (a) at the bottom of page 1, changing it to “a is not subject to negotiations with an employee organization”, removing “other local governments”. Ms. Langley noted she believes Mr. Mitchell had intended during the workshop on matching that, but just didn’t get the language to match, but the intention was there. Ms. Langley clarified that it would now read “is not subject to negotiations with an employee organization; and”. Chairman Walker agreed, clarifying this would align it with NRS. ITEM 4. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: SCHEDULE DATE AND REVIEW AGENDA TOPICS FOR THE NEXT MEETING Ms. Langley noted this will go to LCB to check to make sure it is in the correct format and that it is consistent with statute. They will provide that to Mr. Mitchell, and he will present it to the subcommittee or the Committee to consider any adoption. Chairman Walker asked if they can have an Agenda item for the subcommittee to update the full committee on this matter. Ms. Langley agreed that they would. ITEM 5. PUBLIC COMMENT (See Note 2) There was none. ITEM 6. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION: ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 1:28 p.m.

Esmeralda - Nevada...Esmeralda Nye County NYE COUNTY TREASURER Treasurer's Report & Bank...

Documents

Transcript of Esmeralda - Nevada...Esmeralda Nye County NYE COUNTY TREASURER Treasurer's Report & Bank...