Lander County Citizens Institute Speaker Biographies … County Citizens Institute . Speaker...

Lander County Citizens Institute

Speaker Biographies and Presentation Materials

April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

Battle Mountain Civic Center 625 Broad Street

Battle Mountain, NV 89820

University Center for Economic Development – Nevada Leadership Institute http://www.unr.edu/business/research-and-outreach/uced

http://www.unr.edu/business/research-and-outreach/uced

The University of Nevada, Reno, the University of Nevada, Reno

College of Business, and the University Center for Economic Development would like to thank the Nevada Chapter of the American

Planning Association for their generous support of this leadership development program and the Nevada Leadership Institute.

For more information about the Nevada Chapter of the American Planning Association, including information about how to join, please

visit their website:

http://www.nvapa.org/

http://www.nvapa.org/

Speaker Biographies Michael Harper, FAICP Mike Harper, FAICP, is retired from a 32+ year local government planning career, primarily as a department director and program manager with Washoe County, NV. During his professional career, he managed both current planning and long range planning efforts for the county. His professional organization leadership positions have been with American Planning Association; American Institute of Certified Planners; American Society for Public Administration; National Association of County Planners; and Western Planning Resources, Inc. For over 30 years he was involved with Lake Tahoe as chair of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's advisory planning commission, chair of the Tahoe Transportation District and Commission, Chair of the State of Nevada commission on the purchase of land in the Lake Tahoe Basin; and as Washoe County's permanent alternate on the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's Governing Board. As a trainer/teacher he has presented at the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute's annual conference, Nevada Chapter of the American Planning Association's annual conference, the American Planning Association's national conference, Western Planning Resource's annual conference, at U.S. Forest Service forums on the national forest service's planning policy; and as faculty of the National Business Institute and the University of Nevada, Reno. Mike presently serves on Washoe County's design review committee and as the treasurer of 3 planning organizations. He has a Bachelor of Arts in history and the first Master of Public Administration from the University of Nevada, Reno.

Frederick Steinmann, DPPD Frederick Steinmann currently works for the University of Nevada, Reno and the University Center for Economic Development. He began his professional economic development career with the Reno Redevelopment Agency in the City of Reno, Nevada. Since then, he has worked for the Nevada Small Business Development Center, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, and for the Carson Economic Development Services Department in the City of Carson, California. Frederick has also worked as a Senior Associate for David Paul Rosen & Associates, one of the elite economic development and public policy consulting firms in California. Frederick earned his Doctorate in Policy, Planning, and Development, with areas of study including economic development, public policy, public finance, and real estate development, from the University of Southern California with the successful defense of his dissertation titled, “The Twilight of the Local Redevelopment Era: The Past, Present, and Future of Urban Revitalization and Urban Economic Development in Nevada and California.” He also earned a Bachelor’s of Science and Masters of Science in Economics from the University of Nevada, Reno.

Presentation Material

4/22/2015

1

Welcome!

Nevada Leadership InstituteLander County Citizens Institute

April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

Leadership and You

Celebrating the important work we’ve already done:

– P.O.W.E.R (NACO and UNR Extended Studies)

– Chamber Leadership Programs

– Elected/Appointed New Orientation

– UNCE Engaged Leadership/Office of Civic Engagement

Certificate of Completion

Guests

Objectives

The Nevada Leadership Institute:

– Main Objective: To create a pool of qualified officials as the difficulty of challenges in Nevada grow; officials who understand the ins-and-outs of government Management and Administration.

– Secondary Objective: To reduce conflict between staff and elected/appointed officials over procedural matters pertaining to government Management and Administration.

4/22/2015

2

Our First Exercise

On the inside of your table name tent:

1. Write down something that no else knows about you.

2. Pass your table name tent to someone else: Person 2: make up (pure fiction) something that no-one else knows about Person 1.

3. When called upon, Person 2 will introduce you reading both the true and false thing about you. Class guesses which fact is true about you.

Our Second Exercise

What is Leadership?

As an individual, write down an answer to this question on the index card provided on your table. Think about qualities, responsibilities, activities, etc.

As a group, and using your individual answers, write a single sentence on the flipcharts provided for your group.

As a class, we will discuss and share our answers.

The Agenda

An exploration of thoughts and skills associated with leadership and the administration of local government in Lander County:

1. An Overview of Lander County.

2. An Introduction to the nuts-and-bolts of Local Government Finance – Nevada and Lander County.

3. Local Government and the Law.

4. An Introduction to Planning.

5. An Overview of Economic Development.

4/22/2015

3


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

4/22/2015

1

An Overview of Your Community


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

An Overview of Lander County

Topics:

– Lander County’s Legal Structure

– Roles, Responsibilities, Obligations of Elected and Appointed Officials

– Understanding U.S. Federalism

– Demographic and Economic Trends in Lander County

Legal StructureLocal Government Finance Redbook – FY 2014-15

Local Government Taxing Unit

AssessedValue

Est. Net Proceeds

of Minerals

Total Assessed

Value

Combined Tax Rate

Total Property Tax

Rate

Lander County $646.3 Million $556.5 Million $1.2 Billion 1.9243 3.3552

Lander County School District

$646.3 Million $556.5 Million $1.2 Billion 0.7500 -

Austin Town $4.1 Million - $4.1 Million 0.2213 3.6442

Battle Mountain Town $49.9 Million - $49.9 Million 0.0500 3.4052

Kingston Town $5.6 Million - $5.6 Million 0.3048 3.6600

Lander County Convention & Tourism Authority

$646.3 Million $556.5 Million $1.2 Billion - -

Lander County Hospital District

$646.3 Million $556.5 Million $1.2 Billion 0.5109 -

Lander County Sewer & Water District No. 2

$4.1 Million - $4.1 Million 0.0677 -

4/22/2015

2

Units of Government (William Turk)

Six “Units” (1997 to 2002):– National (1) and State Units (50 – D.C.? Puerto Rico?)

– Counties (3,035)

– Towns and Townships (16,504)

– Municipalities (19,429)

– School Districts (13,506)

– Special Districts and Public Authorities (35,052 – since 2002, has this gotten bigger or smaller?)

A Grand Total of 87,576.

Common Elements

Role of Voters

Legislative and Executive (Administrative) Functions

A Politics-Administration Dichotomy – separating the “lock” from the “key” of policy making and policy implementation.

Responsibilities

NRS 282 (Official Bonds and Oaths), Section 010:

“I, ........................., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the Constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic

or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state

notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ................, on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under

the pains and penalties of perjury.”

4/22/2015

3

A Politics-Administration Dichotomy

First developed by Woodrow Wilson (28th President of the United States), ‘the father of contemporary public administration’.

– Earliest mention in “The Study of Administration” (1887).

Proposed a Politics-Administration Dichotomy – a separation between the political side of government (crafting and development of public policy) and its administration (implementation and management).

A separation of politics and administration is needed to ensure a high degree of public accountability and responsibility while promoting a high degree of organizational efficiency and effectiveness.

A Politics-Administration Dichotomy

Pressures of urbanization in the United States – post Civil War to the early 1900’s.

– General decline in the urban environment.

– Presence of ‘boss politics’; think Tammany Hall.

An extension of the U.S. Constitution’s separation between the Legislative Branch (make law), the Executive Branch (administer law), and the Judicial Branch (enforce law).

Established clear expectations for elected officials, appointed officials, and executives within government.

Roles, Responsibilities, and Obligations

Elected Officials:– To be responsive to the constituents they serve.

– To make policy and oversee its implementation.

– To allocate scarce public resources in conducting the publics business.

Appointed Officials:– To provide the Elected Officials advice and recommendations regarding

specific matters.

Public Sector Executives:– To implement and administer the policy adopted by Elected Officials.

– To provide their technical expertise to Elected Officials and Appointed Officials when asked for it.

Elected Officials, Appointed Officials, and Public Sector Executives:

– To work collaboratively in conducting the public’s business.

4/22/2015

4

Public Sector Executives

The appointed manager or administrator is charged with carrying out the policies established by the elected officials, and with delivering public services efficiently, effectively, and equitably. Elected officials, in turn, have more time to concentrate on creating a vision for the community’s future.

Day-to-day operations are managed by a professional who is educated and trained in current local government management practices, state and federal laws and mandates, and cost-effective service delivery techniques.

Public Sector Executives

Responsiveness to citizens is enhanced by centralizing administrative accountability in an individual appointed by the elected governing body. They generally do not have guaranteed terms of office or tenure and are evaluated based on their responsiveness to the elected legislative body and community, and on their ability to provide efficient and effective services.

Professional managers or administrators bring technical knowledge, experience, academic training, management expertise, and dedication to public service.

Understanding US Federalism

“Federalism is one of the most important and innovative concepts in the U.S. Constitution, although the word never

appears there. Federalism is the sharing of power between national and state governments. In America, the states

existed first, and they struggled to create a national government. The U.S. Constitution is hardwired with the

tensions of that struggle…Chief Justice John Marshall noted that this question is perpetually arising, and will probably

continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.”

4/22/2015

5


McCullough v Maryland (US Supreme Court, 1819):

– Central question regarded the creation of the Second Bank of the United States.

– The State of Maryland had attempted to impede the Bank’s operations by imposing a tax on bank notes not issued in Maryland.

– The State of Maryland argued that the Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution made no reference to such an institution.

– The Court found that Congress’s power to tax and spend justified the creation of the Bank.


Gibbons v Ogden (US Supreme Court, 1824):

– Central question regarded the power of the U.S. federal government to regulate interstate commerce.

– Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3: Congress is given the power “To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

– Stems from an 1808 New York State law granting a monopoly to Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton for exclusive navigational privileges of all waters within New York State.

– Ultimately, the Court found the State law invalid as they ruled that ‘navigation’ of navigable waterways fell under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

An Evolutionary Process

Early Federalism (Marshall Court, 1801 – 1835) – balance of power in the hands of the federal government.

Dual Federalism (Taney Court, 1836 – 1864) or Divided Sovereignty– the national government and the state governments are clearly separated with enumerated powers.

Between Dual Federalism and the New Deal:

– National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation

– Herling v Davis

– Steward Machine Company v Davis

Cooperative Federalism and the New Deal (1930’s to the 1970’s) – the national, state, and local governments work collaboratively to solve common problems.

New Federalism (1980’s to 2001) – “Devolution” or “States Rights”

4/22/2015

6

US Federalism Today: Conflict and (or?) Cooperation

The Roan Plateau, Colorado and the Roan Plateau Resource Management Plan (2008)

“The Roan exemplifies a central dilemma of natural resource management – the conflict among competing

and multiple uses of public lands.”

“Perhaps paradoxically, at the same time that natural resource conflicts were festering, the concept of

collaborative ecosystem management continued to grow.”

Collaborative Ecosystem Management

Goal is to foster cooperation among multiple stakeholders in order to achieve a sustainable balance between ecosystem processes and human uses.

Broader contemporary political context encourages collaboration because neither economic nor environmental interests have been able to dominate the policy agenda.

Has become a permanent fixture on the environmental policy landscape.

Collaborative Ecosystem Management

“…many aliases, including adaptive management, watershed management, grassroots ecosystem

management, and civic environmentalism.”

“…a search for mutually beneficial solutions to policy conflicts…encouraging broad participation from local stakeholders, emphasizing voluntary actions, seeking consensus decisions, and building trust-based policy

networks.”

“..an institutional strategy for solving resource dilemmas.”

4/22/2015

7

Demographic and Economic Trends for Lander County

Jurisdiction 2000 2010Actual

ChangePercentChange

Austin - 192 - -

Battle Mountain 2,871 3,635 764 26.6%Lander County 5,794 5,775 -19 -0.3%

State of Nevada 1,998,257 2,700,551 702,294 35.1%

Total Population

Jurisdiction 2000 2010Actual

ChangePercentChange

Austin - 102 - -Battle Mountain 1,053 1,364 311 29.5%Lander County 2,093 2,213 120 5.7%

State of Nevada 751,165 1,006,250 255,085 34.0%

Total Number of Households

Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 US Census; US Census Bureau, 2010 US Census


Austin Battle Mountain Lander County State of Nevada

Age Category 2000 2010

PercentChange 2000 2010



PercentChange

Under 18 - 28 - 1,041 1,181 13.4% 2,006 1,753 -12.6% 561,501 736,328 31.1%18 to24 Years - 6 - 162 243 50.0% 253 336 32.8% 130,006 177,509 36.5%25 to 34 Years - 10 - 375 475 26.7% 714 673 -5.7% 306,611 387,286 26.3%35 to 44 Years - 17 - 457 483 5.7% 969 728 -24.9% 321,961 383,043 19.0%45 to 54 Years - 34 - 394 488 23.9% 876 864 -1.4% 269,050 376,527 39.9%55 to 64 Years - 42 - 249 398 59.8% 573 740 29.1% 190,199 315,499 65.9%

65 or Older - 55 - 193 367 90.2% 403 681 69.0% 218,929 324,359 48.2%

Total - 192 - 2,871 3,635 26.6% 5,794 5,775 -0.3% 1,998,257 2,700,551 35.1%

Total Population by Age


4/22/2015

8


Age Category 2000 2010




PercentChange

Under 18 - 14.6% - 36.3% 32.5% -3.8% 34.6% 30.4% -4.3% 28.1% 27.3% -0.8%18 to24 Years - 3.1% - 5.6% 6.7% 1.0% 4.4% 5.8% 1.5% 6.5% 6.6% 0.1%25 to 34 Years - 5.2% - 13.1% 13.1% 0.0% 12.3% 11.7% -0.7% 15.3% 14.3% -1.0%35 to 44 Years - 8.9% - 15.9% 13.3% -2.6% 16.7% 12.6% -4.1% 16.1% 14.2% -1.9%45 to 54 Years - 17.7% - 13.7% 13.4% -0.3% 15.1% 15.0% -0.2% 13.5% 13.9% 0.5%55 to 64 Years - 21.9% - 8.7% 10.9% 2.3% 9.9% 12.8% 2.9% 9.5% 11.7% 2.2%

65 or Older - 28.6% - 6.7% 10.1% 3.4% 7.0% 11.8% 4.8% 11.0% 12.0% 1.1%

Total - 100.0% - 100.0% 100.0% - 100.0% 100.0% - 100.0% 100.0% -

Percent of Total Population by Age



HousingCategory 2000 2010

Percent Change 2000 2010



Percent Change

Owner Occupied - 76 - 730 894 22.5% 1,615 1,591 -1.5% 457,247 591,480 29.4%Renter Occupied - 26 - 323 470 45.5% 478 622 30.1% 293,918 414,770 41.1%

Total 0 102 - 1,053 1,364 29.5% 2,093 2,213 5.7% 751,165 1,006,250 34.0%


HousingCategory 2000 2010




Percent Change

Owner Occupied - 74.5% - 69.3% 65.5% -3.8% 77.2% 71.9% -5.3% 60.9% 58.8% -2.1%Renter Occupied - 25.5% - 30.7% 34.5% 3.8% 22.8% 28.1% 5.3% 39.1% 41.2% 2.1%

Total - 100.0% - 100.0% 100.0% - 100.0% 100.0% - 100.0% 100.0% -

Housing Units by Type

Percentage of Housing Units by Type



Category/Jurisdiction 2000 2010 ActualChange

PercentageChange

Average Household SizeAustin - 1.88 - -

Battle Mountain 2.71 2.65 -0.06 -2.2%Lander County 2.73 2.60 -0.13 -4.8%

State of Nevada 2.62 2.65 0.03 1.1%

Owner-OccupiedAustin - 1.91 - -

Battle Mountain 2.85 2.74 -0.11 -3.9%Lander County 2.81 2.64 -0.17 -6.0%

State of Nevada 2.71 2.66 -0.05 -1.8%

Renter-OccupiedAustin - 1.81 - -

Battle Mountain 2.40 2.49 0.09 3.8%Lander County 2.44 2.52 0.08 3.3%

State of Nevada 2.47 2.63 0.16 6.5%

Average Household Size


4/22/2015

9

Austin Battle Mountain Lander County State of NevadaEducational Attainment 2007-2011 2007-2011 2007-2011 2007-2011

Annual Average Annual Average Annual Average Annual Average

Less than 9th Grade 0 238 359 112,0959th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 7 290 449 166,217

High School Diploma (and Equivalent) 6 775 1,207 514,935Some College, No Degree 7 564 937 452,677

Associate's Degree 0 127 189 127,739Bachelor's Degree 0 267 390 259,287

Graduate/Professional Degree 0 30 78 131,911

Austin Battle Mountain Lander County State of NevadaEducational Attainment 2007-2011 2007-2011 2007-2011 2007-2011

Annual Average Annual Average Annual Average Annual Average

Percent High School Graduate 65.0% 77.0% 77.6% 84.2%or Higher

Percent Bachelor's Degree 0.0% 13.0% 13.0% 22.2%or Higher

Educational Attainment, Population 25 Years or Older



Category 2000 2010Percent Change 2000 2010



Percent Change

Tot. Civilian Labor Force N/A 21 - 1,473 1,774 20.4% 2,741 2,833 3.4% 995,200 1,391,681 39.8%Employed N/A 7 - 1,323 1,577 19.2% 2,528 2,530 0.1% 933,280 1,246,387 33.5%

Unemployed N/A 14 - 150 197 31.3% 213 303 42.3% 61,920 145,293 134.6%


Category 2000 2010Percent Change 2000 2010



Percent Change

Per CapitaIncome N/A $37,603 - $16,975 $25,517 50.3% $16,998 $28,459 67.4% $21,989 $27,625 25.6%

Median Household Income N/A N/A - $42,981 $71,012 65.2% $46,067 $78,318 70.0% $44,581 $72,457 62.5%


Category 2000 2010Actual

Change 2000 2010Actual



ChangeFamilies N/A N/A - 7.8% N/A - 8.6% N/A - 7.5% N/A -

Individuals (People) N/A N/A - 12.1% N/A - 12.4% N/A - 10.3% N/A -

Employed and Unemployed, Total Civilian Labor Force


Per Capita Income


Percentage of Families and All Individuals (People) with Incomes Below the Poverty Level


Industry Austin2010

Percent of Total

Battle Mountain2010

Percentof Total

Lander County2010

Percent of Total

State of Nevada2010

Percent of Total

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining 7 100.0% 604 38.3% 969 38.3% 18,980 1.5%

Construction 0 0.0% 181 11.5% 247 9.8% 102,463 8.2%

Manufacturing 0 0.0% 15 1.0% 45 1.8% 52,734 4.2%

Wholesale Trade 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 58 2.3% 28,311 2.3%

Retail Trade 0 0.0% 207 13.1% 266 10.5% 144,831 11.6%

Transportation and Warehousing, Utilities 0 0.0% 132 8.4% 183 7.2% 62,473 5.0%

Information 0 0.0% 16 1.0% 16 0.6% 20,756 1.7%

Finance and Insurance, Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 0 0.0% 52 3.3% 52 2.1% 78,171 6.3%

Professional, Scientific, and Management and Administrative and Waste Management

Services0 0.0% 6 0.4% 113 4.5% 127,789 10.3%

Educational Services, and Health Care and Social Assistance 0 0.0% 156 9.9% 241 9.5% 185,240 14.9%

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, and Accommodation, and Food Services 0 0.0% 129 8.2% 191 7.5% 312,936 25.1%

Other Services, Except Public Administration 0 0.0% 12 0.8% 25 1.0% 52,542 4.2%

Public Administration 0 0.0% 67 4.2% 124 4.9% 59,161 4.7%

Total 7 100.0% 1,577 100.0% 2,530 100.0% 1,246,387 100.0%

4/22/2015

10

IndustryAustin2010

Percent of Total

Battle Mountain2010

Percentof Total

Lander County2010

Percent of Total

State of Nevada2010

Percent of Total

Management, Business, Science and Arts Occupations 0 0.0% 253 16.0% 468 18.5% 343,669 27.6%

Service Occupations0 0.0% 287 18.2% 429 17.0% 330,837 26.5%

Sales and Office Occupations0 0.0% 255 16.2% 464 18.3% 325,676 26.1%

Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance Occupations 7 100.0% 533 33.8% 821 32.5% 125,599 10.1%

Production, Transportation, and Material Moving Occupations 0 0.0% 249 15.8% 348 13.8% 120,606 9.7%

Total 7 100.0% 1,577 100.0% 2,530 100.0% 1,246,387 100.0%

Employment by Occupation

Source: US Census Bureau, 2010 US Census

Year/QuarterLander County

Unemployment RatePercentChange Year/Quarter

State of NevadaUnemployment Rate

PercentChange

2002-01-01 6.4% 2002-01-01 6.5%2003-01-01 6.9% 7.8% 2003-01-01 5.9% -9.2%2004-01-01 5.7% -17.4% 2004-01-01 5.5% -6.8%2005-01-01 5.3% -7.0% 2005-01-01 5.0% -9.1%2006-01-01 4.4% -17.0% 2006-01-01 4.6% -8.0%2007-01-01 4.1% -6.8% 2007-01-01 4.7% 2.2%2008-01-01 4.8% 17.1% 2008-01-01 5.8% 23.4%2009-01-01 6.0% 25.0% 2009-01-01 10.1% 74.1%2010-01-01 7.9% 31.7% 2010-01-01 14.0% 38.6%2011-01-01 7.7% -2.5% 2011-01-01 14.2% 1.4%2012-01-01 6.2% -19.5% 2012-01-01 12.4% -12.7%2013-01-01 5.6% -9.7% 2013-01-01 10.2% -17.7%

2002-2013Average 5.9% 0.2%

2002-2013Average 8.2% 6.9%

2002-2013Actual Change -0.8% -

2002-2013Actual Change 3.7% -

2002-2013Percent Change -12.5% -

2002-2013Percent Change 56.9% -

Unemployment Rate – Lander County vs. Nevada

Source: U.S. Federal Reserve Economic Data; Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

4/22/2015

1

Local Government Budgeting and Finance


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

Local Government Budgeting and Finance

Topics:

– Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) Chapter 354: Local Government Financial Administration

– The Lander County Consolidated Annual Audit Report (Fiscal Year 2013-2014)

– Fiscal Trends in Lander County

Fiscal Authority and Stability

Tax Revenue = Tax Rate x Tax Base

where…

Tax Base is a function of the Economic Base

4/22/2015

2


“Something is seriously out of sync in California. Many of its cities’ revenue sources aren’t well aligned with their

communities’ changing service demands. Diminishing local control over their finances and the unprecedented dominance of

the state in local affairs has left city officials frustrated as they work to respond to the growing needs of their communities.

When legislators do seek to reform the current system of state-local finance, they encounter hundreds of distrustful local officials

and technical complexities in a situation where almost any change helps some communities and harms others.”

- Coleman and Colantuono (2003)


As a group, take 10 minutes to quickly answer these questions:

How sustainable are Nevada local government (municipalities, counties, etc.) revenues?

– Prior to 2008?

– Financial Collapse/Recession of 2008?

– Changing demographics of Nevada’s population and implications on service demand?

– Urban (Sales Tax, Property Tax, etc.) vs. Rural (Net Proceeds)?

How much authority do local governments in Nevada have to redesign their finances to meet changing needs?

Three Characteristics to Consider

The degree of local control and discretion, including:– Control of the tax base (who pays).

– Control of the tax rate (how much they pay).

The degree of economic risk, including:– Sustainability (the capacity of the revenue to grow

comparably to growth in service demand).

– Volatility (the level of year-to-year fluctuation).

The degree of political risk (the vulnerability of revenues to appropriation or reallocation by the state or federal government including the courts).

4/22/2015

3

Local Control and Discretion

Rate, Base, and Use – Discretion and Control?

Degree of Flexibility:

– Setting the rate(s) level.

– Determining who pays and on what basis (the base of the revenue measure).

– Using the revenues.

Local Control and Discretion

City Revenue Source Strongly Sensitive To: Not Sensitive To:

Service Charges and User Fees Service Demand Inflation (unless built into rate structure)

Sales & Use Tax Taxable sales, inflation, commercial activity

Resident population

Property Tax Real property values, sales -

Vehicle License Fee Resident Population Commercial activity

Utility User’s Tax Sales of utility services, population, commercial activity,

utility rates, inflation-

Business License Tax Commercial activity, inflation Resident population

Transient Occupancy Tax Hotel activity and rates, inflation Resident population

Gas Tax Resident population Commercial activity

Local Assessments Number of rate payers Inflations (unless built into rate structure

Real Property Transfer Tax Real estate sales, property values

-

Figure 1 – How Sustainable Are Major City Revenues?

Economic Risk

Two Aspects of Long-Term Stability:

1. Sustainability: “A tax is best suited to fund programs where the demand for service changes in proportion to the proceeds of the tax…provides sufficient revenue to cover service costs even as service demands change over time.”

– Services to People

– Services to Property

– Services to Businesses

4/22/2015

4

Economic Risk

Two Aspects of Long-Term Stability:

2. Volatility: “…a measure of the degree of annual fluctuation from the average annual growth of a revenue source.” Generally unacceptable, except for when:

– The source provides strong return in relation to service demand over time. Example?

– Sufficient reserves and use of one-time programming can be used to cushion the impacts of fluctuation. Example?

– The revenue budget contains a mix of other sources with different performance characteristics that mitigate volatility. Example?

Political Risk

“Local revenue stability is also affected by the potential for the state or federal governments (or courts) to reduce

the revenue, which we label ‘political risk’.

To the extent that this delegation of authority is accomplished by the state Constitution, the risk of state

actions impacting local finances and powers is reduced.”

Nevada? End of the 2011 Session? Net Proceeds in the 2013 Session?

Political Risk

Impacts on Fiscal Planning:

“…certain bells cannot be unrung. Once a serious proposal is made to transfer a revenue stream on which local

government has relied, the dependability of that revenue stream for long-range fiscal planning is significantly damaged

for as long as the political memory of the debate remains.”

Impacts on the Cost of Financing Government:

“Political risk means uncertainty, and in finance – whether public or private – uncertainty means at the very least higher costs and may mean complete frustration of important fiscal

goals for a community.”

4/22/2015

5

Looking Ahead – Who has a Crystal Ball?

“In recent decades, local home rule in California (Nevada?) has been substantially eroded,

particularly in municipal fiscal affairs…Meanwhile, the state’s economy and society are evolving, and

finance officers are becoming increasingly concerned about the stability of city revenues.”

Three Questions

As a group, take 10 minutes to quickly answer these questions:

How will our mix of revenues weather economic ups and downs?

Will these revenues grow in concert with increasing service demands?

If our control of local revenues is more strictly limited (is it?), how can we influence our revenues to meet changing service demands?

Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) Chapter 354Section 470-725: Budgets of Local Governments

NRS 354.472: Purposes of the Local Government Budget and Finance Act:

a) To establish standard methods and procedures for the preparation, presentation, adoption and administration of budgets of all local governments.

b) To enable local governments to make financial plans for programs of both current and capital expenditures and to formulate fiscal policies to accomplish these programs.

c) To provide for estimation and determination of revenues, expenditures and tax levies.

d) To provide for the control of revenues, expenditures and expenses in order to promote prudence and efficiency in the expenditure of public money.

e) To provide specific methods enabling the public, taxpayers and investors to be apprised of the financial preparations, plans, policies and administration of all local governments.

4/22/2015

6

Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) Chapter 354Section 470-725: Budgets of Local Governments

NRS 354.578: “Tentative budget” means the budget that is prepared initially, published and recorded by each local government for an ensuing fiscal year prior to its approval by the Department of Taxation and such other supervisory bodies as are charged by law with the examination of tentative budgets, and prior to its subsequent adoption.

NRS 354.524: “Final budget” means the budget which has been adopted by a local governing body or adopted by default as defined by NRS 354.470 to NRS 354.626, inclusive, and which has been determined by the Department of Taxation to be in compliance with applicable statutes and regulations.

Category 2013 2014 2013-2014 Actual Change (Percent)

Assets

Current and Other Assets $157.2 Million $161.6 Million $4.4 Million (2.8%)

Net Capital Assets $61.0 Million $69.4 Million $8.4 Million (13.8%)

TOTAL ASSETS $218.2 Million $231.0 Million $12.8 Million (5.9%)

Liabilities

Current Liabilities $3.5 Million $2.9 Million -$0.6 Million (-17.1%)

Long-Term Liabilities $215,569 $170,056 -$45,513 (-21.1%)

TOTAL LIABILITIES $3.7 Million $3.0 Million -$0.7 Million (-18.9%)

Net Position

Net Investment in Capital Assets $61.0 Million $69.4 Million $8.4 Million (13.8%)

Restricted $77.3 Million $77.2 Million -$0.1 Million (-0.1%)

Unrestricted $76.2 Million $81.4 Million $5.2 Million (6.8%)

TOTAL NET POSITION $214.5 Million $227.9 Million $13.4 Million (6.2%)

Lander County Net Position, FY 2013-2014

Revenue Category Total Government Funds Percent of Total

Taxes $21,783,060 64.6%

Licenses and Permits $408,883 1.2%

Intergovernmental Revenues $7,213,667 21.4%

Charges for Services $2,161,345 6.4%

Fines and Forfeits $202,451 0.6%

Earnings (losses) on Investments $1,558,152 4.6%

Miscellaneous $377,217 1.1%

TOTAL REVENUES $33,704,775 100.0%

Total Government Funds is summed across seven separate funds: (1) General Fund, (2) Road and Bridge Fund, (3) Town of Battle Mountain General Fund, (4) DOE Nuclear Repository Fund, (5) Construction of Capital Projects, CCP, Fund, (6) Airport Capital Improvement Fund, (7) Other Governmental Funds.

RevenueStatement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund

Balances, FY 2013-2014

4/22/2015

7

Expenditure Category Total Government Funds Percent of Total

General Government $13,252,278 44.2%

Judicial $1,675,738 5.6%

Public Safety $4,746,255 15.8%

Public Works $3,770,888 12.6%

Health and Sanitation $1,663,412 5.5%

Welfare $966,470 3.2%

Culture and Recreation $1,081,920 3.6%

Community Support $141,073 0.5%

Intergovernmental $2,701,677 9.0%

TOTAL Expenditures $29,999,711 100.0%

Total Government Funds is summed across seven separate funds: (1) General Fund, (2) Road and Bridge Fund, (3) Town of Battle Mountain General Fund, (4) DOE Nuclear Repository Fund, (5) Construction of Capital Projects, CCP, Fund, (6) Airport Capital Improvement Fund, (7) Other Governmental Funds.

ExpendituresStatement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund

Balances, FY 2013-2014

Taxable Retail Sales – Lander, Elko, Eureka, and Humboldt Counties1-Year Change, 06/30/13 to 06/30/14

Jurisdiction 06/30/13 06/30/14 1-Year Actual Change (Percent Change)

Lander County $41,843,321 $36,554,663 -$5,288,658(-12.6%)

Elko County $123,604,918 $116,366,329 -$7,238,589(-5.9%)

Eureka County $30,817,456 $24,807,319 -$6,010,137(-19.5%)

Humboldt County $65,089,247 $50,107,119 -$14,982,128(-23.0%)

State of Nevada $3,962,474,500 $4,149,802,141 $187,327,641(4.7%)

Source: Nevada Department of Taxation; Combined Sales & Use Statistical Report; Taxable Sales Statistics FY14.

Taxable Retail Sales – Lander, Elko, Eureka, and Humboldt Counties1-Year Change, FY Ending 2013 to FY Ending 2014

Jurisdiction FY 2013 FY 2014 1-Year Actual Change (Percent Change)

Lander County $440,677,027 $320,690,758 -$119,986,269(-27.2%)

Elko County $1,595,351,240 $1,426,133,240 -$169,218,000(-10.6%)

Eureka County $370,492,295 $315,756,504 -$54,735,791(-14.8%)

Humboldt County $921,111,867 $780,774,261 -$140,337,606(-15.2%)

State of Nevada $45,203,408,413 $47,440,345,167 $2,236,936,754(4.9%)

Source: Nevada Department of Taxation; Combined Sales & Use Statistical Report; Taxable Sales Statistics FY14.

4/22/2015

8

Total Assessed Value (35% of Taxable Value)Lander County – FY 2010-11 to FY 2014-15

Source: Nevada Department of Taxation; Local Government Finance Redbook

Fiscal Year Total Assessed Value Actual Change(Percent Change)

2010-11 $1,225,503,067 -

2011-12 $2,088,782,993 $863,279,926 (70.4%)

2012-13 $2,070,537,784 -$18,245,209 (-0.9%)

2013-14 $2,047,646,486 -$22,891,298 (-1.1%)

2014-15 $1,202,751,794 -$844,894,692 (-41.3%)

2010-11 to 2014-15Total Change

-$22,751,273 -

2010-11 to 2014-15Percent Change

-1.9%

4/22/2015

9

Actual Gross Proceeds and Actual Net Proceeds from MineralsLander County – 2009 to 2013

Source: Nevada Department of Taxation; Net Proceeds of Minerals Bulletin, 2013-2014.

Fiscal Year

Actual Gross Proceeds Percent Change

Actual Net Proceeds

Percent Change

2009 $850,251,157 - $182,403,220 -

2010 $1,802,810,096 112.0% $1,023,033,616 460.9%

2011 $2,750,597,818 52.6% $1,845,828,887 80.4%

2012 $2,698,040,699 -1.9% $1,790,002,746 -3.0%

2013 $2,419,288,536 -10.3% $1,438,469,193 -19.6%

Total Change

$1,569,037,379 - $1,256,065,973

Percent Change

184.5% 688.6%


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

4/22/2015

1

Local Government and the LawHome Rule vs. Dillon’s Law


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

Home Rule vs. Dillon’s Rule

Home Rule: States that give local governments wide latitude to decide which policies are appropriate for their communities.

Dillon’s Rule: States that give limited powers to local government to decide which policies are appropriate.

Home Rule

“Local governments in home rule states are free to pass laws and ordinances as they see fit to further their operations, within the bounds of the state and federal constitutions.”

Somewhat akin to the “Bill of Rights” in the U.S. Constitution wherein the powers not reserved to the Federal Government may be exercised by the states.

4/22/2015

2

Dillon’s Rule

A local government is authorized to exercise only those powers that are:

– Expressly granted.

– Necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted.

– Essential to the accomplishment of the declared purposes of the local government.

Judge John F. Dillon of the Iowa Supreme Court established the common-law rule known as “Dillon’s Rule” (Merriam v. Moody’s Examiners (25 Iowa 163 (Iowa 1868))

Application of Dillon’s Rule In Nevada

Sadler v. Board of County Commissioners (15 Nevada 39, 42 (1880)): County Commissioners in Nevada are authorized to exercise only those powers which are expressly granted and powers that are necessarily implied to carry out express powers.

Tucker v. Mayor of Virginia City (4 Nevada 20, 26 (1868): A Nevada city government is authorized to exercise only those powers expressly granted by the charter or laws creating the city, and the necessary means of employing those powers.


Issues Most likely to be “Home Rule”:

– The rate of property taxation and structure of fees paid exclusively by local residents and businesses.

– Level of government services provided to local citizens and businesses.

– Design and management of local service roads and streets.

– Creation of local laws and policies, as long as local laws and policies are made clear to visitors using signs or other documentation.

4/22/2015

3


Issues Most likely to be “Dillon’s Rule”:

– A state bill of rights must exist to ensure that local governments both treat their citizens fairly, and most importantly visitors to the community fairly.

– Local laws need to be consistent enough so that visitors know what to reasonably expect when they visit a community and what those communities require.

– Inter-community highways need to be regulated by the state to promote the quick and convenient movement of goods and people.


Nevada as a Dillon’s Rule State(is it uniformly so?)

Total Home Rule

Total Dillon’s

Rule

Zoning

Distribution of Property tax rate within counties

City/County Master Plans (over 100K population)

City/County Master Plans (under 100K population)

Subdivision of Property Process

Maximum Property Tax

Rates


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

4/22/2015

1

Local Government and the LawEminent Domain


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

Eminent Domain

Legal Structure

Process and Uses

Touching the Third Rail

History of Eminent Domain in the United States

4/22/2015

2

Legal Structure

Webster’s Dictionary: “The right of a government or its agent to expropriate private

property for public use, with payment of compensation.”

Legal Structure

In Nevada: NRS Chapter 37

The power of eminent domain rests in the 5th

Amendment to the US Constitution:

“…nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

NRS Chapter 37 – Eminent Domainhttps://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-

037.html#NRS037Sec009

NRS 37.010: Public uses for which eminent domain may be exercised.

– (o) Redevelopment. The acquisition of property pursuant NRS 279.382 to 279.685 inclusive.

– NRS 278.388: Definition of “blight”.

4/22/2015

3



NRS 37.038: Private property subject to condemnation.

– (1) All real property belonging to any person, company or corporation.

– (2) Lands belonging to the State, or to any county, or incorporated city or town, not appropriated for public use.

– (3) Property appropriated to public use; but such property shall not be taken unless for a more necessary public use than that to which it has been already appropriated.



NRS 37.038: Private property subject to condemnation.

– (4) Franchises for toll roads, toll bridges, ferries, and all other franchises shall not be taken unless for highways, railroads or other more necessary public use.

– (5) All rights-of-way for any and all purposes mentioned in NRS 37.010, and any and all structures and improvements thereon, and the lands held or used in connection therewith, shall be subject to be connected with, crossed, or intersected by any other right-of-way or improvement or structure thereon.

– (6) All classes of private property not enumerated may be taken for public use when such taking is authorized by law.

Legal Structure

The 5th Amendment:

– “Public Use” Clause

– “Just Compensation” Clause

Up through to the 1950’s, State and Federal Courts emphasized the “Public Use” Clause – roads, schools, parks, etc.

4/22/2015

4

It’s Application and Use

Police Power and US Supreme Court:

– Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915): “zoning” and “land use restrictions” ruled an appropriate use of a government’s policy power.

– Lincoln Trust Company v. Williams Building Corporation (1920): municipalities had the right to use police power to restrict and refuse certain land uses.


US Supreme Court:

– Berman v. Parker (1954): “public use” expanded to include slum clearance and acquisition of real property.

– Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit (1981): “public use” expanded to include “new job creation” (465 acres of privately owned land transferred to GM).

– Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984): “public use” expanded to include the development of affordable, public housing.


Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit:

“…the power of eminent domain is to be used in this instance primarily to accomplish the

essential public purpose of alleviating unemployment and revitalizing the economic

base of the community. It would benefit a small portion of the public. The benefit to a

private interest is merely incidental”.

- Majority Opinion of the Court Ruling

4/22/2015

5


Fulton and Shigley (2005), It’s expansion to the world of economic development:

• To overcome “hold-outs”.

• To “write-down” land costs and assemble land.

In Economic Development

“Write-Downs” and Land Acquisition: (example)

– Private Developer - $100 million project. Needs to acquire 10 acres costing $30 million. Has only $20 million budgeted for land assembly.

– $30 million in Agency-City “eminent domain” costs.

– Agency-City sells the property to Developer for “below market cost”: i.e. $20 million, $1 million, $1, etc.

Before

4/22/2015

6

After

Kelo v. City of London (2005)

The Run-Up to Kelo

Emerson and Wise (1997):

– Public Opinion had begun to “sour” against both regulatory and physical “takings”.

– 43 states by 1997 had adopted or were considering one of four different “anti-takings” legislative reforms:

• Preliminary Measures

• Procedural Changes

• Assessment Provisions

• Compensation Measures

4/22/2015

7

The Run-Up to Kelo

Emerson and Wise (1997):

– Preliminary Measures: 7 States

– Procedural Modifications: 13 States

– Assessment Laws: 17 States

– Compensation Status Revision: 6 States

And then there was Kelo…

Goodin (2007) & Barkacs and Barkacs (2007):

1. Court reaffirmed past precedent (Berman 1952, Poletown 1981, Midkiff 1984).

2. Court reaffirmed current interpretation of US Federalism.

3. Court reaffirmed Local Government’s RIGHT to pursue Economic Development.

…and a New World was Born.

Goodin (2007), Three Immediate Impacts:

1. Narrowing of the Definition of Public Use by State Governments.

2. Increased State-level Statutory Compensation “Minimums”.

3. States created more “extensive procedures” regarding takings of private property.

4/22/2015

8

No More Eminent Domain!

Goodin (2007), Three “Future” Impacts:

1. Legislation that prohibits Eminent Domain for Economic Development Purposes.

2. Create “Judicial Confusion” – broad definition of “blight”.

3. Effective Restriction of Eminent Domain – narrow definition of “blight”.

People “HATE” Eminent Domain

Public Opinion on Kelo by Household Income

Household Income% Agree with Kelo Decision

% Disagree with KeloDecision

% Strongly Disagree with Kelo Decision

Under $10,000 25% 70% 58%$10,000 – $24,999 20% 80% 61%$25,000 - $34,999 18% 80% 62%$35,000 - $49,999 11% 89% 68%$50,000 - $74,999 15% 85% 67%$75,000 - $150,000 25% 73% 57%

Over $150,000 32% 68% 48%

All Groups Total 18% 81% 63%Source: Reproduced from Somin (2005), November 2005 Saint Index

Somin (2007):

Future of Eminent Domain

4/22/2015

9

What is the “Future”?

We don’t yet…we are still dealing with Kelo.

Eagle (2007): 1) Blight Abatement, 2) Foreclosure-Based Private Redevelopment.

Porter (1995): Abandonment of “property-based” economic development.

Efficiency? Economy? Equity?


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

4/22/2015

1

Local Government and the LawNevada’s Open Meeting Laws


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

Why Hold Open Meetings?

“…together we craft for ourselves, through discourse and deliberation, conventions such as values, beliefs, and ethical norms to give meaning and order to our lives.

Collective decision making in the governance process, including public administration, works best in a

postmodern society when it emerges out of an inclusive conversation about how to create order and meaning in

our lives together. Hence, democratic governance provides mechanisms and arenas for this social process.”

- Terry Cooper, The Responsible Administrator

Definitions (NRS 241.015) “Action” - A decision made by a majority of the members

present, whether in person or by means of electronic communication, during a meeting of a public body

“Meeting” - The gathering of members of a public body at which a quorum is present, whether in person or by means of electronic communication, to deliberate toward a decision or to take action on any matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power

“Public Body” - Designation of substitute to attend meeting must be authorized by law or on the record of a public meeting in order to count towards quorum or to participate in vote

4/22/2015

2

Definitions (NRS 241.015)

“Quorum” - means a simple majority of the constituent membership of a public body or another proportion established by law

“Deliberate” – to collectively examine, weigh and reflect upon reasons for or against a proposed action

Participation by Electronic Means

A member of a public body may participate by electronic means

Participation must allow the public to hear the member so participating and the member so participating to hear statements made by the public

– ISSUE: How is requirement met when new printed information is presented at meeting in which participating member cannot examine new material?

Meetings (NRS 241.020) Open - Except as otherwise provided by specific statute, all

meetings of public bodies must be open and public, and all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting of these public bodies.

Noticed

– Notice to include:• Time, place and location of meeting

• List of locations where notice was posted

• An agenda

Accommodation: Public officers and employees responsible for these meetings shall make reasonable efforts to assist and accommodate persons with physical disabilities desiring to attend

4/22/2015

3

Meetings (continued)

Agenda must include:

– Clear and complete statement of matters to be considered

– “for possible action”

– Public Comment periods

– Notifications that (items may be taken out of order, may be combined, may be removed or may be delayed)

– Any restrictions on public comment


Minimum Notice

– Posting at principal office or where meeting is to be held

– Three additional prominent places

– Copies to persons requesting notice

– Email notice okay if agreed to by requestor


Include name and contact information of person able to provide supporting materials and locations where supporting materials may be obtained

In counties of 45,000 or more, supporting materials to be posted on website

4/22/2015

4


Website, if maintained, must include notice of meetings

Free copies to requesting public

Supporting materials to be provided to public at same time provided to public body

May provide by email

“Emergency”


AB 445 (2013) requires that all public body meeting notices be posted on the State’s website at the same time posted in local area and to persons requesting notice

AB 445 (2013) requires such posting by public bodies to commence no later than July 1, 2014

AB 445 (2013) requires that the State Department of Administration have the State website prepared no later than January 1, 2014.

Exceptions (NRS 241.030)

Personnel Matters

Prepare, administer or grade examinations

Appeals of examinations

4/22/2015

5

EXCEPTIONS (continued)

Person subject of closed meeting may waive closed meeting

Agenda must state statute authorizing closed session and nature of business to be considered

Exception may not be used to:

– Prevent removal of disruptive persons– Prevent removal of witnesses– Discuss appointments– Discuss member

Closed Meetings (NRS 241.033)

Written notice to person subject of closed meeting – proof of service– In person – 5 working days– By certified mail – 21 working days

Must include topic to be discussed and right of person to attend and be represented

Chair or public body decides attendees

Copy of record available to subject

Casual or tangential references to a person or the name of a person during a closed meeting do not constitute consideration of the character, alleged misconduct, professional competence, or physical or mental health of the person.

Administrative Action/Eminent Domain (NRS 241.034)

Notice same as in NRS 241.033

Proof of service

Must be on agenda

Not required separate from notice per NRS 241.033

If eminent domain, real property described

4/22/2015

6

Record of Meeting (NRS 241.035)

Minutes– “substance” of matters considered

Available within 30 days – retained for 5 years

May be recorded by public

Must tape or transcribe meeting – 1 year –available to public or AG

Same for closed meetings

Statements Privileged (NRS 241.0353)Voting (NRS 241.0355)

Privilege applies to both member and public

Action by Majority Vote of Entire Body

Abstention not an affirmative vote

– Legal counsel opinion

Action in Violation Void (NRS 241.036)Action by AG or Person (NRS 241.037)

AG may seek injunctive relief – no damage or harm required

Person may sue to:– Void an action

– Require compliance with law

– Seek determination of applicability of law to action

Suit to require compliance – 120 days

Suit to void action – 60 days

4/22/2015

7

Action by AG or Person (continued)

AG may forgo prosecution of a violation if there is a correction within thirty days of the alleged violation if in the best interests of the public

If public body taking corrective action, agenda must state “for corrective action” - but such posting is not an admission of a violation

Role of AG (NRS 241.039)AG Finding (NRS 241.0395)

AG to investigate and prosecute violations

AG may issue subpoenas

If violation found, AG opinion must be included on following agenda

Inclusion on agenda is not admission

Re-do/ratification of questioned action

Penalties (NRS 241.040)

Violation, with knowledge, is misdemeanor

Wrongful exclusion – misdemeanor

Civil penalty - $500

– Must be sought by AG

4/22/2015

8


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

4/22/2015

1

Local Government and the LawAdministrative Ethics


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

Ethics

What are “Ethics”?

An Ethical Decision Making Model

Nevada’s Code of Ethical Conduct

What Ethics Is

“…ethics may be understood as the study of moral conduct and moral status. Ethics and morality are often used

interchangeably, but here I will distinguish them.

Morality assumes some accepted modes of behavior that are given by a religious tradition, a culture (including an organizational culture), a social class, a community, or a

family. It involves expected courses of conduct that are rooted in both formal rules and informal norms.

Ethics, then, is one step removed from action. It involves the examination and analysis of the logic, values, beliefs, and

principles that are used to justify morality in its various forms.”

4/22/2015

2

What Ethics Is

“Ethics considers what is meant by principles such as justice, veracity, or the public interest; their implications for conduct in particular situations; and how one might argue for

one principle over another as determinative in a particular decision.

Ethics takes what is given or prescribed and asks what is meant and why.

Ethics also deals with the moral status of entities such as families, organizations, communities, and societies.”

What Ethics Is

Dealing with Ethics Descriptively or Normatively:

– Descriptively, ethics attempts to reveal underlying assumptions and how they are connected to conduct. (What we believe as individuals, as a society, as an organization).

– Normatively, ethics attempts to construct viable and defensible arguments for particular courses of conduct as being better than others in specific situations. (Infers a conflict between choices).

What Ethics Isn’t

4/22/2015

3

What Ethics Is

An analytical tool to help us determine what course of action to take when we are

confronted with two or more equally good or two or more equally bad choices when we are

forced to choose.

Building an Ethical Decision Making Model

Levels of Ethical Reflection:

– The Expressive Level: “You should know better!”

– The Moral Rules Level: “Always be a good team player.”

– The Ethical Analysis Level: “Always tell the truth unless innocent third parties are harmed.”

– The Postethical Level: “Why should I be moral?”

Nevada’s Code of Ethical Standards

4/22/2015

4

Nevada Ethics in Government Law NRS 281A.400-NRS 281A.480

PUBLIC POLICY: Public office is a public trust for the sole benefit of the people.

Public officers and public employees must avoid conflicts of interest between their private interests and their public duties

To Whom Does NRS 281A Apply?

Public officers elected or appointed to a position created by:

– Constitution– State law– Ordinance

And who exercises public power, trust or duty.

Specifically includes county or city manager, superintendent of schools (2013).

Applies whether employed, appointed, or under contract with or without compensation and regardless whether acting temporary or interim (2013).

To Whom Does NRS 281A Apply?

Judges.

Justices.

Officers of the court system.

Members of board, commission, or other body that is advisory.

Member of board of GID or special district only if duties do not include budget or expenditure approval.

County Health Officer (NRS 439).

4/22/2015

5

The Ten “DO NOTS”

1. Seek or accept any gift, service, favor, employment, etc. which would tend to improperly influence or cause a departure from faithful and impartial discharge of duties…

2. Use position in government to secure or grant unwarranted privileges for self, business interest in which one has significant pecuniary interest, or person to whom one has a commitment in a private capacity…

3. Participate in negotiation or execution of contract in which one has a significant pecuniary interest…

The Ten “DO NOTS” (cont’d)

4. Accept anything of value from a private party for the performance of public duties…

5. Use non-public information to further pecuniary interest of self, business entity or person…

6. Suppress government report or document because it might affect pecuniary interest of self, business entity or person…


7. Use governmental time, property or equipment outside of any ‘limited use’ or ‘deminimus’ policy adopted by an entity represented or by whom employed…

8. Attempt to benefit personal or financial interest through the influence of a subordinate.

4/22/2015

6


9. Seek employment or contracts through use of official position…

10.Represent or counsel, for compensation, any person on issue before his/her entity or for one year after leaving entity on any issue under consideration at the time of leaving…

Definitions – Nevada SB 228

Commitment in a private capacity to the interests of another person” means commitment, interest or relationship to a person:

– Spouse or domestic partner

– Member of household

– Related within third degree of consanguinity or affinity

– Employs self, spouse, domestic partner or member of household

– With whom self has a substantial and continuing business relationship

– With whom self has a commitment, interest or relationship substantially similar to above

Definitions – Nevada SB 228

“Pecuniary Interest” means any beneficial or detrimental interest that consists of or is measured in money, economic value and includes payments for government service and gifts.

The determination regarding gifts is whether gift is token vs. sufficient to affect conduct of job or office…

4/22/2015

7

Conflict of Interest NRS 281A.420

If the matter under consideration involves:

– A gift or loan to member;

– An economic or money interest of member; or

– The same with regard to a person to whom I have a commitment in a private capacity

DISCLOSE!! DISCLOSE!! DISCLOSE!! DISCLOSE!!

Conflict of Interest (cont’d)

Disclosure means:

– Specific identification of conflict; and

– Specific identification of relationship involved in conflict

Disclosure must be made when matter considered:

– If member, publicly to chair and other members

– If appointed, to supervisor/superior in charge

Voting and Abstaining

Public policy favors participation and voting…

Whether one votes, participates or abstains involves consideration of “the independence of judgment of the reasonable man”…

“Reasonable man” means a consideration of whether a reasonable person would be materially affected by disclosed conflict…

4/22/2015

8

Voting and Abstaining (cont’d)

After disclosing, conduct “reasonable man” analysis to determine whether to participate and vote or to abstain from matter…

If not a clear conflict, participate and vote…

If a clear conflict, abstain…

If abstaining, leave table for duration of item…

Caveat…

Voting and Abstaining (cont’d)

If abstaining, quorum requirement is reduced accordingly… but…

Quorum not reduced for elected boards.

Violations

Civil Penalties – for Willful Violations:

– $5,000 for first violation.

– $10,000 for second violation.

– $25,000 for third violation.

– $5,000 for person interfering with investigation by State Ethics Commission.

– If a financial gain occurred, an additional penalty of up to 2 times the gain.

4/22/2015

9

Opinion Requests

First Party Advisory:

– Forms/opinions on Commission website.

– Confidential unless waived – how waived.

– Type of request.

– Effect of request.

Third Party Complaint:

– Forms on website.

– Investigation/hearing/representation.

Opinion Requests (cont’d)

When in doubt…

– Ask entity attorney for opinion…

– As soon as you are aware of potential conflict…

– Preferably in advance of meeting…

– Call for short recess to allow discussion with attorney…

– If you abide by opinion, no willful violation…

Role of the Nevada State Ethics Commissionhttp://ethics.nv.gov/

Investigation of alleged violations.

Imposition of fines for violations.

Inform the attorney general or district attorney of all cases of noncompliance with the ethics law.

Conduct hearings on requests for an opinion and render decisions.

Recommend legislation to strengthen law.

Publish the state’s ethics law manual.

4/22/2015

10

Reviews, conducts hearing and makes determination of violation, or no violation.

May report willful violations for purposes of initiating impeachment proceedings.

May report willful violations to court for removal from office.

Caveat: violation not willful if obtained legal counsel advice and if not contrary to prior Ethics Commission opinions.

Role of the Nevada State Ethics Commissionhttp://ethics.nv.gov/

Six Steps to Ethical Decision Making

Define the Problem

Identify Alternatives

Evaluate the Alternatives

Make the Decision

Implement the Decision

Evaluate the Decision

Our Next Exercise

As a Group…

– Summarize the main issues in your scenarios.

– Identify what you feel are the ethical concerns in your scenario.

– Answer the questions at the end of each scenario.

– Plan to report the issues, ethical concerns, and answers to your question to the larger group in 35 Minutes.

4/22/2015

11

Scenario No. 1

The Case of the County Cemetery: Open Meetings

Does this scenario raise ethical issues for the County supervisors? If so, what are they?

Does this scenario raise ethical issues for the director of the public County Cemetery? If so, what are they?

What are the potential ramifications if the County purchases the land?

Scenario No. 2

The Case of the Questionable Campaign Photo

What are the ethical considerations:– For the candidate?

– For the opponent?

– For the Governor?

– For the political consultant?

– For the reporter who is being urged to publish the story?

Would it make a difference to your analysis if the photo was taken in a publically available space in the State House rather than the Governor's office?

Scenario No. 3

Ethical Challenges in the City Manager/City Councilmember Relationship

What are the ethical issues?

4/22/2015

12

Scenario No. 4

When is a Contribution a Bribe?

Should the shelter accept further donations from Lopez?

Why or why not?

Scenario No. 5

Friendly Advice or Quid Pro Quo?

Is it unethical for a city employee to make recommendations based on his or her experience?

Would Gary’s actions have been acceptable if he had not engaged in a quid pro quo?

What action should Wendy take with Gary? With other department employees?

Is there anything the city manager might do to prohibit this type of behavior?


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

4/22/2015

1

An Introduction to Planning


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

An Introduction to Planning

The Wide-World of Planning: A History and Background

Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) Chapter 278: Planning and Zoning

Approaches to Land Use Planning

Land Use Planning is NOT NEW in the U.S. or in Nevada

Land Use Planning can be traced back to the earliest days of our nation

Land Use Planning in Nevada laws enacted in the 1920’s

Early references to Conservation Districts and planning authority appear in 1937 Nevada Statutes

4/22/2015

2

Early Planning in the United States

Governments’ effect on land design and subdivision dates from the Land Development Ordinance of 1785 (authored by Thomas Jefferson – One of America’s earliest planners?)

– The Land Ordinance established the basis for the public land survey system.

– Land was to be systematically surveyed into square townships, six miles (9.656 km) on a side. Each of these townships were sub-divided into thirty-six sections of one square mile (2.59 km²) or 640 acres. These sections could then be further subdivided for re-sale by settlers and land speculators.

1785 Land Development Ordinance(should look familiar: Township & Range)

Shifting Trends to mid-19th Century First, American residential population was growing

rapidly. – Revolution to 1790, 4 million per year.

– 1790 to 1820, growth of 6 million people.

– 1820, 10 million residents.

– 1840, 17 million residents.

Second, decline in eastern agriculture. – 1790: 1 in 30 persons lived in a city (8,000 or more).

– 1820: 1 in 20 persons lived in a city.

– 1840: 1 in 12 persons lived in a city.

Third, growth in new urban centers (Buffalo, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Chicago, San Francisco) with the move westward led to new industries and new opportunities.

4/22/2015

3

Late 19th Century Changes

By the late 1800’s, past political, economic, and social paradigms were beginning to change.

Federal and State governments were (slowly) shifting their attention from the largely rural areas to the urban environment.

New/shifting paradigms supported a more ACTIVIST role for both the federal and state governments.

The Response – Planning, Zoning, and Professional Management

Planning – “Planning as a function of local government began in the early 20th century, stimulated by the wretched conditions of cities. The kinds of dirt, noise, and congestion of the city proposed by our first city planners consisted of physical alterations in the urban structure.” (David C. Ranney (1961))

Planning as a precursor for the political and bureaucratic reform movement known as the PROGRESSIVE ERA (1890’s – 1920’s).

Two Important Early 20th Century Planning, Zoning, and Professional Management Responses

Eucild v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926): “The biggest of them all” – US Supreme Court upheld the Euclid town comprehensive plan that outlawed the development of industrial uses and multi-family housing and established zoning as a legitimate exercise of the police power. [emphasis added]

Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (SSZEA) of 1926. “The SSZEA gave state legislatures a procedure, based upon an accepted concept of property rights and careful legal precedent, for each community to follow.” (Cullingworth and Caves (2003))

4/22/2015

4

Planning and Zoning – Early Nevada Efforts

1921 NRS 268.100 through 268.220 adopted by legislature, giving communities the ability to create city planning commissions; (This legislation was not compulsory.)

1924 NRS 268.230 through 268.300 adopted by legislature, giving to cities the process by which to adopt municipal zoning. (This legislation was not compulsory.)

1931 & 1937 State statute references to Conservation Districts

1941 Legislature adopted NRS 278.030 through 278.260 adopted by legislature, creating the procedure by which city and/or counties would create planning commissions. Legislation also allowed creation of a regional planning.

1947 Legislature adopted current NRS 278

Planning In Nevada - The Present and Enabling Legislation

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 268 enables planning commissions in cities and annexation by cities.

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 278 enables regional, county and city planning commissions, master planning, zoning, subdividing, variances, special use permits, etc.

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 278A enables planned unit development (PUD).

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 278B enables impact fees.

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 548 enables creation of Conservation Districts.

Master Planning and Zoning – An Important Distinction!

Planning typically represented through a master plan document and master plan map(s).

Zoning typically represented through a zoning ordinance and zoning map(s).

Zoning is not planning, but a tool to implement a plan.

4/22/2015

5

Master Plans in Nevada

In Nevada Master Plan required for all counties over 45,000 population; all cities over 25,000 population.

– Occurs because these jurisdictions required to have a planning commission and requirement of planning commission is to create a master plan

Planning commission must adopt the master plan; elected body can only amend after consulting with planning commission.

Except for counties over 100,000 population (and the municipalities within these counties), jurisdictions free to choose what elements in 278.160 they wish to include.

Zoning in Nevada Generally NRS provides for master plan map as basis

for land use control.– NRS states “…zoning regulations must be adopted in

accordance with the master plan for land use”.

Zoning considered most common method of implementing a master plan.

– NRS does not require zoning map or regulations; only authorizes adoption of same.

– NRS does state, though, if zoning adopted – must be in conformance with adopted master plan.

– Over past legislative sessions, zoning authorization has been broadened.

• Density bonuses; inclusionary zoning; minimum densities.

Zoning in Nevada

NRS 278 identifies 14 issues that zoning is designed to address, e.g.

– Conservation of air and water

– Views and access

– Character & physical limitation of land

– Adequate supply of housing

– NRS 278.260:

• “The governing body shall provide for the manner in which zoning regulations and restrictions and the boundaries of zoning districts are determined, established, enforced and amended.”

4/22/2015

6

Types of Zoning

Euclidian

Planned Unit Development (a variation on Euclidian)

New Urbanism

Form Based

Euclidian Zoning

Derived from 1926 Supreme Court case in Euclid, Ohio.

Most community zoning codes based on Euclidean model.– Most common, especially in West.

Generally text-based with an accompanying map.

Based on:• Typical zoning districts: residential, commercial, industrial, public

uses

• Permitted uses, prohibited uses, accessory uses and conditional/special uses enumerated in each zoning category

• Dimensional standards: lot area, setbacks, height restrictions

Euclidian Zoning Typically identifies the range of:

– Residential (“X” units per acre)

– Non-residential (Floor Area Ratios – F.A.R.)

Zoning districts applied geographically on zoning map.

Attempts to better control impacts of different uses by permitting them only in certain zoning districts, e.g.

– No industrial uses in residential zones

– Only neighborhood commercial in residential zones

Effective during time of industrializing America, but has caused sprawl and auto dependence.

4/22/2015

7

Euclidian Zoning

Easiest design to comply is grid.– Grid typically does not respect topography

– Typically results in extensive grading• Significant cuts and fills

• Substantial import or export of fill

• Elimination of large areas of natural vegetation resulting in mechanical stabilization, or planting of non-native species

– Grid design can result in long extensions of services: water, sewer, cable

• Costly construction, costly maintenance

Euclidian Zoning

Euclidean zoning typical grid and separation of use(red=commercial; green=park; pale pink=small residential lots; gold=large

residential lots; yellow=agriculture)

Planned Unit Development (PUD)

Typically associated with zoning that permits mixed use, commercial/industrial uses, and varying lot sizes.

– Open space is a common, but not always required, attribute.

– Uses still usually separated.

– Many communities require special use permit.

Better design with topography.– Reduced grading.

– Reduced extension of services and subsequent maintenance costs.

4/22/2015

8

Planned Unit Development (PUD)

Typical PUD design resulting from PUD zoning

Land Uses

purple=high density residential

tan=medium density residential

=low density residential

red=commercial

green=open space

New Urbanism(aka Neo-Traditionalist)

Though recent in introduction to the public, reflects a development pattern of small communities that was prevalent from the 1700s to 1920s:

– Town center focal point.– Mixed use in and immediately near town centers.– Mixed residential lots, often tending to lots less than ¼

acre in size.– Less emphasis on garages in front of residences; one

solution has been re-introduction of alleys.– Narrow and curvilinear streets with parking bays.– Emphasis on walking/biking to local services, e.g.

schools, post office, groceries, etc.

Neo-Traditionalist

4/22/2015

9

New Urbanism

New urbanism applicable more to new development, and infill (where sufficient land exists).

More of a design concept.– Difficult to implement with Euclidian zoning ordinances.

– Trend is to marry form based codes with new urbanism.

Ideal zoning pattern is small lot and dense development (town center) trending to larger lots and eventually open-space (transect zoning)

New Urbanism

Concept design resulting from New Urbanism zoning

Form Based Zoning

“A regulatory approach designed to shape the physical form of development while setting only broad parameters for use”. [emphasis added]

“Form-based codes foster predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. They are regulations, not mere guidelines, adopted into city or county law. Form-based codes offer a powerful alternative to conventional zoning.” [emphasis added]

4/22/2015

10

Form Based Zoning

Prescriptive and uses graphics extensively

Clear and objective design standards.• Can be administered by staff w/few or no public

hearings

Regulates zoning by:• building type• street type• location• transect• ecozone or combination

Form Based Zoning

Goal to produce type of “place” rather than “use”.

Characteristics:– Focuses on “form” before “function”

– Mixed-use development

– Development of town centers

– Commercial structures to the sidewalk and oriented toward the street (parking behind the structure)

– Provision of open space

– Transit and pedestrian orientation

– Absence of uses and dimensional standards

Best codes are hybrids.

Used most extensively for new communities and rapidly urbanizing areas.

Form Based Zoning

4/22/2015

11

SUBDIVIDING

Subdivision Ordinance Required

– Every city and county required to have a subdivision ordinance

– ISSUE: What guides size of lots if zoning ordinance not in place?

Compliance with Zoning Ordinance Provisions

– Lot size and zoning restrictions apply

3 Types of Subdivision

– Subdivision Map (sometimes referred to as plat map)

– Parcel Map (sometimes referred to as minor subdivision)

– Map of Division into Large Parcels

SUBDIVIDING (cont.) Subdivision Map

– 5 or more lots

– 2 step process: tentative map and final map

– Tentative Map requires planning commission review and approval (unless no planning commission, then governing body)

– Tentative map may require governing board approval• Can be appellate body, only

– Typically infrastructure improvements are either built or bonded for before final map submission

– 4 year limit to present final map

– Final map can be approved by planning director or authorized person; or planning commission through local ordinance

SUBDIVIDING (cont.) Parcel Map

– 4 or fewer lots

– Typically 2 step process: tentative map and final map

• Can be 1 step if final map being presented

– Tentative Map requires planning commission, or designated person (can be parcel map committee) review and approval through local ordinance (unless none, then governing body)

– Tentative map may require governing board approval

• Can be appellate body, only

– Typically infrastructure improvements for street grading, drainage improvements and lot design are required through tentative map

– 1 year limit to present final map (2 years if authorized by local ordinance)

– Final map can be approved by planning director or authorized person; or planning commission through local ordinance

– Serial parcel maps can require improvements that would typically be required for a subdivision map

4/22/2015

12

SUBDIVIDING (cont.) Map of Division into Large Parcels

– No limit on the number of lots

– Minimum 40 acres or 1/16th of a section• Exception: 10 acres or 1/64th of a section by local ordinance

– Tentative Map requires planning commission, or authorized representative review and approval (unless none, then governing body)

– Easements for roads, drainage and irrigation, utilities must be shown on map

– 1 year limit to present final map

– Final map can be approved by planning commission or authorized person through local ordinance

SUMMARY

Master Plans

– Establish vision for community (region, county, city)

– Establish goals, policies and strategies to achieve vision

– Required of most Nevada counties and cities

– Developed and adopted by planning commissions; approved by governing bodies

Zoning

– Simply a tool, not a plan

– Not required in Nevada; but if adopted, must comply with adopted master plan

– Many new & innovative zoning tools to achieve master plan vision have been included recently in NRS

SUMMARY (cont.)

Subdividing

– 3 types of subdivisions

– Must comply with zoning regulations

– Different requirements for infrastructure improvements

4/22/2015

13


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

4/22/2015

1

The Lander County Masterplan (2010)


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015


“Nevada Revised Statutes (Section 278.150) directs the planning commission to prepare and adopt a comprehensive,

long-term general plan for the physical development of the city, county or region which in the commission’s judgment bears relation to the planning thereof. The Master Plan is designed to promote public health, safety, and general welfare of the County. The Plan is both-long term and

comprehensive in nature. It sets forth policies and action programs for the County to follow when making decisions concerning the County’s future. The policies and action

programs are intended to insure that the County’s livability is enhanced, rather than reduced, as the County grows.”


Purpose:

– Express public policy in the form of generalized maps, goals, and policy statements.

– Sets forth policies from the maintenance and improvement of existing County development and for the location, character, and quality of future development.

– Identifies the need for and methods of improving coordination of community development activities among all units of government.

– Serves as a basis for evaluating specific projects prepared by the private sector.

– Assures that all public (agency) actions are consistent and coordinated with the policies of the Master Plan.

– Reviewed and revised as necessary to be consistent with the needs and desires of the community.

4/22/2015

2


Seven Sections:

– Conservation and Natural Resources

– Land Use

– Population, Housing and Economic Development

– Public Facilities and Services

– Recreation

– Transportation

– Water Resources

Conservation and Natural Resources

Goals:

– Protect important agricultural lands which provide: (1) economically productive acreage, (2) important flood management areas, and (3) prime or unique farmland or farmlands of statewide importance.

– Limit conflicts and encroachment from developing lands on agricultural lands.

– Promote development of renewable energy projects.

– Protect important environmental resources and open space.

Conservation and Natural Resources

23 Policies and Action Programs:

– Geologic Hazards (3)

– Vegetation – Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species (6)

– Alternative Energy Development (9)

– Public Lands (5)

4/22/2015

3

Land Use

Goals:

– Facilitate orderly development consistent with available resources and services in Lander County.

– Minimize conflicts among land uses.

– Provide adequate lands to support economic development and population growth.

– Create a development pattern that is cost effective to serve with municipal services.

– Create stable and compatible land uses among residential areas.

Land Use

Approximately 93% of physical land within the County is managed by the US Bureau of Land Management.

Public lands primarily used for livestock grazing, mining, geothermal energy production, and outdoor recreation.

Single greatest land use county-wide is open space agriculture.

Land Use

Land Use Groups and Land Use Plans:

– Rural Land Group: Farm and Ranch District (A-3), and Open Space District.

– Medium Density Lands Group – Single Family Residential and Manufactured Housing: containing lands zoned R2, R3, A-1(RR-1), and A-2(RR-5).

– High Density Lands Group – Single Family Residential (6,000 sq. ft.) and Multi-Family, MRC, and Mobile Home Park: containing lands zoned R-1, R-4, MP, and MRC.

– Commercial and Tourism Group: containing lands zoned C-1, C-2, and TC.

– Industrial Lands Group

4/22/2015

4

Population, Housing and Economic Development

Recent Trends Identified in the Master Plan:

– Battle Mountain has provided short-term housing demand associated with construction crews and unaccompanied mining employees.

– The number of working family households relocating to Battle Mountain for mining jobs has been limited even though mining employment in the County has increased (as of 2010).

– Current mining operations could be relatively long-term depending on the price of underlying commodity (as of 2010).

– The southern portion of the County is seeing more population but fewer school age children. The area is attracting retirees and older adults. It is a growth scenario which appears consistent with the availability of jobs.

4/22/2015

5



– Enhance and protect existing non-cyclical economic activity or sectors, including tourist commercial relationship to Interstate 80, government functions, ranching and agricultural operations, outdoor recreation and tourism, basic services and trade, and power plant operations.

– Conduct initial site inventory/evaluation for Lander County communities.

– Lander County shall initiate a capital planning effort that addresses the improvements needed to support economic development and expansion of business activity.

– Continue to support efforts to enhance and develop outdoor recreational opportunities on public lands that increase visitors and tourists to Lander County.



– Provide recreational development recommendations to public land management agencies for resource management plan and forest service plan updates.

– Recreation development should minimize conflicts with existing public land users such as livestock operators, mining, other community based users, and establish outdoor recreational use areas which minimize conflicts with traditional users.

– Development of public lands for tourism based recreation should be consistent with the Lander County Plan for Public Lands.

– Support development of industrial sites in Lander County.

– Identify sites that are located within close proximity to municipal services. Infrastructure support expansion to sites where adequate lands and infrastructure is available.



– Rail served industrial development is particularly important in northern Lander County. Land County needs to identify site where additional rail use and development can occur.

– Alternative energy development will be encouraged where such development does not encroach upon community areas or existing residential and commercial/business establishments. Impacts from such development shall be minimized.

– Support redevelopment efforts in central Battle Mountain which meet a variety of housing needs, both temporary and long-term.

– Maintain the integrity of established residential neighborhoods.

– Adjacent and infill residential housing shall be consistent with existing development in terms of improvements and designs.

4/22/2015

6

Public Facilities and Services

Specific Goals:

– Provide adequate public services and facilities commensurate with future needs in Lander County in a manner that is cost effective to construct and operate.

– Provide adequate public services and facilities that support development and improve the overall quality of life in Lander County.

– Identify future major public facility and service improvements required in Lander County.

– Minimize the creation of new domestic wells and septic systems within urbanizing areas where groundwater recharge occurs and where the existing density of individual well and septic systems at or nearing state recommended standards.

Public Facilities and Services

Existing Districts:

– Battle Mountain Water System – Lander County Sewer and Water District No. 1

– Austin Water System – Lander County Sewer and Water District No. 2

Separate Systems:

– Kingston Water System

Public Safety:

– Lander County Sheriff’s Department

– Fire Protection/EMS

Recreation

“Providing adequate and amply parks and recreation opportunities for Lander County is challenging given

the dispersed population base that is spread throughout northern and southern Lander County.

These amenities are an invaluable part of the County’s lifestyle and significantly contribute to the

quality of life in Lander County. Lander County offers numerous unstructured recreational opportunities for citizens available through

surrounding public and forest service lands.”

4/22/2015

7

Recreation

Specific Goals:

– Develop recreation facilities and sites which improve the quality and variety of recreation available to Lander County and its residents.

– Establish recreation needs and standards based upon those commonly used for rural and small towns.

– Support development of recreational facilities and sites in Lander County consistent with the goals of the lander County Plan for the Management of Public Lands.

– Identify future demands for recreational facilities in Lander County.

– Hunting, fishing, OHV use, horseback riding, camping, and shooting sports are important recreational uses for Lander County residents. Enhancing and maintaining such opportunities are critical elements of recreation in Lander County.

Recreation Battle Mountain: nine hole

golf course with driving range, race track and motorcrosscourse, shooting range, rodeo arena and grounds, ElquistPark, high school ball fields and swimming pool, adult ball fields, Sports Complex LeMaireSchool, neighborhood parks.

Austin: roping arena, swimming pool, community park, tennis courts, outside exercise circuit, youth center.

Kingston: park and ball field, restoration of fishing pond.

Recreation

Recreation Policies and Action Programs:

– Facilitate development of recreational improvements on public and US Forest Service lands.

– Integrate recreation improvements to a general county capital improvements plan.

– Pedestrian safe access and trails should be available from residential development to park and recreation sites as well as school sites.

– Support efforts to develop more indoor/winter structured recreational opportunities.

– During development review, land for additional recreational site(s) and improvements should be identified as well as needed access for recreational purposes such as OHV, equestrian use, and hiking and biking to and from surrounding undeveloped lands.

4/22/2015

8

Recreation

Recreation Policies and Action Programs:

– Work with local school districts to coordinate development of recreational facilities that have mutual benefit to schools and Lander County residents.

– Evaluate the feasibility to develop Spencer’s Hot Springs and trail system.

– Continue to work with the US Forest Service to rehabilitate the Kingston Administrative Site for use and rental by the general public.

Transportation

“A safe and efficient transportation system is an important indicator of the vitality and health of an area. Transportation needs are directly related to

land use choices. Issues such as growth, distribution, and timing of land development

determine the effectiveness of the transportation network. The transportation plan identifies issues

that affect policies that, along with other elements of the Master Plan, further define the

County’s vision for physical development.”

Transportation

Specific Goals:

– Establish and enforce County street and road standards for future development.

– Maintain a transportation network which supports economic development and growth in Lander County.

– Coordinate transportation facility needs with planned future growth in Lander County. Such facilities need to be developed in a manner that minimizes the fiscal impact to Lander County for future maintenance and required improvements.

– Identify transportation system facility needs which serves traffic flow, pedestrian safety and community aesthetics.

4/22/2015

9

Transportation

Topic Areas:

– Access Management (State Route 305)

– Streetscapes

– Level of Service

– Streets and Road System Plan

– Rail Operations (UPRR – Track No. 1 Westward; UPRR – Track No. 2 Eastward)

– Lander County Airports (Austin, Battle Mountain, Kingston)

Water Resources

Specific Goals:

– Protect and preserve water rights, water supply, and water resources in Lander County. Such resources are critical to the local economy, and the health and well-being of the community.

– Implement and support water resources policies and goals of the Humboldt River Basin Authority and the Central Nevada Water Authority.

– Protect or minimize critical flood zones from encroachment and development.

– Identify and describe surface and groundwater in Lander County and important uses that rely upon those resources.

4/22/2015

10

Flood PlanningGuiding Principles – The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery:

Every flood risk scenario is different: there is no flood management blueprint.

Designs for flood management must b able to cope with a changing and uncertain future.

Rapid urbanization requires the integration of flood risk management into regular urban planning and governance.

Water Resources

Guiding Principles – The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery:

– An integrated strategy requires the use of both structural and non-structural measures and good metrics for ‘getting the balance right’.

– Heavily engineered structural measures can transfer risk upstream and downstream.

– It is impossible to entirely eliminate the risk from flooding. Hard-engineered measures are designed to defend to a pre-determined level.

– Many flood management measures have multiple co-benefits over and above their flood management role.

– It is important to consider the wider social and ecological consequences of flood management spending.

Water Resources

Guiding Principles – The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery:

– Clarity of responsibility for constructing and running flood risk programs is critical.

– Implementing flood risk management measures requires multi-stakeholder cooperation.

– Continuous communication to raise awareness and reinforce preparedness is necessary.

– Plan to recover quickly after flooding and use the recovery to build capacity.

4/22/2015

11


http://landercountynv.org/lander-county-elected-officials/planning-and-zoning


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

4/22/2015

1

An Overview of Economic Development


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

An Overview of Economic Development

Topics:

– Types of Economic Development

– Economic Development in Nevada: What You Need to Know

– Economic Development in Lander County: The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (2014)

– Funding Economic Development in Nevada: General Approaches

What is Economic Development?

Fundamentally, a function of the public sector.

A set of comprehensive policies, programs, and projects designed to help:

– Create mid to high skill level jobs.

– Create jobs that pay mid to high level wages.

– Help Stabilize local, regional, state-wide revenues.

– Offer individuals meaningful opportunities for general upward mobility.

– Improve the quality of life in a particular community.

4/22/2015

2

What is Economic Development?

Property and Non-Property Based Strategies:

– Real Estate and Land Reuse Strategies

– Economic Development Marketing and Attraction

– Tech-Transfer and Technology-Based Strategies.

– Small Business and Entrepreneurial Development

– Neighborhood and Community-Based Development

– Workforce and Job Training Development

Economic Development in Nevada: A State-Wide Perspective

Economic Development in Nevada – AB 449

The State Plan, Moving Nevada Forward: A Plan for Excellence in Economic Development (February 2012):

– Restructured economic development efforts throughout Nevada.

– Advisory Council on Economic Development, Board of Economic Development, Governor’s Office of Economic Development.

– Required the Development of a State Plan on Economic Development (http://www.diversifynevada.com/about/state-plan).

4/22/2015

3



– Creation of the Catalyst Fund

– Creation of the Knowledge Fund:

• Recruitment, hiring, and retention of faculty and teams to conduct research in science and technology

• Research laborites and related equipment.

• Construction of research clinics, institutes, and facilities and related buildings.

• Matching funds for federal/private grants that further economic development.



– Objective 1: Establish a Cohesive Economic Development Operating System.

– Objective 2: Advance Target Sectors and Opportunities in the Region.

– Objective 3: Expand Global Engagement.

– Objective 4: Catalyze Innovation in Core and Emerging Industries.

– Objective 5: Increase Opportunity Through Education and Workforce Development.

Objective No. 1: Establish a Cohesive Economic Development Operating System

Expectations of the Regional Development Authorities:

– Develop and execute an appropriate regional economic development plan aligned with the State Plan;

– Provide easily-accessible regional economic development information, including regional assets;

– Drive sector and cluster advancement that create jobs;

– Work with Nevada community colleges and state agencies to know and meet the region’s workforce development needs;

– Cooperate with research institutions to increase innovation commercialization and technology transfer;

– Increase exports and foreign direct investment;

– Foster regional incubation of start-ups;

– Effectively market the region and its pertinent sectors; and

– Advocate for necessary improvements to the region’s business environment.

4/22/2015

4

Objective No. 2: Advance Target Sectors and Opportunities in the Region

Eight Sectors Identified:

– Tourism, Gaming, and Entertainment

– Clean Energy

– Health and Medical Services

– Aerospace and Defense

– Mining, Materials, and Manufacturing

– Business IT Ecosystems

– Logistics and Operations

– Additional Promising Possibilities: Agriculture, Intangibles and Financial Enterprises, and Water Technology

Objective No. 3: Expand Global Engagement

Three Goals:

– Facilitate Export Growth: use of collaboration among regional representatives, and sector specialists, GOED global experts.

– Increase Foreign Direct Investment in Targeted Sectors: collaboration between GOED and the regional development authorities, working through Team Nevada, to showcase investment opportunities in local communities throughout the state.

– Enhance the Global Network that Nevada is a Part Of: the development and distribution of pertinent data and strategic information.

Objective No. 4: Catalyze Information in Core and Emerging Industries

Three Goals:

– Develop a State-Wide Innovation and Commercialization Structure: develop a formal state-wide technology-based economic development strategy for Nevada.

– Increase Industry Collaboration with UNR, UNLV, and DRI: development of a ‘Small Business Technology Transfer Resource Center’; provide match funding for NSHE industry-sponsored research.

– Build an Entrepreneur Support Structure: provide match funding for the Nevada Institute for Renewable Energy Commercialization (NIREC) and future federal grants NIREC will seek out.

4/22/2015

5

Objective No. 5: Increase Opportunity through Education and Workforce Development

Three Goals:

– Align Education, Career Training, and Workforce Development: develop foundational coursework necessary to prepare students for the industry sectors that will form the foundation of Nevada’s economy of the future.

– Reorganize Nevada’s Workforce Investment System to Align with Target Sectors: establishment of the Governor’s Workforce Investment Boards.

– Improve Educational Attainment: development of educational and training programs designed to produce job candidates who are qualified to work within each of the stated target industry sectors.

A 2014 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for Lander County

Received by the Lander County Board of County Commissioners, March 13, 2014

Received by the Lander County Planning Commission, March 12, 2014

Received by the Lander Economic Development Authority, February 5, 2014

US EDA and The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)

“CEDS are designed to bring together the public and private sectors in the creation of an economic roadmap to diversify and strengthen Regional

economies. The CEDS should analyze the Regional economy and serve as a guide for establishing Regional goals and objectives,

developing and implementing a Regional plan of action, and identifying investment priorities and

funding sources”.

- Section 303.7 Requirements for Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies.

4/22/2015

6

The Final Product

The Lander County CEDS:

– Section 1: Executive Summary– Section 2: Introduction– Section 3: State Law and Federal Government

Considerations– Section 4: Overview of Economic Development Efforts– Section 5: Analysis: Background and Existing Conditions– Section 6: Current Economic Development Initiatives– Section 7: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and

Threats (SWOT) Analysis– Section 8: Mission, Goals, and Objectives– Section 9: Issues, Strategies, and Plan of Action– Section 10: Evaluation and Performance Measures

Lander County CEDS Mission and Vision

Mission:

“To enhance the quality of life throughout Lander County by employing sustainable methods in order to create business opportunities and economic prosperity through a diversified

economy and tax base while respecting individual freedoms and independence.”

Vision:

“Leverage through community and grass roots efforts our natural resource base including land, minerals, abundant renewable energy along with existing infrastructure and transportation systems and future redevelopment of mine sites to sustain,

expand, and attract new and existing business that generates jobs and shares prosperity.”

2014 Lander County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy

Eight Issues:

Issue Number 1: Redevelopment and enhancement of property in need of revitalization. (Page 117)

Related to this issue, the county and community leaders developed the goal of identifying properties in both Battle Mountain and the Austin/Kingston area most in need of revitalization and to pursue appropriate redevelopment efforts in partnership with private property owners.

Issue Number 2: Enhance appearance of gateways, main streets, and business corridors. (Page 118)

The only goal pertaining to the issue of enhancing the appearance of Lander County’s key gateways, main streets, and business corridors is the goal of updating and implementing a Gateway Master Plan for key gateways, main streets, and business corridors in Battle Mountain and the Austin/Kingston area.

4/22/2015

7


Eight Issues:

Issue Number 3: Participate in land use planning for future development. (Page 120)

The only goal pertaining to the issue of participating in land use planning for future development is the goal of updating and implementing the Lander County Master Plan as needed in Battle Mountain and the Austin/Kingston area. The Lander County Planning Department and the Lander Economic Development Authority will be responsible for annually monitoring implementation of Lander County’s Master Plan and suggesting possible revisions when and where necessary.

Issue Number 4: Development of a Lander County Capital Improvement and Infrastructure Plan specifically for economic development purposes. (Page 121)

The only goal pertaining to the issue of developing a Lander County Capital Improvement and Infrastructure Plan for economic development purposes in Lander County is the goal of completing a five-year Economic Development Capital Improvement and Infrastructure Plan consistent with the stated goals of the Future Industrial Needs Discovery (FIND) Project.


Eight Issues:

Issue Number 5: Development and Business Incentives for Existing and New Businesses. (Page 122)

Related to this issue, the county and community leaders developed two separate goals, including: (1) promote, assist, and provide incentives for the growth and vitality of existing businesses, and (2) attract new wealth and job-creating businesses to Lander County.

Issue Number 6: Employment opportunities and development of the labor force. (Page 124)

The only goal pertaining to this issue is the creation of employment opportunities and career advancement. Lander County and the Lander Economic Development Authority will continue to update and modify existing employment resource programs offered within Lander County and continue to request industries and businesses to contact Lander County when recruiting employees.


Eight Issues:Issue Number 7: Capture of local residential market demand within the county. (Page 125)

Related to this issue, the county and community leaders developed two separate goals, including: (1) encourage a variety of commercial activities to enhance and retain shopping opportunities to serve the population and increase sales tax revenues, and (2) maximize the county’s market potential, in order to enhance and retain retail opportunities to serve the population, increase county revenues, as well as provide new employment opportunities.

Issue Number 8: Continued implementation of the 2012 Economic Diversification, Community Business Enhancement and Marketing Plan. (Page 130)

The 2012 Economic Diversification, Community Business Enhancement and Marketing Plan is the framework and focus that Lander County identified as necessary to move forward with a wide variety of outreach and marketing, infrastructure capacity building and community enhancements. It is Lander County’s road map to a sustainable future and continued implementation of the plan is a vital component of this Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.

4/22/2015

8


Ten Goals:

Goal Number 1: Identify properties in both Battle Mountain and the Austin/Kingston area most in need of revitalization and pursue appropriate redevelopment efforts in partnership with private property owners.

Goal Number 2: Update and implement a Gateway Master Plan for key gateways, main streets, and business corridors in Battle Mountain and the Austin/Kingston area.

Goal Number 3: Update and implement the Lander County Master Plan as needed in Battle Mountain and the Austin/Kingston area.

Goal Number 4: Complete a five-year Economic Development Capital Improvement and Infrastructure Plan consistent with the state goals of the Future Industrial Needs Discovery (FIND) Project.


Ten Goals:

Goal Number 5: Promote, assist, and provide incentives for the growth and vitality of existing businesses.

Goal Number 6: Attract new wealth and job-creating businesses to Lander County.

Goal Number 7: Creation of employment opportunities and career advancement.


Ten Goals:

Goal Number 8: Encourage a variety of commercial activities to enhance and retain shopping opportunities to serve the population and increase sales tax revenues.

Goal Number 9: Maximize the county’s market potential, in order to enhance and retain retail opportunities to serve the population, increase county revenues, as well as provide new employment opportunities.

Goal Number 10: Continue to implement the 2012 Economic Diversification, Community Business Enhancement and Marketing Plan in order to achieve the plan’s stated goals.

4/22/2015

9

Funding Economic Development in Nevada

Funding Economic Development – Some Approaches

Redevelopment (NRS 279)

General Improvement Districts (NRS 318)

Special Assessment Districts (NRS 271)

Tax Increment Areas (NRS 278C)

Tourism Improvement Districts (NRS 271A)


April 24, 2015 and April 25, 2015

Lander County Citizens Institute Speaker Biographies … County Citizens Institute . Speaker...

Documents

Transcript of Lander County Citizens Institute Speaker Biographies … County Citizens Institute . Speaker...