Want something done locally? That gets decided in Carson City

Tony Cook

Sunday, June 17, 2007 | 7:01 a.m.

During the four months of the 2007 legislative session, state lawmakers dealt with some of the most pressing issues of the day - such as allowing Clark County to tow cars from its parking lots and permitting McCarran International Airport officials to give refunds at airport parking garages.

Those issues might not sound like the stuff of statesmanship, but a significant amount of the time-strapped legislative session was spent on such trivial local issues.

That's because local governments in Nevada lack home rule, requiring them to get permission from Carson City on many routine issues, such as whether officials in Southern Nevada may sell naming rights to the Clark County Shooting Park. (The Legislature signed off on that.)

Although most legislators don't get too excited about a debate on towing cars or park-naming rights, they also are reluctant to hand over power to local governments. They say there's nothing wrong with a little more oversight and argue that more home rule would threaten uniformity across the state, especially on issues such as taxation.

"There aren't many fans in the Legislature," Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, said.

But the result, according to home rule proponents, is that local officials in fast-growing municipalities must wait up to two years for legislators to address even minor issues. Meanwhile, lawmakers - already facing tight time constraints during the four-month session - must wade through a bog of local government minutia.

"I think the Legislature wastes a lot of time doing that," Sen. Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, said. "The more sessions I sit through, I think, 'This is nuts.'

"We've all got better things to do."

Of the bills that went before legislators from 2001 to 2005, Care said 511 - about 10 percent - could have been handled by local governments if home rule were expanded.

Take the car-towing issue, for example. Clark County tried to tow a lawyer's vehicle from one of its parking lots, only to have the lawyer point out that state law does not expressly grant counties the authority to tow vehicles. The district attorney's office flipped through state code and found the lawyer was right.

The state's grip on local government is based on an old common-law principle called Dillon's Rule, named after the judge who came up with it in 1886.

Judge John Dillon, an Iowa Supreme Court justice who distrusted local government s , ruled that they have only those powers specifically granted by the state. Thirty-one states follow Dillon's Rule. Eight others apply it only to some municipalities, 10 have jettisoned it altogether, and conflicting court rulings leave Florida's status in doubt.

The Nevada Legislature has been particularly careful to keep the reins on local governments.

Care proposed a study of the issue during this year's session. Unlike past proposals related to home rule, it actually got a hearing.

"It would mean fewer bills for us," Care told the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections in April.

Surprisingly, his colleagues said they liked the idea. A dozen local government representatives voiced support and even Raggio said the study sounded "worthwhile." In fact, no one spoke in opposition.

So lawmakers approved the study, right?

Wrong. The measure never left committee. The reason?

"That's a very good question," Care said.

Committee Chairwoman Barbara Cegavske, R-Las Vegas, said the proposal wasn't voted on because lawmakers realized that they had already approved too many studies during the session, raising concerns whether state staff would have enough time to examine home rule.

But Care said what happened to his proposal typifies the reaction that home rule has received in Carson City for years.

"The general rule is, once an entity has power, it's difficult to let it go," he said.

Such is the challenge cities and counties face in their struggle for more autonomy.

"It's something that's been discussed in the Legislature for many sessions and, frankly, I am not optimistic things will change," Clark County Commission Chairman Rory Reid said.

Local governments' case has not been helped by the fact that four former Clark County commissioners are serving prison sentences or have pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges. Another has been charged with falsifying election filings and police are investigating a sixth.

Still, some lawmakers and local government officials say circumstances make the timing right for a serious discussion on the issue.

The state's tendency to place its financial burdens in the lap of local governments - especially visible during this year's session - gives local officials a stronger platform from which to call for home rule.

Lawmakers this year shifted property taxes away from Clark and Washoe counties to help pay for state transportation projects. That move is expected to cost Clark County $14 million annually.

They also restructured tax breaks originally passed in 2005 for companies that build environmentally friendly buildings. Even with the changes, that measure might cost Clark County $300 million over 10 years, county officials said.

Many counties nationwide could deal with those blows to their revenue by raising taxes, but local governments in Nevada have little power to do so.

In 2004, for example, Clark County voters approved a 0.25 percent sales tax increase, but the county was helpless to institute it. Instead, the ballot question served as an advisory vote for state lawmakers, who had the ultimate say. Because the Legislature did not meet until 2005, implementation of the tax was delayed for nearly a year after residents passed it.

Such delays can be costly in a state growing at breakneck pace.

Rapid growth played a role in the spate of home rule charters passed for many large U.S. cities a century ago, said Pietro Nivola, director of government studies at the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C.

Another factor is that many in the current crop of legislators have not been part of a serious discussion about home rule.

"I don't think it's been looked at in 12 or more years," said Clark County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, a former assemblywoman.

Jeff Fontaine, executive director of the Nevada Association of Counties, is optimistic about the possibility of a serious discussion about home rule during the next legislative session, despite this year's failure to even approve a study.

"There was a lot of agreement that this is an issue that needs to be looked at," he said. "I don't know that there is necessarily resistance as much as this is a very complex and comprehensive issue that just takes time."

Some legislators are willing to entertain ideas such as giving local government more taxing authority. Care, for instance, says that "if the County Commission wants to take the hit on that issue, let it do it."

But such voices are in the minority.

A more palatable compromise might be to expand local governments' administrative authority, while maintaining the state's tight restraints on local governments' fiscal powers.

"I support more home rule," Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, said. "There are administrative functions and fiscal functions. If it's administrative, let them do it."

But even that will require local governments to begin their lobbying efforts now.

"Clark County is going to have to prove itself," Giunchigliani said. "We have to reach out more."

archive