Fiscal impact analysis and policy formulation

Material Information

Fiscal impact analysis and policy formulation the Las Vegas Valley study
Goldstein, Jed
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
ii, 214 leaves : ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Finance, Public -- Nevada -- Las Vegas Valley ( lcsh )
Economic policy ( fast )
Finance, Public ( fast )
Economic policy -- Las Vegas Valley (Nev.) ( lcsh )
Nevada -- Las Vegas Valley ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 213-214).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master's degree in Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jed Goldstein.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
08838579 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1982 .G63 ( lcc )

Full Text
00255 4930
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Planning and Community Development.
University of Colorado at Denver College of Design and Planning
Jed Goldstein Denver, Colorado May, 1982

I would like to thank Jim Williams and Carol Chorey for their invaluable assistance in preparing this thesis. Jim introduced me to the concepts and techniques involved in the fiscal impact analysis process and proved to be a patient, excellent teacher. Carol waded through my nearly illegible handwriting and produced a document that is a wonder to behold.
I would also like to thank the faculty of the Department of Planning and Community Development for confirming all of my ideas about the value of the education process.

Chapter I The Elements of Fiscal Impact Analysis
Chapter 2 The Las Vegas Valley Study
Chapter 3 Population Projections
Chapter 4 Summary of the Revenue Projections
Chapter 5 Las Vegas Valley Expenditure Projections
Chapter 6 Results of the Fiscal Impact Analysis
Chapter 7 Policy Recommendations
Chapter 8 Fiscal Impact Analysis and Planners
A. Population Projections 75
1. Allocation of the Future Baseline 75
2. Annual Population Increase 77
Summary of Changes in Revenues by Source 79
Las Vegas Valley Expenditure Projections 84
1. Summary of Changes in Expenditures by Type 84
2. General Government 104
3. Administrative Building Space 106
4. Metropolitan Police 1 12
5. Police Services (Non-Metro) 1 18
6. Jail Facilities 127
7. Fire Services 134
8. Other Public Safety Costs 150
9. Future Residential Streets 152
10. Future Collector Streets 160
II. Stormwater Drainage 174
12. Other Public Works Expenditures 184

13. Park Acquisition, Development & Maintenance 187
14. Recreation 196
15. Building Inspections Costs 200
16. Human Services 205
17. Other General Expenses 208
D. Comparison of Cumulative Increases in Revenues and
Expenditures Associated with Growth 21 I

The purpose of this report is to provide an introduction to the elements of the fiscal analysis process and an illustration of the techniques employed through the examination of an analysis that has been performed for the Las Vegas Valley region of Nevada. The final aim is to place the results of an analysis in the context of comprehensive planning and policy formulation.
A local government can be viewed as a business. It provides services to its residents and receives payment from them in return. Unlike a business operating in the market system, however, a government is not always in the position to identify the specific recipients of its services and the amount that each person actually receives. It is therefore unable to set its prices to reflect the demands placed on it. Through the various revenue-raising devices available to it, the local government charges everyone in its jurisdiction a certain portion of the actual cost of providing the service. The amount each person pays is not directly proportioned to the benefits he or she receives, but on factors such as his or her income, property value, or amounts spent to purchase goods.
A definition of fiscal impact analysis is given by Burchell and Listokin:
Fiscal impact analysis ... is: A projection of the direct, current, public costs and revenues associated with residential or non-residential growth to the local jurisdiction(s) in which this growth is taking place.'
There is a growing literature concerning the fiscal impacts of growth, however, the area of focus has been quite narrow, dealing mainly with the "boom town"
phenomena surrounding energy and mining developments in the western United States.
2 3 k
Studies involved coal development in North Dakota, energy impacts in Wyoming, mining projects in Colorado,and large power plants in North Dakota.^
Although the methods used in the studies were quite useful in determining the impacts of growth on small, rural communities, they did not address the concerns of the Las Vegas Valley Study. The focus of the studies was on the cost of expanding the facilities available in the towns to urban standards. The specificity of information

about the type, timing, and duration of growth in these studies led to methods that could not be applied to the more general information available from the highly urbanized Las Vegas Valley communities.
Other authors have devised methods to determine the fiscal impacts of specific residential and non-residential development on communities. The California
Department of Planning devised a workbook for local use on the impacts of
7 8 9
developments; the Urban Land Institute has sponsored several studies; as has the
Center for Urban Policy Research.
These studies were based on general, national standards for the services provided to the new developments. There was no attempt to relate the fiscal impact analyses to local policies. Instead, each development project was analyzed to determine its impact on existing facilities. Locational factors and induced capital expenditures were not addressed. None of the methods presented in the studies were of value in determining the impacts of the type of rapid growth occurring in the Las Vegas Valley.
The Las Vegas Valley Fiscal Impact Study was conducted to determine the longterm financial effects of an anticipated 93% population increase between 1980 and 2000. The question asked by local officials was: "Under current policies, will growth pay its own way?" The results of the analysis would become the basis for discussion among local leaders and a first step toward reformulating growth related policies.
The literature becomes sparse when an attempt is made to create a connection between growth and community planning. The research cited above has been on an ad-hoc basis, each development is assessed after its proposal. Remedies are devised only to offset the effects of each development, with no mention being made of the planner's role in formulating policies to mitigate the impacts of growth before they occur.
The fiscal analysis is one component of the local decision-making process. Its results should be interpreted in the context of the long-range goals of the community. Its strength lies in the fact that it provides a basis for discussion. The analysis assigns costs to various decisions and weighs them against the expected return to the local government. The opportunity for rational discussion and decisions is greatly enhanced as a result of the analysis. Strengths and weaknesses in the existing system are magnified as their future effects are determined.
Every aspect of local government policy comes into play during the course of the analysis: land use trends, service levels, efficiency of operation, taxation, service charges, capital programs. All are components in the cost-revenue projection process,
- 2 -

and the results of the study provide powerful arguments for or against the continuation of present policies.
The assumption is that there is a strong correlation between the quality of services a local government provides and the quality of life its residents enjoy. Areas grow because they are attractive in various ways. There is generally some combination of attractions in evidence: economic growth and job opportunities, physical beauty, recreational opportunities, and climate. In order to maintain the attractiveness, in many cases it is necessary to adapt policies to changing conditions. It is in this area that fiscal impact analysis will suggest the alternatives that will provide the greatest benefits to the new as well as the established residents of the jurisdiction.
Fiscal impact analysis can be a powerful tool in the comprehensive planning process. The land use element of the plan can be modified to decrease the costs of service provision and to reduce capital expenditures. Phasing and funding of the Capital Improvement Program can be adjusted to most efficiently meet the projected increases in demands for facilities. Revenue raising and service charge policies can be adapted to insure that the entire community benefits from the growth that will occur.
All too often, comprehensive plans are ineffective documents for deciding policy. Most communities see growth as a means of increasing revenues which lead to improvements in services, facilities and programs. But the questions regarding how much growth, where it should occur, what type of growth is best, will growth be self-supporting, and who should pay for growth, are never addressed. The plan provides no basis for comparing strategies for dealing with growth. A fiscal analysis section of a plan will provide a range of answers to these questions, and can lead to rational policy decisions that can then be incorporated into the zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations that determine the future form of the county, city or town.
The report is structured sequentially, beginning with a general overview of the elements that make up the foundation of any fiscal impact analysis. The broad categories of revenues and expenditures are introduced in Chapter I, with brief discussions of the most typical components of these categories that the analyst will encounter.
Chapter 2 provides a brief, historical introduction to the study area.
The population projections which formed the basis for the revenue-expenditure comparisons are presented in Chapter 3.
- 3 -

Chapter 4 summarizes the results of the study's revenue projections, including an analysis of the institutional context that bears on the local governments' revenue generating capabilities.
Chapter 5 presents the method employed for the expenditure projection phase of the study. The cost element of fiscal impact analysis is the focus of this report.
Chapter 6 presents the results of the comparison between projected revenues generated by growth over the study period and the increase in expenditures for each local government.
The implications of the study for the formulation of policies that will lessen the adverse impacts of growth are addressed in Chapter 7. A series of policies, based on the Comprehensive Planning Process, Subdivision Regulations, and Capital Improvements Programs, are presented.
With Chapter 8, the report concludes with an attempt to illustrate the importance of fiscal impact analysis as a tool for planners in the public sector.
A series of tables illustrating the data and methods used in the analysis form the Appendices.
1. Burchell, Robert W. and Listokin, David, The Fiscal Impact Handbook; New Brunswick, N.J.: The Center for Urban Policy Research, I$78, p. I.
2. Leistritz, F. Larry, A Fiscal Impact Model for Rural Industrialization; Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. I, No. I, June, 1977.
3. Gilmore, J.S. and Duff, M.K., Boomtown Growth Management: Rock Springs-Green River, Wyoming; Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1975.
4. Briscoe, Maphis, Murray & Lamont, OIA Monitoring Study; Boulder, Colorado, 1982.
5. Briscoe, Maphis, Murray & Lamont, Mount Emmons Impact Study; Boulder, Colorado, 1981.
6. Leholm, A.G., Leistritz, F.L. and Weiland, J.S., Profile of North Dakota's Electric Power Plant Workforce (Agricultural Economics Statistical Series, No.
7. State of California, Office of Planning and Research, Economic Practices Manual; Sacramento, California, 1978).
8. Muller, Thomas, Economic Impacts of Land Development; Employment, Housing, and Property Values; Washington, D.C.; The Urban Land Institute, 1976.

9. Muller, Thomas, Measuring Impacts of Land Development; Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute.
10. Burrows, Lawrence, Growth Management: Issues, Technigues and Policy
Implications; New Brunswick, N.J.: The Center for Urban Policy Research, 1978.
- 5 -

Fiscal impact analysis is concerned with comparing projected income with expected expenditures caused by growth in a jurisdiction. The results of the analysis can be very valuable in determining the course a city must take to insure a workable future.
The components of the analysis are revenues and expenditures under current policies. Revenues are all monies received by a local government from all sources, which can be used to meet the costs of the city's functioning. Expenditures are the amounts of money spent by the government to provide services to its residents. Ideally, a city would set its financial policies to insure that revenues could be adjusted to meet its yearly expenditures. In fact, this is often not the case.
Local governments exist as creations of the state in which they are located and must adhere to state statutes concerning their existence. Decisions concerning local revenues are made at the state level and often place limits on the localities' rate setting abilities. Examples include mill levy limits on local property taxes and ceilings on bonded indebtedness. The fewer the state restraints, the greater is the local government's ability to raise revenues in relation to local goals and objectives.
Local expenditures are not similarly constrained by agencies outside of a jurisdiction, and immediately the hint that problems may exist arises. This being the case, this study focuses on the expenditure side of the equation as being most responsive to local solutions. Also, revenue generating mechanisms vary from state to state, while expenditures are similar in many jurisdictions. Ultimately, each jurisdiction must decide its own policies concerning who pays for growth and how.
Revenues can be conveniently broken down into two parts, tax-derived and nontax derived. Tax revenues are defined as those paid to the government in amounts unrelated to the actual benefits received by those paying. Taxes are paid on the basis of such factors as personal or business income, property values and sales receipts. They are therefore once removed from the government services they go to support.
- 6 -

Non-tax revenues fall into several categories, such as license and permit fees, service charges, user charges and franchise fees. These differ from taxes in that they are paid by recipients of specific services in an amount related to the actual costs of providing the service. Since the non-tax sources are easily identified and compared with associated expenditures, they are more easily manipulated by the government. For definitional purposes, any fee that is set to an amount that yields revenues greater than what is needed to provide the service is a tax that goes for the general welfare of the community.
Another source of non-tax revenues is intergovernmental transfers. These are
monies received by the local government from the state and federal governments and
are classified as grants-in-aid, shared taxes or revenue sharing. Such revenues may be given for particular uses, in which case they are deposited in specific funds, or they can be general purpose revenues which go into the General Fund. These revenues are distributed on various bases, none of which are under local government control and have been becoming an increasingly important source of local funds through the years.
The final general source of local revenues is the issuance of bonds for the financing of large, expensive capital improvements. Since state laws do not permit local governments to operate with a deficit, bonds may not be issued to meet their normal operating expenditures. Bonds are normally classified as either General Obligation or Special Revenue. General Obligation bonds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the local government and are paid back from the General Fund. Special Revenue bonds are paid for by the recipients of the improvement, who pay into a separate fund set up at the time of the bonds issuance.
While each jurisdiction must be studied individually to determine what sources of revenue are available to it, there are certain generalities that can be made concerning its revenue sources. What follows is a brief description of the most typical revenues that will be encountered during the course of the fiscal impact analysis.
o Property Taxes
Property taxes have been and remain the single most important source of local tax revenues on a nationwide basis. The tax has been controversial since its inception, but has withstood all attacks on it through the years. The amount of tax generated is based on mill levies assessed against the value of property in the jurisdiction. Generally, local officials determine the budget requirements for the year, then divide the amount by the total assessed valuation of all property. The result is the mill levy which is applied to each property owner on the value of his property.
- 7 -

Each individual property owner's tax obligation is determined by the various districts in which his property is located. Everyone in the community is assessed a school tax component, but other levies such as drainage system fees, local paving district charges and bond debt retirement fees can be added. The main beneficiaries of the property tax are the general fund and the local school districts.
Property tax payments are made by individuals regardless of the demands they place on governmental services. The revenues received from the tax go into the General Fund and are spent to provide services to the entire community. Residents who pay no property taxes receive the same benefits, sometimes in greater amounts, than those who do. This results in a great deal of resentment against the property tax as being an unfair instrument. Several states have undergone "taxpayer revolts" which have led to severe limitations on local government's ability to raise revenues through this source. When this occurs, the tax burden formerly met by the property tax must be shifted to other possible sources which may not be as stable or may be more vulnerable to inflationary conditions. For the present, the property tax must be carefully studied in any community in which a fiscal impact analysis is being performed.
o Sales Taxes
Sales taxes are becoming increasingly important sources of revenue as an alternative to the property tax. The tax can be levied at the local, county, or state level, or a combination of all three. Likewise, they can be administered and collected at any of these levels and passed back to the localities through various means.
Although the sales tax is seen as a more equitable source of local revenues, several deficiencies exist. First, the tax tends to be regressive in nature, taking a larger proportional share of an individual's income as his income decreases. Remedies to this problem have included the removal of food, clothing, and medical supplies from the list of taxable items. Second, the distribution of the tax from higher to local governmental levels may not accurately reflect the true revenue needs of a community. Most tax sharing formulas are based on population or sales percentages of the state or county, and can shift funds from central cities with declining populations or sales figures to more affluent suburban areas.
o Income Taxes
This revenue source is also becoming more important for local governments. As with the sales tax, it can be levied by each level of government. When levied at the

local level it can yield significant amounts. The major benefit to the community is derived when the tax is applied both to its residents and commuters living outside the city, but who work in it. This tax tends to reduce some of the disparities caused by those leaving the central city for the suburbs. At this time, the use of the local income tax is less widespread than either the property or sales taxes. It is most prevalent in the larger eastern cities.
o Public Utility Taxes
Franchise taxes are charged to utilities for the privilege of using city streets and alleys to provide their services. This tax can yield a large income to the local government. While appearing to tax the utility company directly, the tax is most often passed onto the consumer either as a component of the utility charge or as an added tax on the monthly bill.
o Cigarette and Alcohol Taxes
Most often these taxes are imposed at the state and federal levels and returned to local governments on a formula basis. Communities generally have the option to impose a local tax, but it is not a widespread practice. Cigarette and liquor taxes are imposed on a flat-rate basis, that is a fixed amount per unit, and are not increased when the price of the product increases. For this reason, they are particularly vulnerable to inflationary trends.
o Gasoline Taxes
Revenues derived from the gasoline tax are collected by the state and returned to local governments. These funds are generally earmarked for specific road and transit improvements and are not major contributors to the general fund. Like cigarette and alcohol taxes, rates are on a flat rate, per gallon basis, regardless of the price of the gasoline. This source is very vulnerable to shifts in gasoline consumption trends.
o Service Charges
Service charges fall into the category of fees, as opposed to taxes, since they are charged only to recipients of a specific service. Depending on the locality, these revenues may or may not appear in the General Fund. Examples of service charges are utility fees for systems such as water, sewer, and storm drainage. Rates for these

services are generally not regulated by the state and can be set to an amount to cover operating, maintenance, and repair costs of the system.
o User Charges
Like service charges, these revenues are obtained only from recipients of a service. Generally, user charges are derived from admission fees for museum and galleries, fees for certain uses of park and recreation facilities and the like. Local governments generally have wide discretion in setting these fees and it is becoming common for them to contribute a greater percentage of the operating budgets of the institutions involved.
o License and Permit Fees
Revenues derived from license and permit fees are justified by the idea that those receiving the benefits of public health and safety inspections should contribute to their cost. Licenses are generally required for all businesses located in a community, the fees from which defray the costs of the various health and safety inspections that must be performed. Permit fees are required for all projects that require building, plumbing, electrical and engineering inspections. Local governments can set these fees to meet a predetermined percentage of the cost of providing the inspections.
o Fines and Delinquency Fees
Money received from fines and penalties can be quite substantial. They may either go to the General Fund for distribution or they may go to a special fund which supports the government unit that generates them. Library fines are an example of this revenue source that most often go to defraying the cost of that service. Fines and similar fees must be weighed as a revenue source against the possible discouragement of use of the services provided.
o Intergovernmental Revenues
An increasing source of local revenues, these may be derived from sales taxes, property taxes, or income taxes that are collected by the state and distributed to cities and counties. They are also derived from federal and state revenue sharing programs and are most often used for services such as health, welfare, education, highways, sewer systems, and transit. As stated earlier, these funds are not under the
- 10-

control of local governments and can be drastically reduced by the federal administration. For this reason, it is difficult to assess their future reliability.
o Bonds
Bonds may only be issued for specific capital improvements, not for the purpose of increasing the balance in the General Fund. State statutes impose limits on the percentage of the assessed valuation each jurisdictions' outstanding debt can equal. The amount of the bond issue is determined by the cost of the improvement it is funding and its term is regulated by state law. Generally, 30-year limits are placed on the repayment period.
The most common types of bonds are General Obligation and Revenue Bonds. General Obligation bonds are repaid from the General Fund which is supported by a property tax levy sufficient to cover the debt. Revenue bonds are paid off by revenues generated by service charges for the specific facility. Revenue bonds are not backed by the General Fund, but provisions may exist for transferring funds from it to help pay off the debt. These transfers are treated as loans that must eventually be paid back to the General Fund.
These then are the major sources of revenues for local governments. The list is not exhaustive, but is focused mainly on sources available to the General Fund. Any fiscal impact analysis must begin with a definition of the revenue generating capacity of each jurisdiction. The task is often complex, and may require some searching through budgets to ascertain what sources are available and their contributions. This list provides some guidance in determining the sources of revenue at the local level.
Local expenditures are the means by which each community attempts to attain its goals. Given that there is always a finite quantity of revenues available and that each department receiving its operating and maintenance budget from these revenues is attempting to maximize its expenditures, the local governing body allots to each department an amount that reflects where the local emphasis lies. The fiscal impact analysis leads them to projections of the jurisdiction's ability to satisfy its needs.
Once revenues enter the General Fund they become available to all competing departments. Unlike the special funds found for such services as water, sewer, and solid waste disposal, there is no direct correlation between money entering the fund and specific departmental budgets. The funds must pass through the intermediate step of budgetary approval by the elected officials before each operating department

receives its portion. Assuming that the council is aware of the community's priorities, it will disperse the revenues accordingly.
General Fund Expenditures
The following governmental departments are most often supported by the General Fund and are therefore in direct competition with each other to obtain their own operating goals. Ideally, sufficient revenues will be available to maintain the desired operating standards for each department. In reality, it is often the case that increases in expenditures in one department result in a decrease in another. The community, through its representatives, must decide the importance it places on various services, since they cannot all be fully funded simultaneously. The choice is not always an easy one to make.
o General Government or Administration
Each jurisdiction has its "city hall" in which the day-to-day functions of local government are conducted. Expenditures in this area go toward the salaries, benefits, maintenance and operations costs of this branch. The departments involved in. administering the government include the mayor or manager, councils and commissions, finance, record keeping, personnel, planning and its related functions, and often the public legal staff. The services provided are available to everyone in the community and are provided without charge. For this reason, the operating budget is derived from the General Fund.
In instances where court systems are included in the General Fund, fines and fees collected by them go into the fund to defray their costs.
o Public Safety
In general, public safety functions comprise the largest expenditures in the General Fund budget. The two major components of these expenditures are police and fire protection.
Both functions are provided to all residents of a jurisdiction regardless of their contribution to their budgets. These services are so important to the existence of a community that even in times of severe economic restraint they are the last to be cut back or reduced. Often, in fact, other expenditures will be reduced to provide increases in public safety service provision.
Police functions include patrols, investigations, crime prevention, laboratories, communication, and detention. Costs incurred by the department are salaries and
- 12 -

benefits, vehicle purchase and maintenance, and other operational costs such as training, recruitment, and public relations. Jail operations may or may not be included in the general police budgets. Generally, larger jurisdictions have jail and detention facility budgets separate from police department expenditures.
Fire service budgets usually resemble those of the police departments, including salaries, equipment, investigative services, prevention services, and public relations programs. Both departments tend to be labor intensive, with salaries and benefits being the major components. (This is true of urban areas while small rural departments are generally staffed by volunteers and therefore incur no personnel expenses.)
Police and fire services are generally provided on a service area basis, with stations being located to meet locally determined response time standards. Jurisdictions that extend over large areas tend to require more dispersed service networks and therefore are more expensive to maintain.
In some municipalities, building inspection services are included in the public safety department budget. Some departments are totally supported by permit fees and charges while others are funded by general revenues with the fees generated going to the General Fund. The situation in each local government will become clear upon inspection of the budget.
o Public Works
The major components of the public works budget are street and road maintenance, public buildings and engineering services. Generally, the street maintenance portion of the budget far exceeds the other functions. As mentioned in the previous section, building inspection services are sometimes included in the public works department.
Street maintenance functions include sweeping, major and minor repairs, painting and overlay programs. Some areas have created paving districts in which property owners fronting on the street pay for the major repairs performed by the department. Minor repairs and sweeping are usually not charged to the paving district residents.
Engineering services include planning city capital projects and dealing with builders to insure compliance with local standards concerning drainage, street construction, water and sewer standards. This department may also be involved in the construction of city faciliites.
- 13 -

o Parks and Recreation
The Parks and Recreation Department is concerned with the acquisition, development, and maintenance of community park facilities. When operating under a parks master plan, this department can plan for future park sites and can work with other city agencies in obtaining land for development.
Recreation departments work toward providing facilities in parks and other public buildings for community-wide programs. Both parks and recreation can work with the local school district to provide joint facilities. The variation in expenditures among jurisdictions are great, generally reflecting the community's goals concerning public recreation facilities.
Other expenditures most often are supported by specific funds which generate revenues through their own mill levies or user charges. Common examples of these expenditure types are school districts, water services, hospitals, sewer systems, solid waste disposal, and storm drainage and flood control systems. It must be noted that variations in the occurrence of government expenditures are common so that each jurisdiction must be studied individually to determine which functions are paid for from the General Fund and which are user supported.
o School Districts
Education expenses are the single largest budget category in American
jurisdictions. The importance placed on this area has resulted in the creation of school districts that are run autonomously, with their own boards of directors, budgetary staffs, planners, and support personnel. School districts are funded by a combination of property taxes, state aid and federal grants. The separate funding process assures the school district of the ability to raise sufficient funds to meet its costs, without the competition from other operating departments.
Revenue limitations on these districts come from state enabling statutes which often place mill levy limits on their taxing powers and from the condition of the local economy. Since the assessed valuation of property in the district's jurisdiction determines the actual revenues obtained, central city areas have faced severe shortages of funds while suburban districts, with their expanding tax base enjoy more favorable conditions.
To offset this disparity, states have set up educational equalization funds which,
based on certain formulas, require districts with larger tax revenues to share a portion
with less financially secure areas.
- 14 -

As with all other expenditure categories, wide variations exist with respect to local responsibilities for school districts. They may be run locally, on a county-wide basis, across local government boundaries, or by the state. The choice as to the importance of school district finances in the fiscal impact analysis will be determined by the degree of local effects on its revenues and expenditures. The further removed from local control, the less is the local growth pattern's impact on the district's fiscal balance.
o Water and Sewer Districts
These services are generally supported by user fees which go into a specific operating fund. Local policies determine whether the fees are set at a level which will generate revenues to cover only the operating and maintenance costs involved in providing the services or at a rate high enough to set up funds for facility replacement, debt retirement, and depreciation. Since all capital facilities eventually wear out and must be replaced, farsighted planning is needed to insure that money will be available to carry out major projects when they are necessary.
Expenditures associated with water and sewer systems include operating and maintenance, line repair, treatment facilities construction, and extension of services to new areas. It is the latter functions that are the most capital intensive and growth induced. Since these districts are generally not supported by general fund revenues, they are afforded a great deal of latitude in determining policies to reach their service goals.
These services are most often included in fiscal analyses of small jurisdictions facing rapid growth. They are the focus of impact statements required for large energy or mineral developments near rural communities.^
o Solid Waste Disposal
Collection and disposal of solid waste is often supported by user fees charged to recipients of the service. Rates can be set by the governing body to meet the costs of running the service. As with water and sewer districts, rates can generate revenues to provide for future needs as well as current operating costs. This is one service that can sometimes be most efficiently carried out by private firms under contract with the local government.
- 15 -

o Other Service Districts
Any service whose benefit can be identified with individuals receiving the service is a candidate for the creation of a special district. Examples include storm drainage, flood control, and street lighting. The districts provide the means for creating improvements of benefit only to a certain identifiable segment of the jurisdiction's population without placing a strain on the community as a whole. These districts are of concern in a fiscal impact analysis only when unusual increases in demands are expected. Since they are self-supporting entities, they are not of great importance in many analyses.
The last group of expenditures are those whose funding comes from non-local sources. Included here are public welfare and human services, urban renewal, housing and health care services. These functions are usually supported by state and federal grants, or are run by a higher level of government in their entirety. Again, the caution must be repeated that local governments vary in their contribution to these services and must be approached on a case by case basis.
Funding for these programs is generally not under the control of local governments, and therefore, expenditures are determined by larger economic factors. Revenues are distributed to local governments on a state-wide formula basis and are therefore only indirectly affected by local growth conditions. Analysis of each jurisdiction will determine the need for including these services in fiscal impact projections.
Local governments provide a wide range of services to their residents. Providing services is made possible by the income received through various revenue sources. Expenditures are determined by local goals and objectives, balanced against the revenues available.
Revenues are derived from many sources, local taxes, services charges, user fees, and licenses and permits; state distribution of higher government level taxes and fees; and federal revenue sharing programs. Each locality is constrained in its locally generated revenues through various limits placed on its taxing powers by the state government.
Expenditures are constrained by the amount of revenues available. Departments receiving their operating budgets from the general fund must compete with each other
- 16 -

to receive their desired budgetary demands. Local government officials must determine expenditure priorities according to their understanding of the community's desires. It is often the case that there are not sufficient revenues available to fund all department operating requests.
Fiscal impact analysis is a method whereby the effects of anticipated growth are turned into a comparison of increased revenues with increased expenditures. The results of the analysis can be a valuable tool in evaluating local governmental policies and their relation to the attainment of a community's goals and objectives.
1. Moak and Hillbouse, Concepts and Practices in Local Government Finances; Chicago: Municipal Finance Officers Association, 19)5, p. 159.
2. Ibid, p. 163.
3. DeTorres, Juan, Government Services in Major Metropolitan Areas; New York: The Conference Board Incorporated, 1972, p. 3.
4. State of Montana, Public School Foundation Program Act, 1949 (Amended in 1963 and 1973).
5. Industrial Development Information and Siting Act, Wyoming Statutes 35-12-101 to 35-12-121; Montana House Bi 11 718.
- 17-

A common belief among city officials is that growth is the means by which a
community can expand its revenue base by a greater amount than will be required to
provide services to the new residents. Studies by the California Homebuilders
I 2
Association and the Colorado Land Use Commission concluded that growth leads to a net fiscal surplus in communities.
These conclusions were challenged by local government officials in the Las Vegas Valley region of Nevada, who contracted with the firm of Briscoe, Maphis, Murray, and Lamont of Boulder, Colorado to perform what could be termed as a "generic" fiscal impact analysis. The study was to be based solely on growth projections for the region against a backdrop of recently legislated statewide tax reform. The study was designed to answer the question: "Under current local growth policies, with the constraints incorporated into the Nevada Revenue Reform Act, will anticipated growth in the Las Vegas Valley lead to a net fiscal surplus or deficit?"
History of the Las Vegas Valley
Clark County was formed from the southern section of Lincoln County, Nevada
in 1909. The City of Las Vegas was incorporated in 1911 as a rail center of the Union
Pacific Railroad. Its population in 1910 was only 945, growing to about 2,300 by 1920 3
and 5,165 in 1930. Boulder City was built by the federal government to house
workers on Hoover Dam during the 1930's. The 1940 census showed a population of
2,903. Also during the 1930's, parts of what was to become North Las Vegas were settled, with a 1940 population of 1,967.^ The City of Henderson was also built by the federal government to accommodate workers at the Basic Magnesium Plan, a supplier of materials during World War II. Its population in 1950 was 5,715.^
From the 1940's onward, the region has been growing at consistently high rates. The growth rates for the Las Vegas Valley were 194% from 1940-1950; 163% from 1950-1960; 115% between I960 and 1970; and 69% from 1970-1980. During the last decade, the Las Vegas SMSA was the second fastest growing area in the United States.
- 18-

During the 1970's, the fastest portion of the Las Vegas Valley was in the unincorporated area of Clark County, increasing in population from 89,667 to 220,450 for a gain of 146%.
Background of the Study
The Las Vegas Valley Economic Impact Study began as an attempt to determine the impacts of the proposed MX missile program on the State of Nevada. A Local Oversight Committee, a committee of local officials, was appointed by the governor to coordinate planning for anticipated growth due to the system development. Since the study was focussed on Clark County, the largest urban area in the state, the Local Oversight Committee requested that a Study Management Task Force be created comprised of local government officials from the Las Vegas Valley jurisdictions.
As the preliminary parts of the study were completed, it became evident that the effects of the MX development on the Las Vegas Valley would be negligible compared to the growth that had been occurring and that was projected to continue in the region. Since the question of the impacts of growth was the major concern of the Study Management Task Force, it became obvious to them that problems could arise due solely to the rapid growth expected for the area.
When the federal government decided against the deployment of the MX missile, the question still remained concerning the fiscal impacts of rapid growth. The Task Force decided to continue with the study, focusing on the problems stated above. Given present conditions and policies, what effect would growth have on the balance between revenues and expenditures for the jurisdictions of the Las Vegas Valley? The study would be directed only at the growth component of the fiscal analysis, which required that the needs of the existing population be separated from those induced by incoming residents.
A further cause of concern to local government officials was the passage by the State Legislature of the Nevada Tax Reform Act/ limiting the local ability to control property tax revenues and substituting an increase in the state sales tax to be distributed to local governments. The members of the Task Force were apprehensive about the effects of this legislation on local revenue/expenditure balances.
- 19-

Current Fiscal Conditions in the Las Vegas Valley
o Clark County
General Government revenues for Clark County have increased at an annual compound rate of 9% between 1975 and 1981. The per capita amount (derived by dividing the yearly revenues by the population) have increased at a slower rate of 3.4% per year.
The property tax has been the greatest source of general fund revenues, amounting to 27% of the total in 1979-80. With the inception of the tax reform legislation, there is a noticeable decrease in property tax contributions, which are replaced by the state-distributed sales taxes known as the Supplemental City-County Relief Tax. In 1981, property tax accounted for 13% and the SCCRT brought in 24% of all revenues.
Charges for services were the second largest source of revenues until 1981, when they dropped from 22% to 7% of the total. This resulted from the creation of a separate Building Inspection fund which became self-supporting with no ties to the General Fund.
In 1981 a large increase in transfers from other accounts was recorded, an increase from 1% to 23% of total revenues. This was mainly a change in accounting procedures, with the County receiving and dispersing funds for services from the outlying unincorporated towns in the Las Vegas Valley. There is no indicator that this amount represents a depletion of county reserve funds.
Suprisingly, for an area whose chief industry is gambling and tourism, gaming fees and hotel room taxes account for only 9% of revenues. The gaming fees are a flat rate assessment, not a tax and are therefore independent of actual amounts spent on gambling. It must be assumed that the gambling industry is a strong lobbying force in the State Legislature.
General Government expenditures show a normal distribution compared to
national averages. In 1981, Public Safety accounted for the largest share, 38%, with administrative expenses next with 23%. The near reversal of percentages for these services between 1979 and 1981 is due to the inclusion of the Clark County Fire Department, formerly a separate district into the general fund, and an increase in the County's contribution to the Metropolitan Police Force (a cooperative department with the City of Las Vegas). Human Services are a county function, funded by state and federal revenue sharing.
- 20 -

Until the current budget year, revenues received by the County were greater than expenditures. The 1981 budget showed a small deficit which was made up through transfers of excess revenues from previous years.
o City of Las Vegas
General fund revenues for Las Vegas were derived from two major sources, property and sales taxes, combining to yield over 40% of revenues from 1975-81. The SCCRT in 1981 replaced the majority of property tax revenues with the new sales tax. Like Clark County, gaming fees and hotel taxes provided a smaller portion of total revenues 9% in 1981.
Public Safety was the larges expenditure during the profile period, averaging about 55% of all expenditures. The large tourist population present in the city at any time places a burden on the police department that is much greater than is found in similarly sized cities. Public Works and General Government services comprise the other main expenditures. The three departments together accounted for 86% of all general fund expenditures in 1981.
Revenues have exceeded expenditures until the current budget, which shows a shortfall of almost $2 million. Ending fund balances are now capable of making up the difference.
o City of North Las Vegas
The property and sales taxes have provided over 40% of revenues until 1981, when the supplemental tax was distributed. At this time, property tax accounts for only 4% of all revenues. Liquor and cigarette taxes provide a decreasing percentage of revenues, falling from 22% to 13%, but are still the second greatest source of revenue.
Expenditure patterns have remained relatively stable through the period, with Public Safety (Police and Fire Departments) taking the largest share.
Figures for the 1981-82 budget show a revenue deficit of almost $700,000 which was made up through ending fund blanaces.
o City of Henderson
The revenue and expenditure patterns are very similar to the preceding jurisdictions. Small revenue deficits appear in 1979 and 1981, but were made up by available cash reserves from previous years.
- 21 -

City of Boulder City
Boulder City is unique in the region in that it does not permit gambling within its borders and therefore receives no Gaming Fee or Hotel Room Tax revenues.
Its situation is like that of the other jurisdictions in the Las Vegas Valley, showing minor shortfalls in revenues in the years since 1977.
The fiscal profiles are the first step in the data collection process of the analysis. They are useful for indicating revenue and expenditure trends for years preceding the current budget. Any suddent shifts, increases or decreases in a revenue source or expenditure must be examined to find out its importance for the projections to follow. Many times changes result from accounting procedures or from extraordinary expenses for one year that are not expected to recur. It is most important that the budgeted amounts used in the analysis accurate reflect the realities of the municipality's revenue and expenditure patterns. Careful analysis of the current budget
supplemented by interviews with local finance officials and department heads will generally resolve any conflicts arising from the fiscal profiles.
Current Land Use Patterns in the Las Vegas Valley
In 1979, the Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning, in
conjunction with the Nevada Highway Department, undertook a land use inventory for
the entire Las Vegas Valley. Each of the incorporated cities contributed whatever
data they had available. The information was aggregated to give land use trends for
the Las Vegas Valley as a whole. The following is a summary of the results of the
survey as reported by the Clark County planning officials.
Of the 347,280 acres mapped for the land use analysis, 85% were vacant in 1979. Urban uses accounted for the remaining 50,848 acres.
Not suprisingly, given the large increases in population experienced by the area, residential land uses predominated. In 1979, 59.2% of all developed land was devoted to residential uses. When compared to an earlier study conducted in 1965, the expansion of residential development is even more striking. The 1965 survey showed approximately 17,100 acres of residences, while the 1979 survey showed almost 31,000 acres, an increase of 81% in the 14-year period.
Eighty-eight percent of residential land was devoted to single family detached units at an average density of three dwelling units per acre. Approximately 50% of all dwelling units were single family. The other 50% were multi-family units, occupying
- 22 -

12% of the residentially used land at an average density of 22 units per acre. The overall density for the Las Vegas Valley was 5 DU per acre.
Development patterns for residential land can best be described as "leap frogging sprawl". From the central area of Las Vegas, the original core of development for the region, growth has occurred in a haphazard manner, determined mainly by speculation and the availability of cheap land. The result was a checkerboard pattern of housing developments interspersed among large tracts of vacant land. With no firm local level policies (which will be discussed later) restricting or directing growth, numerous expensive facility and service network expansions have been required to serve the new developments. In fact, it was in many cases the local jurisdiction's decision to extend services beyond existing boundaries that encouraged development to take place in areas not admirably suited for this use.
For example, a preliminary analysis of the survey data by the Clark County Planning Department indicated that 37,800 acres of vacant land exist within the boundaries of the Las Vegas Valley service area. This is equivalent to 74% of the developed land in the Las Vegas Valley. The service lines must therefore extend past the vacant land to provide service to developments built beyond it. Based on current density standards, the department estimated that an additional 315,000 residents could be accommodated simply through infilling programs, without requiring the construction of any new delivery systems. Despite this fact, new residential developments continue to be built wherever it is most economically feasible for the developer to do so.
Compared to residential land uses, commercial and industrial development are less significant, comprising 15% of all developed land. There have been no major trends in converting land to these uses and their percentage of developed land use has remained constant since 1965.
A land use unique to this region is Resort/Highway Frontage classification. It also has shown a steady position in the total developed land category of about 4%.
Public Facilities account for the remainder of urban land uses, approximately 22% of all developed land. Included in this classification are government facilities, power plants and substations, refuse disposals, schools, parks, churches and hospitals. This percentage has remained fairly constant between 1965 and 1979.
Current Growth Policies
The above section indicates that growth control policies have not been a major force in shaping development patterns in the Las Vegas Valley. Recently, however, a
- 23 -

growing concern among local officials of the jurisdictions has led to a number of policies aimed at reducing government expenses related to growth. Only Boulder City has adopted a set of growth control policies, the other areas' policies do not seek to limit the rate of growth, only the financial effects of constructing new facilities for the development.
o Clark County
Subdivision regulations for the unincorporated areas of Clark County require the developer to construct on-site and off-site improvements to local specifications. Onsite improvements required include local streets, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting and fire hydrants. Minor collector streets extending across the property and curb lanes and parking areas for major four lane collector streets abutting the property must also be provided.
All sewer and water connections and interceptors must be provided by the developer within the development. The developer pays the cost of connecting his system with the existing county lines. Subdivisions built beyond the boundaries of the existing sewer service area must supply a connector line of sufficient capacity to serve the development. The county may require the line to be oversized to provide service for future development in the area. However, the county pays for the oversizing "up-front" and is repaid through future connection fees. The county has therefore placed itself in a position of having to provide large capital outlays that are not under its control. The oversizing program is dictated by the developers rather than the government.
Extension of oversized water lines is required of the developer and is not financed by the county. The developer recoups his investment through future tap fees and is allowed to make a profit on his costs. This regulation is being challenged in a court case now pending.
Land dedication requirements are limited to parks, at a standard of four acres of land for each thousand residents. Cash contributions for an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the acreage required may be substituted for the land. At present, there are no standards set for accepting or rejecting land dedicated for park purposes. The result is often scattered park sites that are not suitable for community needs.
Other public facilities such as schools, police and fire substations or storm drainage systems are not required of developers.
- 24-

City of Las Vegas
Similar to Clark County, developers are required to construct capital facilities within the development. Water, sewer, streets, curb and gutter must be approved during the subdivision application process. Oversized connector lines for outlying developments are paid for by the city which is then reimbursed by future developers. The city has pursued a policy of extending sewer and roads beyond existing service areas, thereby encouraging non-contiguous development patterns.
There are no land dedications required of developers for parks or other public facilities.
The city has encouraged areas outside its boundaries to be annexed to it. Urban services are extended to the annexed areas whenever they are required. In some instances, services have been extended beyond the city limits into areas that have requested future annexation. A 50% service fee surcharge has normally been applied to these areas pending the annexation proceedings.
o City of North Las Vegas
Until recently, the city had minimal requirements for street construction in new subdivisions. New regulations, based on those in Clark County now require paved streets, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and street lighting. In areas developed to a density higher than four units per acre, sewer connections are required. Internal water lines are required of all developers.
For subdivisions proposed beyond existing service areas, the developer is required to provide oversized links that will serve future development occuring between the service boundaries and the subdivision. In this instance, the developer is required to pay for the construction and is repaid from future connection fees. The city therefore has no control over where or when service line extensions will take place. Growth patterns are determined by developers based on their confidence of being reimbursed for the construction of oversized lines.
There are no land dedication requirements imposed on developers at this time. The planning department is in the process of writing such requirements into the subdivision regulations, with little confidence that they will be adopted.
Annexations are encouraged with no overall plan for phasing in areas that are most easily provided services. Cost-revenue studies are not performed for proposed annexations, so the city has no idea whether the increased revenues obtained will offset the costs of providing municipal services.
- 25 -

City of Henderson
Subdivision regulations for the City of Henderson apply only to developments of five or more lots. For smaller divisions, the only requirement is the submission of a parcel map showing the proposed lots to be developed. The original intent of this procedure was to allow families to subdivide the property for their children. Under the parcel map procedure, however, no engineering improvements are required of the developer. Many parcel map subdivisions have substandard water, sewer, and road facilities.
For larger subdivisions, requirements are similar to those of the other jurisdictions already mentioned. Construction of streets leading to the subdivision are not ruled by set policies, but are often negotiated during the plat approval process. No land dedication policies exist.
Annexation policies for the city are unwritten, but fairly formalized. All annexations have been of undeveloped areas at the request of developers. Annexations are automatically zoned Rural-Residential, a low-density zone, upon admission to the city. The developer must then apply for higher-density rezoning.
o Boulder City
Boulder City's development requirements are similar to other Las Vegas Valley jurisdictions except for some novel provisions that have arisen due to the Boulder City Act passed by the United States Congress in 1958. Through this act, Congress gave Boulder City the land on which it sat plus 32 square miles of surrounding land. Therefore, development within the city must take place on land purchased from the local government. The city can exercise control over services provided by the developer through land sale agreements at the time of purchase. Stipulations include the types and sizes of the facilities that the developer must provide.
The city currently requires a $100 per unit park development fee, the maximum allowed under state law. Developers have the option of dedicating park land in return for reduced street rights of way in the development. Local officials can accept or reject the exchange depending on the need for park land in each area being developed.
Boulder City is the only jurisdiction in the Las Vegas Valley with a growth limitation plan. In 1978, the city adopted a Dwelling and Hotel-Motel Development Control Plan. The ordinance limited construction in its initial year to 120 dwelling units and 35 hotel-motel units. Yearly reviews of construction are provided for, with adjustments available to increase permits by 12 dwelling units and 5 hotel-motel units per year.
- 26 -

Each proposed development is evaluated by a citizen's committee for:
1. Its relation to and impact on public facilities;
2. Site and architectural design guidelines;
3. The provision of public and/or private open space;
4. The provision of foot or bicycle paths;
5. The extent to which the proposed development leads to an orderly and continuous extension of existing development;
6. The provision of needed public facilities.
A point system is used to judge compliance with the above factors. Proposals are ranked according to their point scores, with permits being issued to those scoring highest. The maximum allowable subdivision is 30 dwelling units. The city council can declare an emergency and suspend issuance of permits for a one-year period.
The Status of Planning in the Las Vegas Valley
The preceding sections of this chapter provide a framework for evaluating the planning processes currently in evidence in the jurisdictions comprising the Las Vegas Valley. With the exception of Boulder City, the current status of planning in the region is not one of much force or effect. It is apparent that current policies favor development in any form over any rational, sequential guidelines.
The lot of the planner is well illustrated by a study performed by the Clark County Planning Department in the years following the adoption of the county's first comprehensive plan in 1974.*^ Zone change applications submitted to the Planning Commission for approval were approved at a 91% rate. Of these approvals, 66% were not in conformance with the land use element of the comprehensive plan.' ^ There is an apparent lack of commitment by local officials to the goals of the community as stated in the plan. The only other explanation is that the plan itself was not an accurate statement of community goals.
Similar conclusions can be summarized concerning the weight of the comprehensive plans of the other jurisdictions. The evidence of sprawling, noncontiguous development, city acceptance of development proposals, developer impelled growth patterns, all point to the existence of a lack of rational comprehensive planning.
The Capital Improvement Plans that exist in the Valley are not solid planning documents, but are generally conceded to be departmental "wish lists". Capital budgeting is generally handled on a case by case basis with no attempt to coordinate various projects to obtain a desired goal.
- 27 -

The Las Vegas Valley has experienced continued rapid growth since the mid 1940's. It was the second fastest growing metropolitan area between 1970 and 1980.
Growth has occurred in a non-planned, "leap-frog" pattern determined by developers and speculators rather than locally determined goals. Subdivision regulations and service facility requirements have not been strictly adhered to, and annexations have taken place without regard to the costs incurred by the local governments.
Local comprehensive and capital improvement plans have not been effective in changing the course of development patterns during the periods of growth. There is apparently little commitment on the part of planning commissions or city councils to the implementation of the plans.
The purpose of this and the previous chapters has been to present the context under which the fiscal impact analysis wiil be conducted. The chapters that follow will illustrate the connection between existing policies and future revenue and cost projections.
1. Ashley Economic Services, Inc., The Fiscal Impact of Urban Growth: The California Experience; Sacramento: The California Builders Council, 19)2.
2. Lucas, Therese C., The Direct Costs of Growth; Denver: The Colorado Land Use Commission, \3VT.
3. Clark County Comprehensive Planning Department, Clark County Comprehensive Plan, Task I: Existing Conditions, p. 126.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Nevada State Senate, Bill 41 I, 1981.
8. DeTorres, Juan, Government Services in Major Metropolitan Areas, p. 3.
9. Clark County Comprehensive Plan, Task I: Existing Conditions, p. 286.
10. Ibid, p. 167.
I I. Ibid, p. 168.
- 28-

The purpose of the Las Vegas Valley Fiscal Impact Study was to determine the effects of growth on the fiscal balance of the communities in the region. For this reason, the study took the form of an incremental analysis. The new population expected to reside in the communities was separated from the existing population and dealt with on a yearly basis. Revenue and cost projections were performed only on the yearly increases in population. The comparisons derived were therefore independent of any changes in demands caused by the existing population.
The first step in the performance of the study was to establish the annual population increases for each community in the Las Vegas Valley.
Population Projections
The population projections used for the study were derived as a part of the Clark County 208 Water Quality Management Plan of 1977.*
The forecast was based on an input-output model whereby population trends were
related directly to economic growth in the region. As performed by McDonald and
Grefe, the process consisted of five steps:
1. Growth in tourism, the largest employment sector in the region, was estimated by a time series analysis of visitor volume.
2. Estimates of visits were used to determine the dollar value of the final demand for goods and services related to the resort industry. There estimates were also used to predict future demand for hotel rooms.
3. Final demand for non-tourist industries were estimated using historical trends, a consideration of the overall demands for the industries' products and interviews with industry officials.
4. The Clark County input-output model was used to convert the expected demands into estimates of total output for each five year point in the 1980-2000 study period. These figures were then used to predict employment in each sector at each point.
- 29 -

5. Population estimates were obtained by applying factors to the employment estimates.
The results of the input-output projections were the following Clark County populations:
1985 550,000 1990- 664,000 1995 766,000 2000 891,000
These figures had been adopted by local governments as official planning
projections and were used in various studies performed by agencies in the Las Vegas
3 4
Valley. The Stormwater Drainage Plan and Regional Transportation Plan adopted these population estimates in their publications.
These, then, were the figures to be used in the Fiscal Impact Study. Since the study was to be done for each jurisdiction within the Las Vegas Valley, the Clark County population estimates were disaggregated and applied to each community. This was accomplished by projecting past population trends into the future, based on a land use allocation scheme developed by the Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning.
Appendix A shows the results of the assignment of total county population increases to the various jurisdictions. Table A-1 represents the projected population for each municipality for each year from 1980-2000. Table A-2 shows the increase in population expected in each year.
Since the study was based on incremental costs and revenues, Table A-2 became the working document for the procedures that followed.
A further aspect of the study was a projection of the visitor population for each year of the study. This was required by the fact that certain revenues, such as sales tax, room tax, and capped revenues, were directly related to the volume of tourists and their related demands for services and hotel rooms. In a similar manner, the jurisdictions must provide such services as police protection and building inspection and licensing to the visitors, so that costs incurred would vary with the increases in tourists during the study period.
- 30-

1. McDonald and Grefe, Inc., Clark County 208 Water Quality Management Plan; Growth Forecasts, Environmental Report No. 3, November, 1977.
2. Ibid, p. 5.
3. Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning, Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan; June, 1981.
4. Clark County Regional Transportation Commission, Clark County Transportation Study, Final Report; April, 1980.
- 31 -

The legislature of the State of Nevada recently adopted a bill restricting the taxing powers of the local governments in the state. The legislation is one of many occurring nationwide in response to growing opposition to the use of the property tax as a major source of local revenues. Within the past years, California voters approved Proposition 13 which placed severe limits on the property tax rates imposed in that state, while in Massachusetts, Proposition 2'k was approved with similar provisions.
The Nevada Legislature's response was Senate Bill 41 I, which took effect on
July I, 1981. The Bill is an attempt to shift the tax burden away from local property
owners and onto the public as a whole and the large numbers of tourists visiting the
state annually. Under the legislation, the state tax on sales was raised by 1.75% under
a program entitled the Supplemental City-County Relief Tax (SCCRT). The SCCRT
was not intended to be a new source of revenues for local governments, instead it was
designed to replace property tax revenues with state generated sales taxes. It did not
affect the previously legislated limit of $3.64 per $100 assessed valuation placed on 2
local property taxes.
The tax reform bill, coupled with the growth projections for the Las Vegas Valley, created a great deal of concern among local officials about their ability to generate sufficient revenues to meet the increased costs of providing services to the new residents. Senate Bill 41 I removed a great deal of local control from the decisions relating to the increases in needed revenues, replacing the more stable local tax base with a far more volatile sales tax program. The results of the revenue analysis conducted for the Las Vegas Valley indicate the effects of the tax reform legislation.
The following sections describe the revenue sources available to the Las Vegas Valley jurisdictions, the general methods used in projecting incremental revenues and a summary of the implications of the results of the analysis.
It must be noted that projections were carried out only for those revenues going into the general funds of the jurisdictions. The reason for this is that these are the
- 32 -

revenue sources most effected by the tax reform legislation. Self-sustaining funds, which in the Las Vegas Valley include water and sewer, health, and library districts, are able to set their fees individually, thereby insuring sufficient operating funds. Certain limits were of necessity placed on the scope of the analysis, and it was at these points that the lines were drawn. In assessing the impacts of growth on the quality of life of a community, it was felt that the revenues and expenditures of the general fund were the most important indicators.
Each revenue-expenditure study must include those components that are necessary to reach the proper conclusions. In this case, special districts and enterprise funds were not part of the analysis.
Appendix B, Tables B-1 through B-5 show the summary results of the revenue projection part of the analysis.
Summary of Revenue Projections
o Capped Revenues
The tax reform legislation combined local property taxes and the Supplemental City-County Relief Tax into one revenue source called capped revenues. Capped revenues place a limit on each jurisdiction's combined total of property tax and supplemental revenues. The State Department of Taxation calculated a capped revenue figure for each entity, which would become the basis for the following years' total revenue estimates for this source.
The capped revenue figure was derived from the following formula, stipulating that the revenue estimate was to be the smaller of the two results:
1. (1980-81 Assessed Valuation) X (1980-81 Property Tax Rate) X 1.12
2. (1981-82 Estimated Assessed Valuation) X (1980-81 Tax Rate)
The resulting figure represents the total amount of combined property and supplemental tax revenues to be received by a community in 1981-82.
SCCRT funds were to be distributed to each local government by the State Tax Department based on each entity's ratio of property tax received to the total of all property taxes received by all jurisdictions in the state. This was considered to be an equitable method of dispersing funds collected by the state to each local government. For example, if a municipality's property tax revenues for the previous fiscal year were 5% of all property taxes, it would receive 5% of the supplemental revenues distributed by the state.
- 33 -

Property tax rates were to be determined by finding the difference between the estimated total capped revenues allocated to each jurisdiction and the SCCRT funds it was projected to receive.
Following the 1981-82 fiscal year capped revenue calculations, subsequent years capped revenue totals were limited by the following formula, based on increases in assessed valuation occurring in each jurisdiction:
(Last Fiscal Year's Assessed Valuation X Inflation Rate) + Total New Assessed Valuation
Last Fiscal Year Assessed Valuation
The percentage increase in assessed valuation thus derived became the percentage limit for the increase in capped revenues.
Increases in local property taxes were limited by the legislation to 104.5% of the previous year's revenue, remaining subject to the $3.64 per $100 limitation.
Local governments were allowed to appeal to the state taxation legislative committee for temporary exemptions from the limitations placed on the property tax. If the appeal was approved, an exemption could be granted for a period not greater than two years, and for a tax rate not to exceed 50 cents per $100 above the other limits.
Capped revenue projections were based on a series of calculations relating increases in population and visitors to increases in assessed valuation of property, both residential and visitor-oriented. Factors were derived by dividing the current nonhotel assessed valuation by current residents and the current hotel valuations by 1981 visitor estimates. For each year following, these factors were multiplied by the projected increases in residents and visitors to derive the increase in valuation.
The increase in capped revenues was then obtained by applying the formula stated above to the previous year's capped revenue, assuming that sufficient revenues would be generated through the sales tax to allow each jurisdiction to increase its capped revenues by the maximum allowable amount.
The analysis indicated that for each jurisdiction in the Las Vegas Valley, capped revenues would become an increasingly important source of local funds during the study period. Of the total projected increased revenues to be gained by the local governments, by the year 2000 it was estimated that Clark County would receive 65% of its incremental revenues from this source. The lowest percentage forecast was 33% for Boulder City.^
Since capped revenues from the SCCRT are tied strongly to sales trends, a major source of local revenues is vulnerable to local and external economic conditions. A
- 34 -

drop in tourism would be disasterous to the local governments depending heavily on SCCRT funds for their operations and maintenance expenditures. It appears that local officials' concerns about the effects of the tax reform legislation were well grounded, for a break out of the property tax and SCCRT portions of the capped revenues show a steady decline in the property tax as a revenue source. The projections indicate a steady erosion of this locally controlled generator during the study period.
o Basic City-County Relief Tax (CCRT)
The Basic CCRT is a sales and use tax on gross receipts of retail sales in each
county, collected by the state tax department and returned to the counties for
distribution to its cities.^ The tax is levied at a uniform 0.5% throughout the state. One percent of collections are returned by the state for administrative costs, the remainder is returned to the counties which then allocate a portion to each municipality based on its percentage of population of all cities. The county share is determined by the number of incorporated cities within its boundaries. If there are no incorporated cities, the county retains 100%; one incorporated city splits the revenues with the county on a 50/50 basis; two or more incorporated cities share 100% of the revenues. In the case of Clark County, with four incorporated cities, the county receives no Basic CCRT revenues.
Projections for yearly increases in Basic CCRT revenues were tied to current
per-resident and per-visitor spending patterns. Since the total county sales are the
basis for this revenue source, total county population and visitor increases were used in the analysis.
Future revenue increases were derived by multiplying the current per-resident and per-visitor expenditures by the projected increase in both categories for each year. This total was multiplied by .00495 (.5% tax rate x .99 returned to counties) to yield the total revenues to be distributed. Each city was then allocated its share according to its percentage of population for each year.
The Basic CCRT is a revenue source that favors rapidly growing municipalities. Since allocation is based on a percentage of total population, faster growing communities will receive a larger share of the revenues each year. The analysis verifies this fact as it shows the Basic CCRT revenues becoming a greater percentage of all revenues for the faster growing communities. In the City of Las Vegas, this source accounts for 27% of increased revenues in 1983 and 44% in 2000. Conversely, Boulder City, the slowest growing community shows an increase from 32% in 1983 to 35% in 2000.
- 35 -

Should this allocation procedure continue into the future, local government officials will not be likely to establish policies regulating the rate of growth of their communities. It is obviously in their best interests to capture as large a share as possible of fugure county growth. Unless changes in the distribution formula are made, there is likely to be increased competition among incorporated cities to attract growth.
Another inequity of this tax is that in this instance, Clark County receives no revenues from this source. This is despite the fact that the unincorporated areas in the Las Vegas Valley are growing at the fastest rate and are requiring major increases in services. Further analysis of Clark County's revenue-expenditure projections will determine the severity of this denial of state distributed revenues.
o Liquor/Ciqarette Taxes
Liquor taxes are a flat rate levy on distilled spirits, collected by the state and returned to the counties on the basis of their population. Within the counties, revenues are apportioned on the same basis as the Basic CCRT. Clark County, therefore, receives no revenues from this source. Of the total tax on distilled spirits, $1.90 per gallon, 50q is returned to the counties.
Cigarette taxes are also set at a flat rate, I0£ per pack, and are collected by the state and returned to the counties. Counties distribute the revenues to their incorporated cities and retain none for themselves.
Projections for increases in these funding sources were based on statewide population estimates, since the tax is not based on local sales. Factors relating current population to liquor and cigarette tax revenues were derived and applied to statewide growth projections for each year. Also for each year, the Clark County percentage of total population was obtained and applied to the total expected revenue increases to determine Clark County's share. This share was then allocated to each incorporated city according to its population.
The results of the projections indicate that these revenue sources are highly effected by inflation and will become less important percentages of each jurisdiction's revenues. For example, Las Vegas currently derives I 1% of its revenues from liquor and cigarette tax returns, by 2000 the percentage of total increased revenues from this source is projected to decline to 3%.^ All other jurisdictions show similar reductions.
The reason for the decreasing contribution of liquor and cigarette taxes lies in the fact that they are flat rate assessments which are independent of the price of the
- 36 -

products. Although inflation will push the prices upwards, the amount of revenue generated remains constant. Only if there are shifts in the amounts consumed will the revenues increase. Therefore, although inflation affects the expenditures faced by local governments, liquor and cigarette taxes will not increase accordingly.
These effects have been take into account during the revenue projection process, so that the incremental revenues generated by the flat rate taxes have been deflated by an assumed yearly 12% inflation rate. Should the inflation rate subside, the relative strength of the liquor and cigaretee tax would increase.
o State Gaming Fees
A revenue source unique to Nevada due to its legalization of gambling, state gaming fees are also a flat rate tax collected by the state and shared with the counties and incorporated cities. State license fees are based on a sliding scale, ranging from $100 for the operation of one game to $16,000 plus $200 for each game over 16. These revenues are distributed equally to each county in the state.
Quarterly county license fees are a straight flat rate tax for each type of game. The state retains 25% of these fees for its General Fund, returning the remainder to the counties and cities.
Projections for future revenues derived from this source were based on current per-visitor revenues obtained from the 1981-82 budgets and visitor estimates. The factor was then applied each year to the expected increases in numbers of visitors. As with the other flat rate taxes, projected revenues were deflated each year to yield the effective amount each jurisdiction would receive.
Although, perhaps suprisingly, gaming fee revenues have not been a major contributor to local general funds, the projections show that due to inflation they will become less important as time goes on. Clark County's budget shows that gaming fees made up approximately 6% of all revenues in 1981-82; by 2000, these fees make up only 1% of the increase in revenues expected for that year. Since the gaming taxes are not responsive to an increase in tourism in the area, a possible major source of local government funding is lost.
o License and Permit Fees
Locally levied and retained fees are allowed by the state to each jurisdiction. These revenues are derived from Business License and Franchise Fees, Gaming Licenses and Hotel Room Taxes. The state tax reform package placed a limit on
- 37 -

increases of the fees to 80% of the previous year's inflation rate. Since most governments do not adjust their fee structure on a yearly basis, the effects of inflation are multiplied. For example, if a community adjusts its fees every three years, it would be allowed to raise them by a percentage equal to 80% of the previous year's inflation; the decrease in actual revenues caused by inflation during the other two years would not be taken into account.
For this reason, projections were first made in a manner similar to other revenue sources, on a per capita basis, and were then deflated assuming a three-year adjustment cycle. For projection purposes, a 12% annual inflation rate was assumed.
The result of this method is that locally generated license and permit fees are seen to be eroded by inflation during the study period. For example, Clark County currently derives approximately 16% of its general fund revenues from this source, but projections for the year 2000 show it dropping to 7.5% of the increased revenues generated.
o Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax
The Gasoline Tax is a lOfc cents per gallon statewide tax. The proceeds from the gas tax must be used for highway construction, repair and maintenance. Each county can levy an additional one to four cents per gallon option tax to be used for the construction of local roads. Of the IO'/2 cents collected, 8 cents is allocated to the State Highway Fund and 2^ cents are returned to the counties according to a formula based on land area, population, street and road mileage, and miles travelled within the county.
Increases in gas tax revenues were projected by relating current amounts received by each jurisdiction as shown in the fiscal profiles to the current population and visitor figures. The assumption was made that both residents and tourists purchase gasoline in the Las Vegas Valley area and increased revenues would depend on both factors.
The gasoline tax is a flat rate levy and therefore is vulnerable to inflation. The actual projected dollar amounts received by each jurisdiction were deflated assuming a yearly 12% inflation rate.
Projections indicate that the gas tax will become a smaller percentage of all increased revenues during the study period.
- 38 -

Service and User Charges
These charges are applied to recipients of specific services provided by local governments. Those benefitting from the service pay an amount equal to a predetermined portion of the actual cost of providing the service. For purposes of this study, only those charges that went to the general fund were considered. In the Las Vegas Valley, water, sewer, and solid waste systems are maintained as separate funds or are contracted to private industry.
Increases in service charge revenues were projected on the basis of population increases for each year of the study. A factor was obtained by dividing current service charge revenues by current population and assuming that this ratio would remain constant during the study period.
These charges are under local control and may be raised "as reasonably necessary to meet the actual expense of providing the service." Therefore, the fees are more responsive to adjustments which will maintain their contribution to the general fund. This is illustrated by the fact that in each jurisdiction, service charges maintain or increase their proportional contributions.
The importance of service charges as a revenue source varies among the jurisdictions, but currently the percentage is quite low, ranging from 7% in Clark County to 0% in North Las Vegas. This is an area that requires closer examination by local governments to ascertain the place services charges will have in future budgets. The ability of jurisdictions to control service charge rates may lead to an increased reliance on this revenue source.
o Miscellaneous Revenues
Each jurisdiction levies taxes that by themselves are small enough to not warrant individual projection. Taken together, however, they become more manageable. Included in this category are such sources as the Motor Vehicle Privilege Tax, Fines, Interest payments, real property transfer tax, and other local taxes.
Projections were made assuming that future residents would contribute an amount approximately equal to current residents. Current per capita revenues were obtained and projected for each year's increase in population.
The inclusion of these revenues in the projections are mainly for housekeeping purposes. Valid conclusions from the study can be drawn only if all general fund revenue increments are represented. The miscellaneous category serves this function without requiring an undue amount of time spent in performing the calculations.
- 39 -

Summary and Conclusions
The revenue projections complete the first half of the Las Vegas Valley Fiscal Impact Study. The purpose of this section was to present a summary of the results of the analysis and to discern the implications of the current situation for the future.
The analysis took the form of a projection of current conditions and regulations. No assumptions other than those that could be made from existing facts were made. In effect, the study first freezes all existing revenue generators at a certain point in time, then ascribes these factors to each new resident or tourist entering the Las Vegas Valley. Any strengths or weaknesses inherent in each revenue's ability to change with changing conditions is thereby magnified in the projection process.
The picture of the future generated by this process is not encouraging for local governments in the region. Of all revenues projected, only three, Capped Revenues, Basic CCRT (not in Clark County), and Service Charges are seen to increase at a rate proportional to the increase in population and visitors. The flat rate taxes on liquor, cigarettes, gasoline, gaming, and licenses and permits are constantly decreasing due to their inability to respond to inflationary trends. As a result, each new resident to the Las Vegas Valley brings in a decreasing amount of increased revenues for each successive year of the study period.
The implications of the study results are clear: current state and local taxation policies result in a declining revenue base for each local government. What steps must be taken to reverse this trend will be decided at all levels of government as time goes on. The study shows clearly that state initiated attempts to constrain the revenue generating powers of local governments can lead to fiscal disaster. It masy be up to local officials to begin discussion with the state legislature and point out the effects of the tax reform package on the financial health of the cities and counties.
1. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 377.
2. NRS 361.
3. BMML, Las Vegas Valley Economic Impact Study, pp. 7-6 to 7-10.
4. Ibid, pp. 7-52 to 7-56.
5. NRS 377.
6. BMML, p. 7-7.
7. NRS 354.
- 40-

Introduction to the Expenditure Projection Method
The previous chapters have created a background for the fiscal analysis procedures. They have served as an introduction to the elements that comprise the analysis, so that an understanding may be gained of the areas the analyst must be concerned with.
Chapter 4 presented a sumary of the revenue projections based on a combination of current conditions and state legislation. This chapter completes the second part of the fiscal analysis equation, the projections of costs incurred by each jurisdiction due to an expanding population.
The cost projections will be presented in far more detail than the revenues and will form the basis for an examination of the effects of comprehensive plans and policies on local government expenditures. The reason for the more thorough
discussion is two-fold. First, it will serve as an introduction to a method that is felt to be of some importance to planners. Second, local expenditure policies are not placed under the same constraints as revenue sources. Each jurisdiction has the freedom to alter its policies to reflect the goals and the objectives of its citizerns. On the other hand, there are no limits placed on the costs a local government must bear, so it is of great importance to determine the effects of current policies and growth patterns on future fiscal balance.
The formulation of expenditure projections can lead to revisions of existing policies or the adoption of new ones that reflect the desires of the community. Growth is isolated as a contributor to increased local expenditures, and its effects on the jurisdiction can be determined. The results of the analysis can be used as a basis to test the efficiency of new policies in correcting adverse impacts that rapid growth may cause.
The method chosen for the cost analysis depends on several factors. Most important is the type of development or growth being studied. Many communities use fiscal analyses on a case by case basis, judging each proposed subdivision, apartment complex, or housing development on its financial benefit or detriment to the community as a whole. For this type of analysis, the results will be very specific,
- 41 -

depending on the characteristics of the proposal. The Las Vegas Valley study was aimed at determining the costs and revenues generated by an increasing population. Specific developments could not be considered, only an overall view could be taken. The method is therefore "generic" in nature and is designed to take this into account.
A second factor is the amount and type of information available upon which to base the analysis. A single development proposal can have information relating to value of units, expected family size, number of school age children, density, income levels of new residents, and other data that can be used for projecting increased service demands peculiar to itself. Similar data was not available for this study due to the generalized nature of the growth being studied.
The availability of information applies equally to the local government. Budget information may be presented in a way that clearly indicates service levels, components of services and the relative costs of each program. Other budgets may give only line item amounts of departmental expenditures with no indicator of what services are included, what proportion of the budget is allocated to each service, or any other information that would be of use in analyzing expenditures.
At the outset of the Las Vegas Valley study it became evident that the quantity and quality of information available through public documents was not great. All local budgets were of the line item variety with no breakdown of what services were included in each department or sub-department. It was necessary then to conduct extensive interviews with department heads to obtain the information necessary to develop local standards and per capita costs. Capital Improvement Plans, which can yield valuable information about major expenditure priorities were for the most part non-existant. Those that were found amounted to little more than "wish lists" for each department. Only Boulder City had adopted a six-year Capital Improvement Program that was guided by local policies and priorities.
It was therefore necessary to form a series of assumptions that would be applied consistently to all phases of the projection process. These assumptions must be clearly stated as such and are open to challenge from local officials. The following assumptions were used in the analysis:
1. New residents will be similar in characteristics to the existing population and will require similar services. This assumption is the keystone to the type of analysis conducted. Without specific information, it is impossible to determine any changes in demands that might occur.
2. A change in population will be reflected in a change in the number of new housing units. In order to project the effects of current policies, the types
- 42 -

of land uses devoted to new residents must accurately reflect current land use patterns. The complexities involved in determining what proportion of in-migrants would occupy existing housing were not felt to be outweighed by any refinement in the projection results.
3. Existing local service levels will be maintained for all new residents. To insure valid comparisons, neither higher nor lower service demands should be ascribed to the new population. A further assumption is included here, that the variety of statuses of the newcomers will average out to be equivalent to the composition of the current residents.
4. Current per capita costs are the best estimates of future per capita costs. This assumption can be derived from numbers I and 3, above. Holding current demands and expenditures constant leads to this result.
5. Scale-related effects will not occur. Several studies have shown that in reality costs tend to escalate at a higher rate when certain population thresholds are reached.' For sake of simplicity, these factors were not built into the method. There is also no reliable way of anticipating these thresholds, since they vary greatly among communities.
6. All local government employees are currently fully occupied. Unless evidence to the contrary was presented during the interview process, it was assumed that additional growth would create the need for new personnel and equipment to adequately serve it. It would require a detailed organizational analysis to determine what proportion of the new demands could be met by existing staff.
7. All services are currently being delivered efficiently. Similar to assumption #6, this presumes that there is no slack in the service provision system which, if made more efficient, could serve the new population without requiring increases in expenditures.
8. Local officials are in a position to best determine the adequacy of services currently provided. The analysis depends heavily on accurate information regarding local standards, existing deficiencies or excess capacities. Interviews with local officials, department heads and staff were used as the basis for determining these elements.
These assumptions were held constant through all phases of both the revenue and expenditure projections. The hope was that any discrepancies inherent in the assumptions would cancel each other out during the process. The number of
- 43 -

assumptions may seem excessive, but they can only be replaced by more specific data when they are available. Given the general nature of the population projections to be analyzed, these assumptions were the only means of standardizing the analysis.
The procedure used to formulate the expenditure projections was a logical sequence of steps for each unit being analyzed. Not all of the steps were required for all projections, but they had to be examined for their relevance in each case. The goal of the procedure was to represent numerically the effects of growth on operating and maintenance expenditures as well as on incurred capital costs. The format of the procedure is as follows:
1. Assign services to budget departments. Generally, it was quite easy to determine the general departments in which each service was included. Most appeared as a separate budget section with the larger department. Any questions concerning the proper place for a service function were answered during the interview process.
2. Assign current expenditures to service delivery systems. Again, this task was facilitated by the subdivision of the budget into smaller subdepartments, with expenditures allocated to them. The proportions of the budget assigned to various functions was often more difficult to determine and required in-depth interviews with department heads. Their responses were used whenever possible.
3. Inventory existing services, manpower requirements, and facilities. This step provided the raw material on which the analysis was to be based. It was important to know how the budgets for each department were being spent and what the major components of the expenditures were. This information was a prerequisite for determining the incremental needs of each department related to a growing population.
4. Determine existing excess or deficient service levels, including deferred expenditures. This information was crucial for determining the local standards that formed the basis for the projections. Existing deficiencies had to be separated out so that the costs of remedying them would be assigned to the current residents, not the new ones. Likewise, excess capacity had to be determined and used in calculating the actual costs faced by the jurisdiction in providing services to the incremental population.
5. Determine local standards of adequate service delivery and facilities. Combining the information obtained from steps 1-4 resulted in local

standards that department officials felt were adequate. Expenditures were related to personnel, operating and maintenance costs, equipment and capital facilities. Where existing deficiencies were identified, they were added to current delivery system capacity to arrive at the local standard. The costs of upgrading due to existing deficiencies were not assigned to the new population.
6. Derive per capita operating and maintenance costs. With the completion of the inventory and the determination of local standards, it was then possible to assign a per capita operating and maintenance cost to each department. These costs formed the basis for the projections to follow.
7. Derive induced capital needs based on local standards. The true magnitude of the costs of service delivery incurred by a jurisdiction cannot be estimated using only operating and maintenance costs. Each new resident creates a small need for new capital facilities (police and fire stations, for example); when enough population has been added, the new facilities will have to be built. For this reason, wherever possible, a portion of capital costs was assigned to each population increment.
8. Introduce assumptions that relate the needs of new residents to current standards and expenditures. The assumptions used for this study have been presented earlier in this section. Each study must determine its own set of assumptions based on the unique factors present at each location.
9. Add the increased operating and maintenance and capital costs incurred due to growth. The final step of the projection process is to obtain the yearly costs incurred by local governments. All of the information obtained in the previous steps leads to a factor that can be applied to each population increment to determine the expenditure side of the revenue-expenditure equations.
The projections calculated using this method will take the form of a curved line, rising and falling according to the size of the population increment occurring in each year. It is important to note that the projections are not intended to be predictive in nature. It would not be correct to assume that the incremental costs incurred will actually appear in the local budgets. The aim of the projection is to provide information to government officials regarding their ability to provide the current levels of service to incoming residents. The costs should, therefore, be used only for comparison with projected revenues to determine whether present levels can be maintained.
- 45 -

In reality, costs tend to occur in a stepwise fashion, not in the linear way the projections induce. New personnel and facilities will be added when certain thresholds are reached and will, therefore, show up in budgets as larger increases in the years of their addition. The analysis does not attempt to establish the threshold levels nor predict when they will occur. Those decisions must be left to the local government officials in response to the requests of the various department heads.
Mention must be made of several important municipal functions that were not included in the present study. Since the purpose of the analysis was to determine the effects of rapid growth on each jurisdiction's ability to provide an adequate level of services to both new and existing residents, general fund expenditures were used in the revene-cost projections. The following systems are either non-locally funded or exist as separate funds or districts with a far greater ability to set rates and charges to offset increasing costs. General fund services, on the other hand, operate under more severe restraints.
o Education
School districts were not affected by Senate Bill 41 I as far as property taxing
powers are concerned. In the State of Nevada, schools are primarily a state-supported
function. The Clark County School District receives 61% of its revenues from the
state, 32% from local property taxes, and the remainder from federal and
miscellaneous sources. State funds are generated by a Vk% sales tax imposed on all retail activities in the state. Distributions to school districts are on a per pupil/per program basis. Therefore, assuming statewide sales remain at a sufficient level to supply funds to the school budgets, local growth conditions will have far smaller impacts on school district's abilities to provide services.
o Water Systems
Water utility service is provided to a portion of the region by the Las Vegas Valley Water District, which serves Las Vegas and the unincorporated areas of Clark County. North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Boulder City maintain their own water supply systems. All of the water systems are supported by user fees and service charges derived directly from recipients of the utility. They, too, are not affected by the tax reform legislation and are able to set fees to generate funds for operating, maintenance, and capital improvement programs. Decisions concerning rates, programs, and expenditures are made by autonomous Boards of Directors.
- 46 -

o Sewage Treatment
Similar to water services, sewage treatment is provided mainly by special districts which are supported by user fees and service charges. The major provider of services is the Clark County Sanitation District #1 which had a 1981-82 operating budget of $25 million. None of its funds come from the general fund, and its capital projects are financed through revenue bonds.
o Health Services
Health and hospital care is provided to Las Vegas Valley residents by a combination of public and private facilities. Public facilities are maintained by the Clark County Health District, a separate funding entity which is supported by a property tax levy, motor vehicle priviledge taxes, fees and grants.
o Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
This service is provided throughout the Las Vegas Valley by private firms contracted by the jurisdictions. The firms are totally self-supporting and receive no general fund revenues.
The above service systems are not immune to the effects of growth in the region. However, they are in a much better position to set policies insuring their continued fiscal health. Often these systems are the focus of socioeconomic impact studies performed for rural communities undergoing rapid growth due to energy-related development. In the already urban conditions present in the Las Vegas Valley, these utilities were felt to be of less concern to local governments than the general fund services.
Appendix C is made up of the expenditure projections carried out for the Las Vegas Valley Study. The functions covered are:
1. General Government
2. Administrative Building Space
3. Police Services
4. Fire Services
5. Future Residential Streets
6. Future Collector Streets
7. Stormwater Drainage Systems
8. Other Public Works
- 47 -

9. Parks Department
10. Recreation Department
I I. Building Inspection Department
12. Human Services
13. Other General Expenditures
14. Summary of Expenditures
The format of the projections is a brief introduction to the subject, the yearly incremental cost projections and a presentation of the background data that went into formulating the projections.
Wherever possible, operating and maintenance and capital components have been presented separately for each department.
1. Clark County Comprehensive Plan, 1980, p. 301.
2. Ibid., P. 265.
- 48 -

The Las Vegas Valley study was formulated to answer the question posed by local government officials: "Under present conditions will the anticipated growth in the region result in a net fiscal surplus or deficit?"
The results of the survey as shown in Appendix D indicate that the answer to the question is that all jurisdictions face revenue shortfalls of impressive magnitudes. The interpretation of the study results must be approached with caution, keeping in mind the realities of the situations in which each jurisdiction exists.
In fact, the deficits ascribed to the local governments will not exist. State legislation does not permit cities or counties to operate with general fund budget deficits. It will be recalled that there is no provision for the issuance of debt service to provide general fund revneues. The results of the study must then be viewed as an attempt to quantify the decline in the ability to provide services at a level identified by local department heads as being adequate.
Given the framework in which the study method was formulated, it is not really suprising that the costs of growth exceed the revenues it generates. Some revenues are constrained by the state tax reform legislation and can only increase a limited amount each year. Other revenues are eroded by inflation and contribute a smaller amount in each year of the study period. Expenditures, on the other hand, are not similarly inhibited. Costs rise in direct proportion to the number of new residents arriving each year, each of whom place an increased demand for municipal services. In other words, each immigrant to the region requires an increase in municipal expenditures that is greater than the amount of increased revenues he or she is able to generate.
Careful examination of the expenditure projections reveal some interesting insights. Almost all subdivision regulations require that developers provide capital facilities such as streets, water, sewer and drainage. The study of these facilities indicates that in fact it is the operating costs associated with the maintenance of these facilities that result in an increasing burden to the community. The reason for this fact is that the actual costs incurred by local governments are cumulative in
- 49 -

nature, while the capital costs are related only to the construction project underway. Each mile of streets and storm drainage systems (the two main areas covered by this study) must be maintained in the first year it is dedicated and each succeeding year. The result is that street maintenance costs increase in relation to the number of miles dedicated in the first year; the number of miles dedicated in year two plus those in year one, and so on to the end of the study period. As an illustration, the residential and collector street portion of the incremental expenditures faced by the City of Las Vegas increase from 7% of 1983's total to 49% of 2000's. Similarly, stormwater drainage system maintenance rises from 3.5% of the incremental increase in 1983 to 22% in 2000. The implications of these findings will be discussed in the following chapter.
What, then, is the importance of the vast amounts of data, calculations and comparisons performed in the study? The key element of the analysis is the quantification of the effects of present growth policies on the future fiscal balance of the jurisdictions. The fiscal balance is an indication of the local government's ability to provide the services it has deemed essential to the maintenance of a desired quality of life. Simply stated, the results of the analysis reduce to one very concise conclusion: under present policies, growth will cause a substantial decrease in the quantity and quality of municipal services available to all residents of the Las Vegas Valley.
The qualities that make the region a desirable place to live cannot be maintained under the rapid growth conditions anticipated. The paradox is that the desire for and encouragement of growth by local government officials will eventually result in conditons that will be detrimental to the very growth that is so eagerly sought. Migrants choose areas that offer amenities which are perceived as desirable, therefore the ability of each entity to provide these amenities will be part of the decisionmaking process. If adequate public services and facilities are not available, other locational choices will be made.
As it now stands, growth has adverse effects on both existing and incoming residents. The question is whether there can be a balance achieved between rapid growth and fiscal stability. Are there policies that can be implemented to shift the financial burden now carried by the governments to the new developments that are creating the imbalance? Can comprehensive planning have an effect on the quality of life of all residents in the Las Vegas Valley? There are the components of the second part of the question posed at the beginning of the study: if growth results in a negative fiscal impact, what policies can be adopted to lessen these effects?
- 50-

The communities in the Las Vegas Valley are faced with a great dilemma: the growth that is held as an important goal for the region will cause tremendous fiscal imbalances that will ultimately affect each jurisdiction's ability to provide the services necessary to insure the desired quality of life for both new and current residents. The questions that must be answered can be reduced to very basic levels: Who pays for growth? How is it paid for? And when is it paid for? This chapter explores some of the alternatives available to rapid growth communities for dealing with these questions. The ultimate solution decided upon depends on the goals and objectives of the individual jurisdictions affected by growth.
The range of alternative policies available is great, but they can be grouped into three general categories which define the types of approaches that can be taken. The first alternative strategy is to do nothing, this could be termed the "growth at any cost" strategy.
Assuming that revenue sources can be adjusted to meet the rising service costs incurred by growth, this strategy places the burden of financing growth on the entire population of each municipality. In other words, everyone pays for growth. The rationale behind this strategy rests on a more broad definition of costs and revenues. In this case, the perceived increase in economic opportunities, of urban amenities and possibly in local pride over rapid growth' is defined as "revenues" which benefit the entire community. These "revenues" are in fact assessed to local residents in the form of higher taxes, user fees and service charges.
If actual revenue sources cannot be increased to counteract the increased expenditures, the entire community pays in the form of a decrease in services received for the amount of money they are paying. Although this may seem to be a rather unlikely decision to make, residents may view the reduction in services as a temporary matter which in time will rectify itself and will lead to an improvement in services in the long run. In effect, the community has decided to put off many necessary programs to a later date when hopefully it will be able to afford them. Unfortunately, as the Las Vegas Valley analysis shows, so long as growth is occurring at a rapid, uncontrolled rate, the revenues will not overtake the expenditures.
- 51 -

The "do nothing" approach, although it reflects the current policies in the study area is not recommended for the Las Vegas Valley communities. It represents only half of the goals and objectives of its citizens the encouragement of growth. The second half, the fact that existing residents must shoulder increasing burdens both economically and socially to subsidize growth is far less acceptable. The first strategy then answers the questions in the following way: everyone in the community pays for growth; it is paid for now and in the future through higher taxes or decreased services.
A second alternative available to local communities is to decrease the growth rate through a variety of measures. Since the revenue-cost projections are strongly driven by yearly population increases, a natural solution would be to allow fewer individuals to move into each jurisdiction in any year. This approach has been adopted by several communities in the United States which felt the adverse effects of rapid growth and legislated policies to reduce the number of new dwelling units built in each year.
Petaluma, California adopted a Residential Control System in 1972 which set a
ceiling of 500 residential units per year through 1977. A point system was created to allow evaluation of all projects seeking building permits each year. The goals of the community were translated to a set of criteria with varying point values against which
each proposal was judged. Developers were, therefore, in competition with the community as well as other developers who were seeking as large a share as possible of the 500 permits to be issued each year.
The allocation system was challenged in the courts and was upheld as being a
valid exercize of local government power. The rationale behind the Petaluma ordinances was the town's concern with its ability to supply needed services to the increasing population. Local officials felt that the service delivery systems were inadequate to support the large numbers of new residents entering the community. They felt that it would be inequitable to force the entire community to pay for the services needed by new development.
Another approach was taken by the Town of Ramapo, New York, in 1969. In this case, growth limitations were placed on new development based on the town's ability to provide the capital improvements necessary to service the new units. The objectives of the community were summarized in the "Proposed Amendments to Town of Ramapo Building Zone Amended Ordinance of 1969":^
I. To economize on the costs of municipal facilities and services to carefully phase residential development with efficient provision of public improvements;
- 52 -

2. To establish and maintain municipal control over the eventual character of development;
3. To establish and maintain a desirable degree of balance among the various uses of land;
4. To establish and maintain essential quality of community services and facilities.
The town established a point system based on the availability of public services such as sewers, drainage, parks, schools, roads and fire stations, the points decreasing with increase distance from the development to the existing improvements. A major part of the ordinance amendments was the establishment of an 18-year capital improvements program that would phase construction of facilities to serve the entire area covered by the town. In other words, any developer desiring to build residential units in the Town of Ramapo would have a maximum wait of 18 years before construction could begin. This ordinance was also challenged in the county and was upheld by the New York Court of Appeals.^
While these communities are the most familiar examples of growth managers, they are not the only ones. A survey conducted by the Center for Urban Policy Research in 1978 listed 34 jurisdicitons that had imposed some type of development control regulations.7 All of the municipalities had adopted ordinances that in some manner restricted the number and placement of new housing development.
The third technique for limiting the absolute numbers of new residents is known as "fiscal zoning", an attempt to create a zoning system that reduces the availability of land for residential development. Adopted by several communities in New Jersey and subsequently overturned in the courts, these zoning ordinances created large portions of the communities devoted to either large lot residential development or commercial and industrial development. The reasoning here was that the community's tax base would be increased by these developments to a much greater degree than service costs would increase. It was assumed that homes built on large lots would have higher valuations and, therefore, produce higher revenues through the property tax. This was also true for commercial and industrial development.
While providing higher revenues, these land uses would create fewer demands for public services, especially schools, and would, therefore, cost less to service. These
assumptions have been challenged in a study published in 1979 which demonstrated
that large lot zoning actually resulted in higher service provision costs than did more
compact development patterns.
- 53 -

The ordinances were ultimately struck down in court decisions which held that such zoning techniques were exclusionary in nature and did not consider regional housing needsJ^ The effect of these ordinances was to shift the growth that was occurring in the regions to other communities. Therefore, the problem of how to deal with growth was avoided rather than solved.
These strategies answer the initial question in the following ways: Who pays for growth? The surrounding communities that have not adopted similar ordinances and who may have a more favorable outlook on new development. How is it paid for? It is paid for by those seeking to settle in a community but who are unable to do so and must look elsewhere. The payment is in the form of reduced freedom of choice. When is it paid for? It is paid for during the time between when new developments are desired and when the community actually allows them to be built.
It is for this reason that the growth control and limitation strategies are not recommended for the Las Vegas Valley communities. The region exists in virtual isolation so that there are no nearby areas that can absorb the growth that is shunted away by each community. The cities cited above, Ramapo, Petaluma, Madison, and Mount Laurel, existed in large metropolitan areas composed of many different communities. Limitations on growth imposed within the community borders would shift the burdens to other communities whose goals and objectives were more growth oriented. On a regional scale, however, these ordinances had no effect on growth whatsoever. Since the Las Vegas Valley study ultimately focuses on the regional scale, this type of growth control measure would be ineffective.
The recommendations for the Las Vegas Valley must, therefore, be geared to the acceptance of the reality of growth and must address the problems of how to minimize the negative fiscal impacts that growth is projected to cause. What policies can be adopted both by each jurisdiction individually and by the region as a whole that will mitigate the predicted adverse impacts? The focus will be on policies relating to the costs incurred by local governments since these are more adaptable to local needs. Revenues, it will be recalled, are constrained by state legislation and are therefore further removed from local decisions.
The Development of a Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvements Program
Effective planning is often referred to as exhibiting the "3 C's" -- cooperative, comprehensive, and continuing. The present situation in the Las Vegas Valley evidences none of these characteristics. Cooperation is not possible due to the
- 54 -

political and economic rivalries that result in each community vying for the largest possible share of growth. It is difficult to find effective planning going on within each jurisdiction, let alone a cooperative effort among jurisdictions.
Comprehensive planning is also a rare commodity. Each local government, sewer district, water district, regional stormwater drainage plan and transportation plan is pursuing its individual goals and objectives with no concern for any other element. Water services are being extended in one direction, sewer in several others, and housing development approvals are being granted without regard to any other factors. It is little wonder that the other operating departments such as Police, Fire, and Parks are hard-pressed to maintain an adequate level of services in a situation where growth is being encouraged to occur almost randomly.
Without the previous elements of cooperation and comprehensiveness, the ability to carry out continuing planning is impossible. Needs for services and facilities are handled on an ad hoc basis. With no existing policies, it is most difficult to gauge the effectiveness of the plans and to maintain a process of surveillance and revision.
The development of comprehensive plans and capital improvement programs would provide the necessary framework for effective planning. Based on the realities of the problems faced by the Las Vegas Valley communities, the recommended comprehensive planning process should seek to gain control over the patterns of growth in a way that will minimize the costs of providing services to new development and thereby reduce the expenditure side of the cost-revenue projections.
I. Service Area Plans
The service area planning process is envisioned as following five steps: the identification of service areas of existing systems; determining development capacities within existing service areas; coordinating the upgrading of services within existing areas; considering the extension of services that would entail the lowest cost; and prioritizing extension areas based on the cost analysis.
The establishment of service area districts will require the cooperation of all service delivery departments and agencies. Each department should identify its current facilities and operations and define the boundaries within which they can provide adequate services with no increase in expenditures. Departmental service areas should be determined according to standards adopted for each department. For example, the fire service area would be determined by the boundaries of areas within three minutes of all existing fire stations; police service areas would be those that
- 55 -

could be patrolled using existing manpower and vehicles; park and recreation service areas would include land within a certain distance of existing parks and recreation centers.
The results of the departmental studies should be mapped using an overlay system similar to that used in McHargian development suitability studies. The overlay process will, therefore, indicate existing areas that can be developed without incurring additional costs to these departments. The individual service areas will lead to components of the comprehensive plan that relate to each department. In other words, each department will derive its own future expansion plans that will later be integrated into the overall framework. Especially important will be the street plan and parks plan. Both of these areas require high capital and operating expenditures over the long-run, so that development patterns that require new facilities in these regards result in much greater expenditures from the general fund.
This information must be further refined during the second step of the process to include the capacities of each area to absorb new growth. These considerations will be based on existing zoning features, numbers of units that can adequately be served and thier relationship to the existing capacity of each department. This step will yield guidelines for the land use element of the plan in terms of best possible use for land in existing service areas.
It cannot be assumed that all areas will be similar in the amount of existing services available to them. Some areas may have adequate fire protection and park facilities, but not police protection or street access. These areas must be dealt with in the third step of the process which quantifies the relative ease with which the missing services can be provided. Through the cooperation of all departments, cost estimates can be derived for upgrading services to the extent necessary. The goal of this step is to identify the areas for which it would be most cost-effective to bring the service delivery systems up to standards. It does not follow necessarily that areas with the fewest requirements would emerge as being the best "second level" candidates. The determining factor would be the effects on the costs incurred by all departments in providing services. Those areas requiring the lowest expenditures would be identified at this stage and coordination among departments would be necessary to insure the proper phasing of improvements.
After the determination of areas with existing excess service capacities and those that require the lowest cost coordinated upgrading of services, the focus of the plan may shift to areas requiring the expansion of services. The costs of extending
- 56 -

existing service areas or establishing new ones can be determined by an analysis of what improvements would be required to the existing systems and what new facilities would have to be built. The analysis would lead to the determination of the lowest cost method of extending services to new areas. The criteria in these decisions include both capital costs and the projected operating and maintenance costs.
The operating costs are often overlooked during the development review process which focusses on the costs of providing physical facilities for new development. For this reason, the existence of a water or sewer line is generally considered as sufficient to approve development. However, operating costs are a major component of the fiscal imbalance created by growth. Even if a developer builds adequate capital facilites, these are eventually dedicated to the city who must maintain them for the rest of their existence. These costs must be added into the equations for determining which areas are most suitable for service expansion.
The final step in the process is to prioritize extension areas based on the costs of providing services. Those areas that can be served at the lowest additional cost should be delineated and receive first priority for future expansion. Those with increasing expenditure requirements will receive lower ranking and will be developed further in the future.
The five step planning sequence will result in a major element of the community's comprehensive plan. The product obtained from analyzing the service area components of the plan will be a map which will be the basis for future development policies. Conventional comprehensive plans include a zoning element which designates the types of development that will be permitted in each geographical area of the community; the service area element will go beyond standard zoning practices by adding a time element to the policies. Not only will development types be defined, but the most economical sequence of development will be included as well. The policies adopted to implement this aspect of the plan will be focussed on providing for more compact growth patterns, beginning with areas that can absorb more mpopulation without requiring major increases in service provision costs. The precise goals of each community must be balanced with the results of the service area analysis in determining the form that the policies will take.
2. Capital Improvements Programs
The capital impovements programs provide the basis for a rational service extension policy. After the service areas have been delineated and ranked for future
- 57 -

development potential, a system for providing orderly provision of facilities must be adopted. The capital improvements plan fills this function by acting as a coordinating mechanism for the construction of improvements necessary for expansion.
The plan should take the form of a five or six-year construction schedule which projects the funds required to complete the phasing of the improvements. A possible priority ranking might be to first upgrade existing service areas for full development, second to extend services to areas adjacent to present service areas or those in which service estensions can be completed at lowest cost, and third to extend services to outlying areas. The plan would of necessity be a continuous process that would be adjusted regularly to reflect the completion of each phase as it occurs. The long-range nature of the plan, coupled with its updating, insures that each project rises in priority as those above it are completed. The end result is an orderly sequence of development that avoids the high costs of uncontrolled sprawl or "leap frog" development.
The combination of the comprehensive plan and capital improvements program provide a very powerful set of tools for local government control over the costs of providing services and facilities due to growth. They provide a set of criteria against which each development proposal can be judged to determine its acceptability to the community. As derived for the Las Vegas Valley communities, these policies focus very narrowly on the costs of growth. It is up to each local government to determine its individual goals relating to development and to ascertain how the recommendations derived from the fiscal impact analysis correspond to them.
3. The Development Review Process
With the existence of the comprehensive plan and capital improvements program, local decision-makers have available a set of reference materials against which development proposals may be judged. Equally important, each developer can know before he begins his own plans how his proposal compares with the communitywide plans. This situation avoids the uncertainty all parties involved in the development process face in an unstructured environment.
Since each area of the community has been identified as to its development potential, decisions to approve or deny a proposal are based on a rational set of criteria. Any departures from the comprehensive plan must be justified on the basis of other community benefits that wili be received to off-set the higher costs incurred. Similarly, proposal approval can be negotiated from a pre-determined position that
- 58-

seeks to maximize the benefits to both the developer and the community as a whole. The development review process would involve all service departments of the community who would pass judgment on each proposal. Only developments receiving the approval of the service departments would be allowed to proceed.
The strength or weakness of the development review process must be decided upon at the local level. A strong process would adhere strictly to the comprehensive plan with little or no room for exceptions. A weaker version would serve merely as suggestions to the decision-makers who would be left to their own discretion for each project. Policies can be developed which will lead to either interpretation of the process, with differing consequences to the community. For example, a development proposal that does not fall into an existing or high priority service area can be summarily denied, or the developer can be made to pay all linkage costs between his development and the existing systems. Similarly, he can be required to dedicate land or structures to provide the expansion service. Future developers of the intervening land could be made to reimburse the intitial builder for a fixed percentage of the original costs.
A weak, negotiable system, however, is not in the best financial interests of the community. The cost projection process has indicated that in most instances, the long-term operating and maintenance costs incurred by new development are equal to or higher than the capital costs of constructing the facilities. Further, the operating and maintenance costs are directly related to the length or location of the system components. A planning commission or city council that approves a development proposal on the basis of the provision of capital facilities is being deceived about the ultimate cost of the decision. Costs will be reduced much further if existing capital facilities are used until their capacity is reached before new facilities are added to the system.
4. Subdivision Regulations
Subdivision regulations stipulate the physical and design standards that must be
met before the division of land and subsequent development can occur. It is
recommended that a fiscal impact analysis be included as part of the subdivision
review process in order to determine the effects of each subdivision for a determined
length of time. The importance of including the fiscal element in the subdivision
regulations is illustrated by a court case in Connecticut.
The town had adopted a standard set of subdivision regulations which set physical standards for streets, blocks, sidewalks, and easements. A subdivision proposal was
- 59 -

received for a large parcel of land in the town. The town planning commission denied the request, stating that the development would place undue strain on the town's ability to provide police, fire, schools, and maintenance operations. The commission felt that the town could not financially support the increase in costs the development would incur.
The developer took the case to court and won permission to proceed with the project because there were no stipulations in the subdivision regulations requiring a financial impact analysis. Since the developer had met all of the physical requirements set out in the regulations, he could not be constrained by concerns that were not specifically spelled out.
By including a fiscal impact element into their subdivision regulations, the Las Vegas Valley communities can strengthen their positions concerning the reduction of growth induced costs. As with the design review process, the governing bodies can choose from a range of options in dealing with proposals that do not meet the fiscal standards of the subdivision regulations. Developments that show a net deficit to the communities can either be denied permission to proceed, or arrangements can be made to make the developer make up the difference between the projected costs and revenues. No matter which option the commissions choose to adopt, the result of the strengthened subdivision regulations place local government in an active rather than reactive position in their dealings with developers.
A further step should be taken in extending the jurisdiction's subdivision review
process to areas beyond the current city limits that could be annexed at a future date.
Nevada law now permits this review process and the opportunity should be taken by each community to become involved.
By insuring that development in unincorporated areas meets local standards, a reduction in possible future costs is more assured. Often development in rural areas is subject to less strict standards, such as being permitted septic tanks, gravel roads, and minimal utility connections. When these areas are annexed to an urban area, these deficiencies must be upgraded to meet higher standards. The city can then face both the capital and maintenance costs of these systems, a double fiscal burden.
The inclusion of policies into the subdivision regulations that reflect those of the comprehensive plan provide both short and long-range protection for the communities. Each subdivision proposal can be judged on a well defined set of criteria as it occurs. Further, by extending the review boundaries beyond the city limits, assurance is gained that areas added to the city through annexation will have been subject to the same decision process.
- 60-

General Fiscal Policy Options
The comprehensive plan, service area plans, and subdivision regulations provide a solid basis for the creation of policies that reduce the costs of providing services to a growing population. A standard set of policies that can be applied to all development proposals creates a legal framework that strengthens each jurisdiction's ability to guide and control the patterns of growth that will occur. Through the adoption of other policies, more assurance will be gained that growth will in fact pay more of its own way in each community.
I. Encourage Compact Development
The effects of limiting new development within defined service area boundaries can be enhanced by adopting policies that encourage the most compact development patterns within these districts. Compact development leads to lower costs by the simple fact that fewer miles of streets, utility lines, and similar capital facilities are required. This translates to lower maintenance costs to the jurisdiction for the life of the system.
The pioneering study in this area is The Costs of Sprawl, prepared for the federal government in 1974.'^ The results of the study reached the following conclusion:
Stated in the most general form, the major conclusion of this study is that,
for a fixed number of households, "sprawl" is the most expensive form of
residential development in terms of economic costs, environmental costs,
natural resource consumption, and many types of personal costs J 5
The costs of sprawl analysis is applicable to the Las Vegas Valley study due to the fact that both deal with the costs of providing services to an equal number of new residents under a variety of development patterns. Since the basis of the Las Vegas Valley study was the number of residents entering each community in each year, this number became the independent variable. All other factors were then dependent variables which could be altered under different development pattern alternatives.
Compact development patterns, including single family clusters, townhouses, and multi-family units consistently lead to reduced operating and maintenance costs to the communities in which they are located. For example, street maintenance costs for single family cluster development were 75% of conventional single family development, clustered townhouses were 47%, and high-rise apartments were only I5%.16
The example of street maintenance costs was chosen because it is one of the areas that emerged from the Las Vegas Valley study as an increasing burden on local communities in future years. Applying these results to the Clark County street
- 61 -

maintenance projections leads to a savings of nearly $13 million over the 18-year period, simply by substituting single family clustered housing instead of conventional sprawl development that is occurring. At the other extreme, if all new residents in Clark County were to live in multi-family, high-rise dwellings, the projected street maintenance savings would total over $43 million.
Other operating and maintenance expenditures would not show as dramatic a decrease over time, but the cumulative savings derived from these policies just through street maintenance reductions alone indicate the benefits of compact development. Each development proposal should be judged against an agreed upon standard of utility length per dwelling unit; those meeting the criteria would be given permission to proceed with development. Those exceeding the standards could be denied or assessed a tax to cover the increased maintenance costs faced by the local government.
2. Set Fees to Cover Actual Costs
Often city services are provided to specific recipients who can be identified and assessed fees and charges that off-set the costs of providing the service. Typical examples of this are sewer fees, water fees and solid waste disposal fees. In Las Vegas Valley communities, there are opportunities to insure that developers pay the actual costs the city incurs in performing certain function.
The major category of these expenditures concerns building inspection processes. Currently, the Clark County Building Inspection Department is the only totally self-sufficient agency in the region. With an operating budget of approximately $3 million in 1981, this department sets its fees to cover all costs.
All other inspection functions in other communities are subsidized through general fund revenues, with fees being set to cover only a portion of the total costs. As an example of the possible disparities between the costs of providing the services and the actual revenues received, the projections for the City of Las Vegas provide a good illustration. Building inspection costs are projected to result in a cumulative total expenditure of over $17 million over the study period. Service charge revenues, however, are expected to yield a cumulative total of only $900,000 in the same time, a shortfall of over $16 million that must be subsidized through other general fund revenue sources. In other words, the entire community of Las Vegas is supporting the building inspection costs incurred by new residential and commercial development. By setting fees to a level high enough to cover all costs, the burden is shifted to the people who actually receive the benefits of the service.
- 62 -

Each local government must ultimately decide what portion of these costs should be borne by new residents. This policy decision will lead to a price-setting mechanism that can be adjusted regularly to obtain the desired results. It appears that a rather simple administrative policy could result in a significant reduction in expenditures.
3. Plant Investment Fees
The concept of plant investment fees has been applied most often to large capital facilities such as water treatment plants and sewer plants. In order to provide for increased service capacities, fees are collected on a per household basis at the same time of construction. These fees are placed in a fund that is maintained until new facilities are required, at which time the money is used toward the costs of construction. The element of equity in assessing plant investment fees requires that new construction should support only that portion of the costs that can be directly attributed to it. New development should not be expected to pay the entire cost of a project that benefits the entire community.
One option available to local governments is to expand the plant investment fees to cover the costs of all capital facilities that will eventually need to be built to serve the new population. This would include police and fire stations, schools, drainage systems, and other capital intensive systems. The method employed for the Las Vegas Valley study provides information about the capital costs associated with growth. The figures used in calculating the costs would be strongly affected by the local comprehensive and capital improvements plans. Since the numbers used in the study reflect the current "sprawl" type of development pattern, they translate to much higher capital costs that would be expected under the compact patterns advocated for the region.
Current practice among municipalities is to finance capital projects through the issuance of general obligation or special revenue bonds. Facilities such as police and fire stations and equipment are usually financed by general obligation bonds that are paid back through general fund revenues. Growth that requires these construction projects are therefore being subsidized by the entire taxpaying population of the jurisdition. Again, it is up to each local government to determine what kind of subsidy, if any, should be afforded to growth. The range of options runs from total community subsdidy (the current situation in the Las Vegas Valley) to no subsidies at all. Using a fiscal impact analysis method will yield a range of plant investment fee amounts that will achieve the community's objectives.
- 63 -

4. Impact Taxes
A relatively recent development, impact taxes, are charged to new developments on a prescribed basis as an attempt to off-set the capital and operating and maintenance costs they will require of the local jurisdiction.
Impact taxes are collected at the time of construction of the project and are generally earmarked to be spent within the area being developed. The taxes are characterized by the fact that they provide an immediate source of revenue to lessen the burden the community must shoulder in providing services. They also provide an interim revenue source that pays the cost of community services during the time between when the project is completed and the tax revenues are actually received. This time lag can often be in the range of one to two years. During this time, the community at large provides a 100% subsidy to the new residents. The impact tax seeks to balance this situation.
Legally, impact taxes have come under a great deal of criticism, many of the
early cases overturned the authority of communities to impose such taxes.The key
to several cases was the fact that impact taxes were imposed on new developments
that would be used throughout the entire city. However, recent trends indicate that there is greater acceptance of impact taxes as a legitimate revenue source available to local communities which can be used beyond the borders of the development itself.
This cost reducing policy area blurs the distinction between revenue generating and pure reduction of costs. The effects on the community are identical, new development receives less of a subsidy during its initial time. Since it is recommended that any impact taxes imposed are used to defray the costs of providing services to the development, it is legitimately classified as a cost-reducing measure. It is also important to note that the impact taxes are collected on a one-time basis, in amounts related entirely to the projected costs associated with a particular development. For this reason, it may be more correct to term this an "impact fee".
Nevada law allows communities that have adopted a master plan to impose residential construction taxes. The tax is limited in that it may only be used to off-set the costs of providing parks and recreation facilities.'^ Currently, only Clark County and Boulder City have availed themselves of this opportunity. Clark County requires either land dedication or payment of the value of the land that would have to be dedicated. This policy has not been successful to this point because the planning commission has accepted parcels of land that are in fact either unsuitable for park
construction or are small sites scattered throughout the development which, if
developed, would result in much higher maintenance costs.
- 64 -

Boulder City imposes a $100 per dwelling unit park development fee. As calculations for the parks acquisition and development cost projections indicate, this fee has little effect on the costs actually faced by the community. There are no apparent limits in the legislation on the amount of the tax that may be imposed, so that the impact tax could be a much greater cost-reducing measure than is presently being realized.
5. Special Districts
The creation of special districts could be an approach to solving the problem of who pays for growth. Through a coordinated planning process, special districts could be established on a citywide basis, so that the costs incurred by growing areas would be paid by those residents only. The Nevada legislature has granted far more home freedom to special districts than to local governments. The revenue-generating powers of special districts were not affectd by the tax reform package, and they are allowed to "levy taxes to cover operating and maintenance and bonding requirements".^'
There are several advantages to creating special districts within jurisdictional
boundaries. They allocate costs more directly to the recipients of services. In the high
growth conditions existing in the Las Vegas Valley, these districts would help to insure
that the costs of providing new servides and facilities would be assessed to the direct
beneficiaries rather than the community as a whole. Present state legislation allows
for special districts in the following serivce areas: fire protection, swimming pools,
street and alley improvements, recreation facilities, and maintenance districts. The districts as mentioned have the powers to levy taxes, set user fees, and issue bonds.
These districts pose a solution to the cost reduction problem that differs strongly from the other policies enumerated above. Creation of these districts would seek to lower general fund expenditures by removing several service categories from the fund. By setting up self-supporting special districts, the burden on the existing residents is lessened. Capital expenditures required by growth would be localized to the area requiring the expenditures, as would the subsequent operating expenses. Residents in existing neighborhoods would pay only the costs of operating and maintaining existing staff and facilities.
The drawbacks inherent in the creation of special districts are as of now more telling than the possible benefits that could be realized. The sectoring of a city or county into numerous special districts can create an administative nightmare. It
- 65 -

would require a central coordinating mechanixm to insure the efficient functioning of many districts operating in a jurisdiction. The taxes, fees and bonds would have to be collected and dispersed from a common point in order to provide some assurance that administrative costs would not surpass the revenues collected.
The problem of equity would have to be satisfactorily answered before special districts became a viable alternative. Boundary lines would have to be drawn in a way that ensures equal valuations in each district to avoid undertaxing some residents while overtaxing others. Commercial and industrial areas would also have to be allocated to the various districts on an equal basis.
Finally, it is often impossible to actually identify the recipients of a given service. Would streets in one maintenance district be open only to those residing in the district? Could park use be free to district residents and require a fee from outsiders? These questions have no adequate answers, at this point, that would overcome the deficiencies of the special district system.
The subject areas does require closer examination and, although not suitable for present problems facing the Las Vegas Valley communities, they may, with some modifications, become a new approach to dealing with urban fiscal problems. The freedom from state intervention afforded special districts are their most favorable attribute. In the future, it is quite possible that they may become a necessary fact of urban financing techniques.
The Las Vegas Valley study has demonstrated that sound urban planning techniques, if translated into strong policies, can have great effects in reducing the costs of growth on a community. The recommended policies do not limit growth in a numerical sense; instead, they provide for a rational growth pattern that is far more efficient that the random sprawl that is presently occurring. They accomplish this task without excessively penalizing the developers or new residents since they are designed to insure that new development pays its fair share of the costs directly related to it, not the costs of upgrading facilities that the community has neglected to adequately maintain.
The policies themselves will not accomplish the goals of the community, they must be understood and enforced by the local government officials who have the power to decide such issues. Without this commitment, a comprehensive plan is merely an ineffective document that is soon placed on a shelf and forgotten. In this instance, the
- 66 -

plan is envisioned as being a statement of goals that can be easily translated into action. It is based on the quantitative results of a fiscal impact analysis that shows clearly that current growth patterns will in some manner lower the quality of life that residents of the various jurisdictions enjoy. The policies are designed to insure that all residents, old and new, will receive equally high standards of community service delivery.
The establishment of a comprehensive plan is only one phase of the process. It must be used in conjunction with other devices that effectively insure that growth pays a greater portion of its way. A capital improvements program, in conjunction with the comprehensive plan provides a rational course of action for the local government to pursue in expanding its service capacities. Through coordination among the service departments, an efficient, non-duplicative system is established that provides the lowest cost alternatives to service expansion.
The two documents provide the local government with strong legal backing in the event that the policies are challenged in the courts. It is recognized that the fiscal effects of development are valid components of the general public health safety and welfare concerns of each community, but it is up to each community to prove that decisions based on these effects will be equitably applied to all proposals. The adoption of the comprehensive plan and capital improvements plan fulfills the requirement.
The fees and taxes recommended for adoption by the Las Vegas Valley jurisdictions provide further assurance that the costs incurred by rapid growth will be met to as large an extent as possible by those responsible for them. The most equitable system of exactions provides that new residents pay only the share of the facilities and services costs that they are directly responsible for. Existing deficiencies in the community must therefore be carefully distinguished from growth related demands. These deficiencies are the financial responsibility of the entire community and it would be unfair to assess new residents the entire cost of remedying them. It is the responsibility of the fiscal impact analyst to insure that the distinction between existing growth related needs is clearly stated. It is no more just to expect the new population to pay for all facilities and services upgrading than it is to require the entire community to meet the costs of providing services to new development.
In summary, it is apparent that a community's land use decisions are long-range financial decisions as well. The development patterns that are acceptable to local government officials have a direct bearing on the future costs of service provision. A
- 67 -

strong, well coordinated set of growth-related policies can have major effects on the future fiscal balance of the community. With these policies in effect it is possible to have growth occur in the most efficient manner. It is not possible, without further detailed study of the Las Vegas Valley, to determine if growth can entirely pay its own way. In fact, given the current Nevada tax legislation, it is very doubtful if this is possible. Community decisions concerning its willingness to pay the costs of growth are the first step toward balancing the positive and negative aspects of growth.
1. David Chamberlain, "Aurora: Mysterious City to the East", Rocky Mountain Magazine; April, 1982, p. 48.
2. Frank B. Gray, The City of Petaluma: Residential Development Control in Management and Control of Growth, Volume II; Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land Institute, 1975, p. 152.
3. Ibid, pp. 157-8.
4. Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County vs. City of Petaluma, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1975, 522 F 2nd 897.
5. Proposed Amendments to Town of Ramapo Building Zone Amended Ordinance of 1969.
6. Golden vs. Planning Board of Ramapo, 285 NE 2nd 291 (1972).
7. Lawrence B. Burrows, Growth Management; Issues, Techniques and Policy Implications; New Brunswick, N.J.: The Center for Urban Policy Research, 1978, pp. 6-7.
8. Duane Windsor, Fiscal Zoning in Suburban Communities; Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1979.
9. Ibid, p. 163.
10. Oakwood at Madison vs. Township of Madison, 283 A 2nd 353 (1971); Southern Burlington County NAACP vs. Township of Mount Laurel, 336 A 2nd 713 (1975).
11. Ian McHarq, Design with Nature (Garden City, N.Y.: The Natural Art Press, 1969)
12. Beach vs. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of New Milford, 103 A 2nd 814.
13. Nevada Revised Statues, 1981, Section 278.340.
14. Real Estate Research Corporation, The Costs of Sprawl; Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974.
- 68 -

15. Ibid, p. 7.
16. Ibid, p. 58.
17. . Venditti-Sivaro, Inc. vs. City of Hollywood, 39 Fla. Supp. 121 (1973); Broward
County vs. Janis Development Corp., 31 I So. 2nd 371 (1975); City of Dunedin vs. Contractors and Builders Association, 329 So. 2nd 314 (1976).
18. Santa Clara County Contractors and Homebuilders Association vs. City of Santa Clara, 43 Cal. Reptr. 86 (1965).
19. NRS Section 278.4983.
20. Conversation with Robert 0. Forson, Clark County Parks Dept., January, 1982.
21. NRS Section 318.225.
22. NRS, 318.1181, 318.1191, 318.120, 318.143, 318.145.
- 69 -

The techniques of fiscal impact analysis can become a valuable tool for local government level planning professionals. The benefits derived from the theoretical aspects of the analysis add a new dimension to the planner's awareness of community problems and goals. The process makes the planner aware of the complex set of interactions that make up the reality of what a community is and what it can be.
The method developed for the Las Vegas Valley Study has several strengths that can be of value to the local level planner. First, during the background data collection process, the planner will receive an extensive knowledge of the make-up, functions, and concerns of the many operating departments that constitute the service delivery system. All too often it appears that the planning department exists in a sort of vacuum, operating in its own sphere without any real contact with the myriad factors that strongly affect the community's future. Interviews with department heads create an awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of the existing system and bring to light the concerns of each department about its ability to maintain an adequate level of services in the face of ever increasing demands.
Second, the analysis provides the planner with a concrete set of data that can be used to begin discussion with Planning Commission and Council members. Since the method requires that all assumptions be stated clearly, any disagreements about the assumptions can be aired immediately and discussed in terms of reality rather than opinion. Any changes made in the assumptions will therefore be based on rational factors and will be acceptable to all involved in the process. The planner should not become overly protective of his or her work, but instead should realize that differences of opinion will exist. Each department is in some degree of competition with all others for as great a share as possible of the limited resources available in the community. The fiscal impact analysis allows each department a forum in which to express its needs and goals.
Third, the analysis provides a means for testing the policies currently reflecting a community's goals. By projecting the revenues and costs expected through growth that follows existing policies, an understanding can be gained as to how viable these
- 70 -

goals are. By changing the growth pattern assumptions, various community perceptions can be evaluated. Does the community favor single family detached housing over denser development? Will the community be able to afford a continuation of these patterns? Is it willing to trade a decrease in services or higher taxes for this objective, or will entirely single family development create financial benefits for the community as a whole? The basis for these decisions emerges from the results of the fiscal impact analysis in black and white terms. Moreover, a relative value is placed on the outcomes of these decisions so that they can be judged against each other in common terms.
Fourth, the analysis provides a framework for judging the actions of local government officials. Community awareness of the ramifications of land use decisions leads to an increased desire for official accountability. Commission decisions that go against the policies of the comprehensive plan must be justified in light of the fiscal consequences of teh actions. The end result is that the community benefits from official decisions in one form or another. An excess of non-beneficial decisions can lead to demands for replacement of officials by those more willing to enforce the will of the people.
Too often, the planner is placed in a position of recommending policies and decisions that have only theoretical backing. The recommendations may reflect a perception of the community's best interests, but they are usually in terms that cannot be translated into understandable information. The fiscal analysis provides the support for the planner's position in a way that is obvious to government officials and community residents. Various land use decisions or policies can be translated into financial projections and provide a basis for judgment. This is only one aspect of the total process, however, since many other social and environmental factors affect the ultimate decisions. The analysis provides a means of delineating the balances that are affected by local policies so that decisions are reached which result in the greatest benefit to the community. The weight placed on the financial elements depends on the values and goals of local residents.
The fiscal effects of growth are generally a primary concern of each community, but they are not the only ones that must be taken into account. If growth will cost more in terms of taxes or reduced services there must be a demonstration that the community will gain enough in other areas to make it worth the price that must be paid. The planner must play a central role in the balancing process as both an analyst and an intermediary between the government officials and the community. The more
- 71 -

the planner understands of the workings of the government, the better he or she will be able to interpret the effects of the varying viewpoints that will be expressed.
The ability to perform valid fiscal impact analyses is only the first step in redefining the planner's position in local government. The goal is to have the planner become a coordinator of services, land use decisions, growth policy decisions, and community goals and objectives. Planning implies the development of mechanisms that insure orderly, positive growth. The technical skills needed by planners to implement this ideal go beyond the present capabilities of most practitioners. It is hoped that this will be remedied in the future as planners become more familiar with the techniques that are available. Fiscal impact analysis can be an important first step in creating a new role for the planning profession.
Unanswered Questions
The Las Vegas Valley study was focussed upon answering a very narrow question: Will growth be fiscally beneficial or detrimental? The results of the analysis, however, create a number of other questions which should be examined and answered in the future. In fact, the study has created more uncertainties than certainties, an indication that the field of study has just begun its existence.
The questions range from rather specific methodological inquiries to general, almost philosophical, uncertainties. Answers to these questions should go a long way toward solving some of the financial problems being faced by growing American cities, and may suggest some entirely different governmental forms.
Methodological questions focus on the techniques designed to project the cost increases caused by growth. The basic question is whether each new resident actually will require the exact same expenditure as existing residents, or whether there is some factor which can be applied to reduce or increase the multiplier and obtain more precise results. A corollary to this question is whether the per capita costs are the most valid indicators of the true stimulators of cost increases. Would another unit, such as households or acreage be a more realistic reflection of the true nature of the size of the expenditures faced by a growing community?
As yet, there is no accepted universal method that can be used in fiscal impact analysis. The body of literature on the subject is sparse and agreement on methods and assumptions is difficult to find. Is it possible to derive a formulation that can be general in nature, that leads to accurage results, and can be proven effective and efficient? Can techniques be devised that provide an ongoing budgetary projection
- 72 -

system and which indicate when development patterns need to be re-examined and altered to reduce the trend of too excessive expenditure increases?
Is there an optional form of growth that leads to the greatest benefits and the least costs? Is there a "best" rate of population increase that will have the same effects? These questions go beyond the strictly financial focus and must consider less tangible costs and benefits. Obviously, if all growth is in the form of multi-family, high-density structures in close proximity to each other, many physical service costs will be reduced. How do these balance against psychological costs, community perceptions, environmental concerns? If no new people move into a community, there will be far less demand for new services and facilities (any increases in demand will stem from an upgrading of services by existing residents) and there will be no increased costs. Are there other benefits to be derived from greater populations that decrease the attractiveness of this option? Is there a specific number or range for each community that will achieve an acceptable trade-off between the benefits and the costs?
These appear to be larger questions arising from the analysis that addresses some very serious issues. The study has indicated that the revenue generating powers granted to cities and counties by the state places municipalities at a great disadvantage. Is it possible that due to these factors, growing cities will never be self-sufficient? Will any city be able to raise enough revenues to counteract the growing costs of service provision? Why does this situation exist? A historical study of the foundations of the present system might suggest the reasons modern cities are in their current position. Are we now reaping the rewards of the anti-urban feelings held by the founders of the country? Would a study of European cities be instructive in developing solutions to American urban financial problems? Do European cities operate under the same sorts of fiscal constraints or are they more able to solve their own problems?
Should American cities develop new governmental structures to more efficiently conduct their business? One of the possible solutions mentioned in the previous chapter concerned the creation of special districts as a means of relieving the pressure on the local general fund. Is the city as a special district a viable alternative to the present set-up? Would it be able to operate as a special district with more financial freedom and more equity than it can now? Is it legally possible to create this type of government or would enabling legislation prohibit this from occurring? Would the administrative difficulties in setting up such a system outweigh the benefits gained from it?
- 73 -

Are city services becoming like energy, an area of life that can no longer be taken for granted? The costs of streets, police and fire protection, parks and recreation facilities have never been a major concern of most community residents. It has always been assumed that these services will be provided, and not much thought has been given to the true costs involved, beyond the common grumbling about high property taxes. The growing trend of establishing user fees for services and facilities to help difray their costs could ultimately be applied to almost all city functions. Will people be willing to pay for the services they receive, or will they be more receptive to receiving lower standards of service at less cost?
Will the growing awareness of costs lead to a demand for more efficiency in government? Can the stereotyped government worker continue to be supported in the face of rising costs? What efficiencies are available to local governments to lower their costs while maintaining standards?
Assuming that there is a finite amount of disposable income available to each municipal resident, will the increased prices paid for city services drastically reduce the discretionary buying options available? What effect would this have on the consumer-oriented national economy? Is it possible that the lifestyle of many urban residents would need to be altered due to the shifting of municipal costs to the consumer?
Perhpas it would be logical to presume that local government is not alwasy the best provider of all services. Would it be more cost-effective to contract a wide variety of functions to private industry? What functions most closely approach the necessary market conditions that make this a possibility?
It is apparent that this study has raised far more questions than it has answered. The questions concern some of the most basic assumptions of urban existence, perhaps touching on areas that have not previously been considered. While focussing on a very narrow statement of a problem, the investigator has led to expansion of areas of inquiry affecting the basic financial structure of modern metropolitan areas, specifically those undergoing rapid growth. There is every indication that a wide range of issues can no longer be ignored or downplayed. These issues must be examined more closely and more often in order to develop creative, equitable solutions. A failure to do so could have severe, long-range consequences.
- 74 -

POPULATION 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Las Vegas 164,674 171,855 177,293 182,918 188,738 194,757 199,476 204,330 209,488 214,783
N. Las Vegas 42,739 43,474 44,292 45,044 45,850 46,671 47,506 48,356 49,221 50,102
Henderson 24,363 26,933 29,463 32,235 35,270 38,593 42,237 46,229 48,212 50,280
Boulder City 9,590 10,012 10,278 10,551 10,833 11,124 11,451 11,788 12,041 12,301
Incorp. LVV 241,366 252,274 261,286 270,748 280,691 291,145 300,670 310,703 318,962 327,466
Unincorp. LVV 211,450 226,482 232,240 238,000 243,743 249,455 262,076 275,097 288,125 301,679
Total LVV 452,816 478,756 493,526 508,748 524,434 540,600 562,746 585,800 607,087 629,145
Outlying 9,000 9,102 9,176 9,250 9,325 9,400 9,792 10,200 10,768 11,367
Clark County 461,816 487,858 502,702 517,998 533,759 550,000 572,538 596,000 617,855 640,512
Las Vegas 67,133 69,179 71,160 73,239 75,358 77,548 79,321 81,515 83,892 85,821
N. Las Vegas 14,123 14,149 14,443 14,749 15,069 15,372 16,150 16,021 16,847 16,863
Henderson 8,889 9,710 10,589 11,554 12,602 13,748 14,966 16,369 16,543 18,075
Boulder City 4,025 4,096 4,160 4,228 4,296 4,366 4,485 4,629 4,743 4,830
Incorp. LVV 94,170 97,134 100,379 103,770 107,325 111,034 114,922 118,534 121,665 125,589
Unincorp. LVV 92,663 93,292 93,709 94,048 94,294 94,458 100,182 106,633 1 12,819 118,595
Total LVV 186,833 190,426 194,088 197,818 201,619 205,992 215,104 225,167 234,484 244,184
Outlying 3,390 3,394 3,397 3,401 3,404 3,408 3,567 3,733 4,008 4,303
Clark County 190,223 193,820 197,489 201,219 205,023 208,900 218,671 228,900 238,492 248,487
- 75 -

TABLE A-1 (Continued)
POPULATION 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Las Vegas 220,216 224,906 229,699 234,598 239,607
N. Las Vegas 51,000 51,950 52,918 53,903 54,907
Henderson 52,439 54,685 57,026 59,469 62,018
Boulder City 12,565 12,843 13,126 13,417 13,713
Incorp. LVV 336,220 344,384 352,769 361,387 370,245
Unincorp. LVV 315,780 326,336 337,206 348,392 359,904
Total LVV 652,000 670,720 689,975 709,779 730,149
Outlying 12,000 12,531 13,085 13,644 14,269
Clark County 664,000 683,251 703,060 723,443 744,418
Las Vegas 88,056 90,071 92,127 94,234 96,387
N. Las Vegas 17,311 17,763 18,237 18,722 19,221
Henderson 18,994 19,958 20,972 22,036 23,153
Boulder City 4,933 5,044 5,155 5,268 5,385
Incorp. LVV 129,294 132,836 136,491 140,260 144,146
Unincorp. LVV 124,986 128,767 132,646 136,629 140,711
Total LVV 254,280 261,603 269,137 276,889 284,857
Outlying 4,620 4,808 5,004 5,209 5,421
Clark County 258,900 266,411 274,141 282,094 290,278
- 76
1995 1996 1997
244,725 249,555 254,483
55,930 56,972 58,033
64,676 67,452 70,349
14,017 14,455 14,909
379,348 388,434 397,774
371,752 385,672 400,045
751,100 774,107 797,819
14,900 15,405 15,926
766,000 789,512 813,745
98,591 100,608 102,665
19,733 20,258 20,797
24,327 25,563 26,862
5,504 5,677 5,854
148,155 152,106 156,178
144,904 149,900 155,050
293,059 302,006 31 1,228
5,641 5,872 6,111
298,700 307,878 317,339
1998 1999 2000
259,512 264,647 269,886
59,114 60,215 61,337
73,371 76,523 79,812
15,377 15,859 16,357
407,374 417,244 427,392
414,882 430,199 446,008
822,256 847,443 873,400
16,466 17,023 17,600
838,722 864,466 891,000
104,767 106,912 109,104
21,348 21,917 22,500
28,228 29,659 31,167
6,037 6,225 6,421
160,380 164,713 169,192
160,349 165,807 171,418
320,729 330,520 340,610
6,361 6,620 6,890
327,090 337,140 347,500

Las Vegas N. Las Vegas Henderson Boulder City
Incorp. LVV Unincorp. LVV
Total LVV
Clark Co.
Las Vegas 68.2
N. Las Vegas 17.7
Henderson 10.1
Boulder City 4.0
1981 1982 1983
7,181 5,438 5,625
735 818 752
2,570 2,530 2,772
422 266 273
10,908 9,012 9,462
15,032 5,758 5,760
25,940 14,770 15,222
102 74 74
26,042 14,844 15,296
68.1 67.9 67.6
17.2 17.0 16.6
10.7 11.3 11.9
4.0 3.9 3.9
100.0 100.0 100.0
Incorp. LVV
1984 1985 1986
5,820 6,019 4,719
806 821 835
3,035 3,323 3,644
282 291 327
9,943 10,454 9,525
5,743 5,712 12,621
15,686 16,166 22,146
75 75 392
15,761 16,241 22,538
67.2 66.9 66.3
16.3 16.0 15.8
12.6 13.3 14.0
3.9 3.8 3.8
100.0 100.0 100.0
- 77 -
1987 1988 1989
4,854 5,158 5,295
850 865 881
3,992 1,983 2,068
337 253 260
10,033 8,259 8,504
13,021 13,028 13,554
23,054 21,287 22,058
408 568 599
23,462 21,855 22,657
65.8 65.7 65.6
15.6 15.4 15.3
14.9 15.1 15.4
3.8 3.8 3.8
100.0 100.0 100.0

TABLE A-2 (Continued)
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Las Vegas 5,433 4,690 4,793 4,899 5,009
N. Las Vegas 898 950 968 985 1,004
Henderson 2,159 2,246 2,341 2,443 2,549
Boulder City 264 278 283 291 296
Incorp. LVV 8,754 8,164 8,385 8,618 8,858
Unincorp. LVV 14,101 10,556 10,870 11,186 11,512
Total LVV 22,855 18,720 19,255 19,804 20,370
Outlying 633 531 554 579 605
Clark Co. 13,488 19,251 19,809 20,383 20,975
Las Vegas N. Las Vegas Henderson Boulder City
65.5 65.3 65.1 64.9 64.7
15.2 15.1 15.0 14.9 14.8
15.6 15.9 16.2 16.5 16.8
3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Incorp. LVV
1995 1996
5,118 4,830
1,023 1,042
2,658 2,776
304 438
9,103 9,086
11,848 13,920
20,951 23,007
631 505
24,582 23,512
64.5 64.2
14.7 14.7
17.0 17.4
3.7 3.7
100.0 100.0
1997 1998
4,928 5.029
1,061 1,081
2,897 3,022
454 468
9,340 9,600
14,373 14,837
23,712 24,437
521 540
24,233 24,977
64.0 63.7
14.6 14.5
17.7 18.0
3.7 3.8
100.0 100.0
1999 2000
5,135 5,239
1,101 1,122
3,152 3,289
482 498
9,870 10,148
15,317 15,809
25,187 25,957
557 577
25,744 26,534
63.4 63.1
14.4 14.4
18.3 18.7
3.8 3.8
100.0 100.0

(All Figures in 000's Excepl Revenues Per Capita)
Fiscal Years: 1983 1986 1985
1. Increase in Capped Revenues ($) 1,219.1 1,262.7 1,308.0
2. Increase in Lic./Permit Fees ($) 617.5 575.9 588.0
3. Increase in Gas Tax ($) 75.9 69.6 63.6
6. Increase in Service Charges ($) 126.7 126.7 126.3
5. Increase in Gaming Lie. Fees ($) 160.3 132.0 136.6
6. Increase in Misc. Revenues ($) 152.9 152.9 152.5
7. Total Increase All Sources ($) 2,330.6 2,317.6 2,373.0
8. Increase in Population a. Total LVV 16.7 15.2 15.7
b. Unincorporated LVV 5.8 5.8 5.7
9. Incremental Revenue Per Additional Person ($) a. Total LVV 158.53 152.67 151.15
b. Unincorporated LVV 601.79 399.59 616.32
Fiscal Years: 1992 1993 1996
1. Increase in Capped Revenues ($) 1,530.0 1,575.6 1,627.7
2. Increase in Lic./Permit Fees ($) 381.7 353.0 358.5
3. Increase in Gas Tax ($) 60.7 37.6 36.6
6. Increase in Service Charges ($) 228.5 235.3 262.2
5. Increase in Gaming Lie. Fees ($) 80.3 76.3 75.7
6. Increase in Misc. Revenues ($) 280.3 288.6 297.0
7. Total Increase All Sources ($) 2,561.5 2,566.2 2,635.7
8. Increase in Population a. Total LVV 18.7 19.3 19.8
b. Unincorporated LVV 10.6 10.9 11.2
9. Incremental Revenue Per Additional Person ($) a. Total LVV 135.91 132.86 133.12
b. Unincorporated LVV 239.76 235.25 235.33
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
1,350.9 1,756.8 1,833.8 1,729.8 1,799.5 1,857.2
567.6 602.3 616.1 570.9 675.9 512.3
58.5 80.7 76.9 68.2 60.0 57.2
123.7 273.2 281.9 282.1 293.6 305.3
128.3 115.8 119.0 112.2 105.9 105.5
151.7 335.1 365.7 365.9 359.9 376.6
2,360.5 3,163.9 3,271.6 3,109.1 3.096.6 3,211.9
16.1 22.1 23.1 21.3 22.1 22.9
5.7 12.6 13.0 13.0 13.6 16.1
166.61 163.16 161.62 165.97 160.03 160.26
616.12 251.10 251.65 239.16 227.56 227.79
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
1,676.2 1,726.1 1,777.6 1,862.8 1,885.5 1,961.6
331.5 307.2 236.0 265.1 221.5 223.1
31.9 29.6 26.9 25.5 22.3 20.5
269.2 256.5 301.6 311.2 321.2 331.6
70.1 65.1 65.6 62.0 38.5 38.9
305.6 316.6 369.6 318.6 393.9 606.7
2,666.5 2,698.9 2,753.1 2,805.2 2,882.9 2,962.6
20.6 21.0 23.0 23.7 26.6 25.2
11.5 11.8 13.9 16.6 16.8 15.3
130.60 128.52 119.70 118.36 118.15 117.56
231.70 228.72 198.06 196.81 196.79 193.62

(All Figures in 000's Except Revenues Per Capita)
Fiscal Years: 1983 1984 1985
1. Increase in Capped Revenues 515.8 534.5 552.0
2. Increase in Basic CCRT 442.3 459.1 477.3
3. Increase in Liquor/Cigarette Tax 212.3 193.1 175.5
11. Increase in License/Permit Fees 302.1 279.6 281.5
5. Increase in Gas Tax 26.7 24.9 22.5
6. Increase in Service Charges 53.8 55.7 57.6
7. Increase in Gaming License Fees 6.6 6.4 5.8
8. Increase in Misc. Revenues 88.9 92.0 95.2
9. Total Increase 1,648.5 1,645.3 1,667.4
10. Increase in Population 5.4 5.6 5.8
1 1. Incremental Revenue Per Additional Person 305.27 293.80 287.48
Fiscal Years: 1992 1993 1994
1. Increase in Capped Revenues 461.5 471.0 480.8
2. Increase in Basic CCRT 524.9 540.4 557.7
3. Increase in Liquor/Cigarette Tax 81.6 74.8 68.5
4. Increase in Lic./Permit Fees 140.4 128.2 127.8
5. Increase in Gas Tax 12.9 11.7 10.6
6. Increase in Service Charges 46.4 47.5 48.5
7. Increase in Gaming Lie. Fees 22.9 23.5 23.5
8. Increase in Misc. Revenues 76.4 78.4 80.1
9. Total Increase 1,367.0 1,375.5 1,397.5
10. Increase in Population 4.7 4.8 4.9
1 I. Incremental Revenue Per Additional Person 290.85 286.56 285.20
1986 1987 1988
570.2 447.7 459.8
495.1 575.0 596.3
159.8 150.8 139.0
256.4 181.2 180.4
19.8 14.5 12.7
59.6 46.7 48.1
3.9 3.5 2.6
98.4 77.2 79.4
1,663.2 1,496.6 1,518.3
6.0 4.7 4.9
277.20 318.42 309.86
1995 1996 1997
490.7 503.2 454.1
574.2 592.2 527.9
62.7 57.4 53.3
115.2 106.5 83.1
9.3 8.8 4.0
49.6 50.7 47.8
22.3 24.8 1.2
81.9 83.7 79.0
1,405.9 1,427.3 1,250.4
5.0 5.1 4.8
281.18 279.86 260.50
1989 1990 1991
486.8 570.6 542.2
587.7 614.3 629.7
128.7 118.8 109.8
170.0 245.9 193.4
11.7 36.7 19.6
51.1 52.4 53.8
2.0 39.4 17.3
84.3 86.6 88.8
1,522.3 1,764.2 1,654.6
5.2 5.3 5.4
292.75 332.87 306.40
1998 1999 2000
464.9 473.5 484.8
542.3 555.3 570.2
48.9 44.8 41.0
76.1 69.3 69.6
3.8 3.5 3.2
48.8 49.8 50.8
1.9 1.9 2.5
80.6 82.2 84.0
1,267.3 1,280.3 1,305.7
4.9 5.0 5.1
258.63 256.08 256.02

(All Figures in 000's Except Revenues Per Capita)
Fiscal Years: 1983 198*t 1985
1. Increase in Capped Revenues 27.5 26.0 27.2
2. Increase in Basic CCRT 110.7 112.7 115.8
3. Increase in Liquor/Cigarette Tax 53.2 67.6 62.6
6. Increase in License/Permit Fees 30.8 33.9 26.6
5. Increase in Gas Tax 2.5 3.0 2.0
6. Increase in Service Charges 18.7 17.1 18.6
7. Increase in Gaming License Fees 2.1 3.7 1.8
8. Increase in Misc. Revenues 21.1 19.6 20.8
9. Total Increase 266.6 263.2 255.2
10. Increase in Population .818 .752 .806
1 1. Incremental Revenue Per Additional Person 325.92 350.00 316.63
Fiscal Years: 1992 1993 1996
1. Increase in Capped Revenues 32.2 33.5 33.7
2. Increase in Basic CCRT 121.6 126.5 128.0
3. Increase in Liquor/Cigarette Tax 18.9 17.2 15.7
6. Increase in Lic./Permit Fees 18.6 20.6 31.0
5. Increase in Gas Tax 1.3 1.3 l.l
6. Increase in Service Charges 21.7 22.1 22.5
7. Increase in Gaming Lie. Fees 1.5 2.2 1.7
8. Increase in Misc. Revenues 26.5 25.0 25.6
9. Total Increase 239.9 266.6 259.1
10. Increase in Population .950 .968 .985
11. Incremental Revenue Per Additional Person 252.53 256.55 263.05
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
28.3 28.2 29.3 29.7 30.2 31.5
118.6 137.0 161.6 137.8 163.3 166.1
38.2 35.9 32.9 30.2 27.7 25.5
31.2 21.8 27.8 25.1 22.6 27.2
2.6 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.6
18.7 19.0 19.6 19.7 20.1 20.5
3.3 1.5 2.8 2.5 2.3 3.3
20.6 21.2 21.9 22.3 22.6 23.2
261.1 266.2 277.5 269.1 270.2 278.9
.821 .835 .850 .865 .881 .898
318.03 318.80 326.67 311.10 306.70 310.58
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
36.8 36.6 35.9 35.2 36.2 37.5
131.6 135.0 120.9 123.7 126.6 129.5
16.6 13.1 12.2 11.2 10.2 9.3
16.9 13.5 16.3 9.6 9.7 12.0
0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6
22.9 23.3 23.8 26.2 26.6 25.1
1.2 1.0 1.7 0.3 0.5 l.l
25.9 26.6 26.9 27.6 27.9 28.6
266.6 267.7 238.5 232.0 236.0 263.5
1.006 1.023 1.062 1.061 1.081 1.101
265.62 262.13 228.87 218.66 218.32 221.16

(All Figures in 000's Except Revenues Per Capita)
Fiscal Years: 1983 1984 1985
1. Increase in Capped Revenues 138.4 149.8 163.4
2. Increase in Basic CCRT 73.6 80.8 89.5
3. Increase in Liquor/Cigarette Tax 35.3 34.0 32.9
4. Increase in License/Permit Fees 120.5 123.0 127.0
5. Increase in Gas Tax 11.3 12.3 11.2
6. Increase in Service Charges 30.8 36.3 39.8
7. Increase in Gaming License Fees 9.8 13.1 10.7
8. Increase in Misc. Revenues 47.6 56.2 61.5
9. Total Increase 467.3 505.5 536.0
10. Increase in Population 2.5 2.8 3.0
II. Incremental Revenue Per Additional Person 184.70 182.36 176.60
Fiscal Years: 1992 1993 1994
1. Increase in Capped Revenues 121.5 126.7 132.1
2. Increase in Basic CCRT 127.8 134.5 141.8
3. Increase in Liquor/Cigarette Tax 19.9 18.6 17.4
4. Increase in Lie./Permit Fees 53.2 50.7 51.4
5. Increase in Gas Tax 4.0 3.8 3.5
6. Increase in Service Charges 29.4 30.7 32.0
7. Increase in Gaming Lie. Fees 5.8 6.2 6.1
8. Increase in Misc. Revenues 45.5 47.5 49.5
9. Total Increase 407.1 418.7 433.8
10. Increase in Population 2.2 2.3 2.4
11. Incremental Revenue Per Additional Person 181.26 178.86 177.57
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
179.7 196.9 215.6 108.8 III.7 117.0
98.4 121.4 135.0 135.1 144.2 150.0
31.8 31.8 31.5 29.6 27.9 26.2
128.3 126.4 133.7 70.0 54.9 59.5
11.4 11.2 10.9 6.2 4.6 4.6
43.6 47.8 52.3 26.0 27.1 28.3
13.3 13.6 13.3 13.4 5.3 7.8
67.4 73.9 80.9 40.2 41.9 43.8
582.8 623.0 673.2 429.3 417.6 437.2
3.3 3.6 4.0 2.0 2.1 2.2
175.38 170.97 168.64 216.49 201.93 202.50
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
139.1 152.7 150.0 156.0 163.4 171.6
149.1 156.1 143.1 150.0 156.9 164.6
16.3 15.1 14.4 13.5 12.7 11.8
51.5 45.1 43.5 41.3 38.3 41.5
3.6 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.3
33.4 34.8 36.4 38.0 39.6 41.3
8.1 5.7 4.0 4.2 3.8 5.6
51.7 53.9 56.3 58.7 61.3 63.9
452.8 466.9 451.1 465.3 479.7 503.6
2.5 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1
177.64 175.66 162.50 161.62 158.74 159.77
82 -

(All Figures in 000's Except Revenues Per Capita)
Fiscal Years: 1983 1984 1985
1. Increase in Capped Revenues 18.1 18.4 19.5
2. Increase in Basic CCRT 25.4 26.5 27.7
3. Increase in Liquor/Cigarette Tax 12.2 II.1 10.2
4. Increase in License/Permit Fees 5.6 4.2 6.0
5. Increase in Gas Tax 3.1 1.8 3.1
6. Increase in Service Charges 9.4 9.6 9.9
7 Increase in Misc. Revenues 5.0 5.2 5.3
8. Total Increase 78.8 76.8 81.7
9. Increase in Population .266 .273 .282
11. Incremental Revenue Per Additional Person 296.24 281.32 289.72
Fiscal Years: 1992 1993 1994
1. Increase in Capped Revenues 19.3 19.4 20.2
2. Increase in Basic CCRT 29.7 30.7 31.8
3. Increase in Liquor/Cigarette Tax 4.6 4.3 3.9
4. Increase in Lic./Permit Fees 3.0 2.0 2.7
5. Increase in Gas Tax 1.3 0.6 1.0
6. Increase in Service Charges 9.8 10.0 10.2
7. Increase in Misc. Revenues 5.3 5.4 5.5
8. Total Increase 73.0 72.4 75.3
9. Increase in Population .278 .283 .291
10. Incremental Revenue Per Additional Person 262.59 255.80 258.80
1986 1987 1988
19.9 22.2 22.9
28.1 33.0 34.4
9.1 8.6 8.0
5.0 4.5 4.4
2.5 2.0 1.8
10.2 11.5 11.8
5.5 6.2 6.4
80.3 88.0 89.7
.291 .327 .337
275.95 269.11 266.17
1995 1996 1997
20.5 21.2 30.0
32.8 34.0 30.4
3.6 3.3 3.1
2.7 2.6 2.6
0.9 0.9 0.7
10.4 10.7 15.4
5.6 5.8 8.3
76.5 78.5 90.5
.296 U7 Q .C* .438
258.45 258.22 206.62
1989 1990 1991
17.6 18.1 18.5
34.0 35.6 35.6
7.4 6.9 6.2
4.0 3.3 3.5
2.0 1.6 1.6
8.9 9.1 9.3
4.8 4.9 5.0
78.7 79.5 79.7
.253 .260 .264
311.07 305.77 301.89
1998 1999 2000
31.4 32.1 32.8
31.4 33.1 34.2
2.8 2.7 2.5
3.0 2.4 1.9
0.8 0.6 0.4
16.0 16.5 16.9
8.6 8.9 9.1
94.0 96.3 97.8
.454 .468 .482
207.05 205.77 202.90
- 83 -

(All figures in 000s)
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
A. General Government:
General Government 854.7 883.6 912.5 935.6 1,299.4 1,357.1 1,264.7 1,310.9 1,357.1
Other General Expenses 99.6 99.6 97.9 97.9 216.4 223.3 223.3 233.6 242.6
Admin. Building Space 13.7 14.1 14.3 14.9 20.4 21.2 19.5 20.4 21.2
Total 968.0 997.3 1,024.7 1,048.4 1,536.2 1,601.6 1,507.5 1,564.9 1,620.9
B. Public Safety: Police 570.6 570.6 560.6 560.6 1,239.5 1,278.6 1,278.3 1,338.4 1,386.9
Jail 279.9 289.3 298.8 306.3 425.5 444.4 414.1 429.3 444.4
Fire 174.4 174.4 174.4 174.4 376.2 389.9 389.9 407.0 420.6
Building Inspection 417.6 417.6 410.4 410.4 907.2 936.0 936.0 979.2 1,015.2
Other 42.5 43.7 44.1 45.3 72.0 74.8 71.3 74.1 76.8
Total 1,485.0 1,495.6 1,488.3 1,497.0 3,020.4 3,123.7 2,789.6 3,228.0 3,343.9
C. Public Works:
Streets Residential 95.2 190.3 283.9 377.4 584.2 797.8 1,011.4 1,234.6 1,466.3
Streets Collector 12.5 25.1 37.1 49.1 76.2 103.9 131.5 160.8 191.1
Other 30.3 30.3 29.8 29.8 65.8 67.9 67.9 71.0 73.6
Stormwater 371.5 742.9 1,113.9 1,485.0 1,883.6 2,283.8 2,684.0 3,086.5 3,491.1
Total 509.5 988.6 1,464.7 1,941.3 2,609.8 3,253.4 3,894.8 4,552.9 5,222.1
D. Parks & Recreation:
Parks 84.9 84.9 83.4 83.4 184.3 190.2 190.2 199.0 206.3
Recreation 19.3 19.3 18.9 18.9 41.9 42.1 42.1 45.1 46.8
Total 104.2 104.2 102.3 102.3 226.2 232.3 232.3 244.1 253.1
E. Human Services 580.4 600.1 619.7 635.4 882.5 921.7 858.9 890.3 921.7
TOTAL INCREASED OPERATING COSTS Per Year 3,647.1 4,185.8 4,699.7 5,224.4 8,275.1 9,132.7 9,283.1 10,480.2 11,361.7
Cumulative 3,647.1 7,832.9 12,532.6 17,757.0 26,032.1 35,164.8 44,447.9 54,928.1 66,289.8

(All figures in 000s)
1992 1993 1994 1995
OPERATING EXPENSES A. General Government:
General Government 1,114.6 1,143.5 1,178.1 1,212.8
Other General Expenses 182.1 187.2 192.4 197.5
Admin. Building Space 17.2 17.9 18.3 18.7
Total 1,313.9 1,348.6 1,388.8 1,429.0
B. Public Safety:
Police 1,042.6 1,072.1 1,096.7 1,131.2
Jail 365.0 374.4 385.8 397.1
Fire 314.6 328.3 335.1 345.5
Building Inspection 763.2 784.8 806.4 828.0
Other 61.0 62.7 64.3 66.2
Total 2,546.4 2,622.3 2,688.3 2,768.0
C. Public Works:
Streets Residential 1,640.5 1,819.6 2,003.5 2,192.2
Streets Collector 213.5 237.0 261.0 285.5
Other 55.3 56.9 58.5 60.0
Stormwater 3,881.7 4,273.5 4,666.5 5,060.7
Total 5,791.0 6,387.0 6,989.5 7,598.4
D. Parks & Recreation:
Parks 155.1 159.5 163.9 168.2
Recreation 35.2 36.2 37.1 38.1
Total 190.3 195.7 201.0 206.3
E. Human Services 756.9 776.6 800.1 823.6
TOTAL INCREASED OPERATING COSTS Per Year 10,598.5 11,329.5 12,067.7 12,825.3
Cumulative 76,888.3 88,217.8 100,285.5 113,110.8
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
1,247.4 1,357.1 1,397.6 1,443.8 1,484.2
202.7 238.8 247.4 254.2 262.8
19.3 21.2 21.8 22.5 23.1
1,469.4 1,617.1 1,666.8 1,720.5 1,770.1
1,160.6 1,367.2 1,416.6 1,455.8 1,505.0
408.5 444.4 457.6 472.8 486.0
380.9 410.5 430.9 441.2 458.2
849.6 1,000.8 1,036.8 1,065.6 1,101.6
67.8 76.7 79.1 81.4 84.1
2,835.4 3,299.6 3,421.0 3,516.8 3,634.9
2,386.1 2,614.6 2,851.1 3,094.0 3,345.3
310.3 340.3 371.1 403.0 435.9
61.6 72.6 75.2 77.3 79.9
5,456.1 5,859.9 5,917.3 5,976.4 6,037.4
8,214.1 8,887.4 9,214.7 9,550.7 9,898.5
172.6 203.4 210.7 216.5 223.8
39.1 46.1 47.8 49.1 50.8
211.7 249.5 258.5 265.6 274.6
842.7 921.7 949.1 980.5 1,008.0
13,573.3 14,975.3 15,510.1 16,034.0 16, ,586.1
126,684.1 141,659.4 157,169.5 173,203.5 189, ,789.6

(All figures in 000s)
1983 1984 1985
Admin. Building Space 489.0 504.0 511.6
Police 95.6 96.7 93.0
Jail 695.6 719.1 742.6
Fire 109.6 109.6 109.6
Streets Residential 79.0 79.0 77.7
Streets Collector 238.4 238.4 228.5
Parks 341.0 341.0 335.0
Stormwater 2,971.7 2,971.7 2,968.4
Per Year 5,019.9 5,059.5 5,066.4
Cumulative 5,019.9 10,079.4 15,145.8
CUMULATIVE 8,667.0 17,912.3 27,678.4
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
534.1 729.7 759.8 699.6 729.7 759.8
90.5 213.8 227.6 226.2 235.1 248.7
761.4 1,057.5 1,104.5 1,029.3 1,066.9 1,104.5
109.6 238.6 684.8 684.8 258.0 265.9
77.7 171.7 177.3 177.3 185.3 192.3
228.5 476.6 526.5 526.5 556.2 576.1
335.0 740.9 764.4 764.4 799.7 829.1
2,968.4 3,188.7 3,201.4 3,201.4 3,220.6 3,236.6
5,105.2 6,817.5 7,446.3 7,309.5 7,051.5 7,213.0
20,251.0 27,068.5 34,514.8 41,824.3 48,875.8 56,088.8
10,329.6 15,092.6 16,579.0 16,592.6 17,531.7 18,574.7
38,008.0 53,100.6 69,679.6 86,272.2 103,803.9 122,378.6
- 86 -

(All figures in 000s) 1992
Admin. Building Space 616.9
Police 186.3
Jail 907.1
Fire 199.6
Streets Residential 166.7
Streets Collector 627.2
Parks 623.3
Stormwater 3,126.8
Per Year 6,227.9
Cumulative 62,316.7
CUMULATIVE 139, ,205.0
1993 1996 1995
639.5 656.5 669.5
187.9 192.9 199.5
930.6 958.8 987.0
207.3 211.1 218.9
168.7 152.7 156.7
667.0 656.9 666.8
660.9 658.6 676.2
3,136.5 3,166.0 3,153.6
6,336.6 6,629.5 6,528.2
68,653.1 75,082.6 81,610.8
17,665.9 18,697.2 19,353.5
156,870.9 175,368.1 196,721.6
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
' 692.1 759.8 782.6 805.0 827.5
206.2 259.9 256.1 268.3 278.5
1,015.2 1,106.5 1,137.6 1,175.0 1,207.9
223.1 262.2 273.7 281.6 289.3
161.0 189.7 196.3 201.7 208.7
676.8 566.3 586.0 605.9 625.8
693.8 817.3 866.7 870.2 899.6
3,163.1 3,230.2 659.6 672.6 688.6
6,629.3 7,189.9 6,538.2 6,698.1 ,825.7
88,260.1 95,630.0 99,968.2 106,666.3 109, ,692.0
20,202.6 22,165.2 20,068.3 20,732.1 21,611.8
216,926.2 237,089.6 257,137.7 277,869.8 299,281.6

(All figures in 000s)
1983 198a 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
OPERATING EXPENSES A. General Government:
General Government 28^1. a 295.0 305.5 316.0 267.5 258.1 273.9 279.2 2sa.a
Other General Expenses 112.9 117.1 121.3 125.5 98.3 102.5 108.7 110.8 112.9
Admin. Building Space 11.0 11.5 11.7 12.2 9.6 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0
Total a08.3 a23.6 638.5 653.7 355.a 370.7 393.1 aoo.8 a08.3
B. Public Safety:
Police 55a. 3 587. a 613.3 655.a 669.9 a6l.8 522.6 518.3 515.8
Jail 11.3 11.7 12.1 12.5 9.8 10.2 10.9 II.1 11.3
Fire 133.8 138.6 ia3.3 las.i 119.a 12a.2 129.0 133.8 133.8
Building Inspection 589.9 627.3 608.6 533.8 672.9 a26.l ai2.l 3,92a.3 1,908.7
Total 1,289.3 1,365.0 1,377.3 1,369.8 1,072.0 1,022.3 1,07a.6 a,587.5 2,569.6
C. Public Works:
Streets Residential 115.2 23a. 3 357.9 ass. a 585. a 689.9 800.6 913.6 1,028.8
Streets Collector 30.8 62.5 96.2 131.0 157.8 185.5 215.3 266.1 276.8
Stormwater 73.6 laa.o 223.2 299.2 368.8 aao.a 513.2 586. a 660.0
Other 56.6 58.7 60.8 62.9 69.3 si.a sa.5 55.6 56.6
Total 276.2 503.5 738.1 978.5 1,161.3 1,367.2 1,583.6 1,801.7 2,022.2
D. Parks & Recreation:
Parks as.5 67.2 ae.9 50.6 39.6 ai.3 63.8 aa.7 as.5
Recreation 92.7 96.0 99.5 102.9 80.6 -3* CO 89.2 90.9 92.7
Total 138.2 163.2 ias.a 153.5 120.2 125.a 133.0 135.6 138.2
TOTAL INCREASED OPERATING COSTS Per Year 2,112.0 2,635.3 2,702.3 2,935.5 2,708.9 2,885.6 3,18a.3 6,925.6 5,138.3
Cumulative 2,112.0 a,5a7.3 7,269.6 10,185.1 12,896.0 15,779.6 18,963.9 25,889.5 31,027.8
- 88-

(All figures in 000s)
1992 1993 1996 1995
OPERATING EXPENSES A. General Government:
General Government 267.5 252.8 258.1 263.6
Other General Expenses 98.3 100.6 102.5 106.6
Admin. Building Space 9.6 9.8 10.1 10.3
Total 355.6 363.0 370.7 378.3
B. Public Safety:
Police 663.0 689.6 512.3 508.7
Jail 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.5
Fire 119.5 119.5 126.2 126.2
Building Inspection 1,258.6 1,291.3 1,296.0 1,266.6
Total 1,850.9 1,910.6 1,962.7 1,888.0
C. Public Works:
Streets Residential 1,150.1 1,252.6 1,357.0 1,663.8
Streets Collector 309.6 337.3 365.1 393.9
Stormwater 730.8 803.2 873.6 961.8
Other 69.3 50.6 51.6 52.5
Total 2,239.8 2,663.3 2,667.1 2,852.0
D. Parks & Recreation:
Parks 39.6 60.5 61.3 62.2
Recreation 80.6 82.3 86.1 85.7
Total 120.2 122.8 125.6 127.9
TOTAL INCREASED OPERATING COSTS Per Year 6,566.3 6,839.5 5,085.9 5,266.2
Cumulative 35,596.1 60,633.6 65,519.5 50,765.7
268.6 252.8 258.1 263.6 268.8
106.6 100.6 102.5 106.6 106.6
10.3 9.8 10.1 10.3 10.3
385.5 363.0 370.7 378.3 385.5
526.7 339.3 621.8 389.1 613.6
10.7 10.0 10.2 10.5 10.7
129.0 119.5 126.2 126.2 129.0
1,361.5 281.1 313.9 318.6 351.3
2,027.9 769.9 870.1 862.6 906.6
1,572.2 1,676.5 1,779.0 1,885.9 1,996.2
623.7 651.5 679.2 508.0 537.8
1,016.2 1,085.6 1,105.0 1,126.9 1,165.3
53.5 50.6 51.6 52.5 53.5
3,063.6 3,261.8 3,616.6 3,571.3 3,730.8
63.0 60.5 61.3 62.2 63.0
87.6 82.3 86.1 85.7 87.6
130.6 122.8 125.6 127.9 130.6
5,607.6 6,697.5 6,780.8 6,919.9 5,151.1
56,373.1 60,870.6 65,651.6 70,751.3 75,722.6

(All figures in 000s) 1983
Admin. Building Space 346.1
Police 91.9
Jail 40.0
Fire 103.5
Streets Residential 47.3
Streets Collector 452.4
Parks 52.9
Stormwater 588.8
Per Year 1,722.9
Cumulative 1,722.9
1984 1985 1986
361.1 368.6 383.7
98.3 102.0 104.5
50.0 50.0 50.0
107.3 110.8 114.7
96.2 147.0 199.3
422.6 461.0 487.7
54.9 56.9 58.8
595.2 601.6 608.0
1,785.6 1,897.8 2,006.7
3,508.5 5,406.3 7,413.0
4,220.9 4,600.1 4,942.2
8,045.7 12,645.8 17,588.0
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
300.9 316.0 331.0 338.5 346.1
78.7 79.9 88.8 87.4 88.8
40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
92.6 96.0 100.1 103.5 103.5
240.3 283.3 328.7 375.1 422.4
399.5 423.3 460.3 485.3 497.9
46.1 48.0 51.0 52.0 52.9
556.4 572.8 582.4 585.6 588.8
1,754.4 1,859.3 1,982.2 2,067.6 2,140.4
9,167.4 11,026.7 13,008.9 15,076,5 17,216.9
4,463.3 4,744.9 5,166.5 8,993.2 7,278.7
22,051.3 26,796.2 31,962.7 40,955.9 48,234.6

(All figures in 000s) 1992
Admin. Building Space 300.9
Police 78.2
Jail 60.0
Fire 92.6
Streets Residential 672.2
Streets Collector 536.2
Parks 66.1
Stormwater 566.6
Per Year 2,132.5
Cumulative 19,369.6
1993 1996 1995
308.6 316.0 323.5
82.1 86.6 85.5
60.0 60.0 60.0
92.6 96.0 96.0
516.2 557.1 601.1
685.6 697.0 521.2
67.1 68.0 69.0
569.6 572.8 576.1
2,139.5 2,211.5 2,292.3
21,688.9 23,700.6 25,992.7
6,979.0 7,270.6 7,538.5
61,912.6 69,182.8 76,721.3
- 91
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
323.5 308.6 316.0 323.5 323.5
88.3 62.6 73.9 69.2 76.0
60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
100.1 92.6 96.0 96.0 100.1
665.5 687.5 730.6 776.2 818.7
565.8 532.6 563.8 568.1 592.7
50.0 67.1 68.0 69.0 50.0
579.2 569.6 156.6 159.7 162.8
2,372.6 28,365.1 2,360.1 30,705.2 2,006.5 32,709.7 2,079.7 36,789.6 2,161.8 36,951.2
7,979.8 86,701.1 6,837.6 91,538.7 6,785.3 98,326.0 6,999.6 105,323.6 7,312.9 112,636.5

(All figures in 000s)
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
OPERATING EXPENSES A. General Government:
General Government 45.0 41.2 44.5 45.0 46.1 46.7 47.8 48.3 49.4
Other General Expenses 6.2 5.7 6.2 6.2 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.8
Admin. Building Space 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7
Total 56.2 51.9 55.7 56.2 58.2 58.9 60.1 60.7 61.9
B. Public Safety:
Police 89.0 82.7 86.9 90.2 91.2 93.4 95.6 96.7 100.0
Jail 6.7 6.1 6.5 6.7 6.9 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.4
Fire 20.8 17.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7
Building Inspection 107.5 153.5 106.1 158.3 108.9 160.4 161.8 162.5 214.7
Total 224.0 260.0 221.2 276.9 228.7 282.4 286.2 288.1 343.8
C. Public Works:
Streets Residential 20.6 39.6 59.8 80.4 101.4 122.9 144.8 167.1 189.8
Streets Collector 2.7 4.9 7.7 10.4 13.1 15.9 18.6 21.3 24.1
Stormwater 61.8 123.3 184.9 246.7 308.5 370.4 432.4 494.9 556.5
Other 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5
Total 87.2 170.2 254.6 339.8 425.4 511.6 598.3 685.8 772.9
D. Parks & Recreation:
Parks 10.5 9.8 10.3 10.5 10.8 II.1 11.3 11.3 11.6
Recreation 11.6 10.6 11.4 11.6 11.9 12.1 12.4 12.5 12.8
Total 22.1 20.4 21.7 22.1 22.7 23.2 23.7 23.8 24.4
TOTAL INCREASED OPERATING COSTS Per Year 389.5 502.5 553.2 695.0 735.0 876.1 968.3 1,058.4 1,203.0
Cumulative 389.5 892.0 1,445.2 2,140.2 2,875.2 3,751.3 4,719.6 5,778.0 6,981.0
- 92 -

(All figures in 000s)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
OPERATING EXPENSES A. General Government:
General Government 52.2 53.3 54.4 55.0 55.0 55.0 60.4 60.4 60.4
Other General Expenses 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.6 8.4 8.4 8.4
Admin. Building Space 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.9 6.9 6.9
Total 65.7 67.0 68.2 68.9 68.9 68.9 75.7 75.7 75.7
B. Public Safety:
Police 103.6 106.9 108.4 108.9 108.9 110.1 118.5 119.1 120.2
Jail 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.0 9.0 9.0
Fire 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.9 24.9 24.9 30.8 30.8 30.8
Building Inspection 141.9 194.1 170.1 145.4 145.4 196.2 101.5 126.9 177.7
Total 278.1 333.7 668.9 287.4 287.4 339.4 259.8 285.8 337.7
C. Public Works:
Streets Residential 213.8 238.2 263.0 288.2 313.5 338.7 366.5 394.3 422.1
Streets Collector 27.4 30.6 33.9 37.2 40.5 43.8 47.0 50.3 53.6
Stormwater 618.7 681.1 743.5 806.0 868.5 931.0 934.4 939.8 944.2
Other 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.2
Total 859.9 952.6 1,043.2 1,134.3 1,225.4 1,316.4 1,350.8 1,387.6 1,423.1
D. Parks 5. Recreation:
Parks 12.4 12.6 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 14.2 14.2
Recreation 13.5 13.8 14.1 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 15.6 15.6
Total 25.9 26.4 27.0 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 29.8 29.8
TOTAL INCREASED OPERATING COSTS Per Year 1,229.6 1,379.7 1,807.3 1,517.7 1,608.8 1,751.8 1,713.4 1,778.9 1,866.3
Cumulative 8,210.6 9,590.3 11,397.6 12,915.3 14,524.1 16,275.9 17,989.3 19,768.2 21,634.5
- 93-

(All figures in 000s) 1983
Admin. Building Space 60.0
Police -
Jail 10.0
Fire 31.5
Streets Residential 16.3
Streets Collector 64.2
Parks 40.2
Stormwater 494.1
Per Year 716.3
Cumulative 716.3
1984 1985 1986
60.0 60.0 60.0
10.0 10.0 10.0
26.2 31.5 31.5
31.3 47.3 63.7
53.9 68.1 70.2
37.3 39.2 40.2
491.9 493.4 494.1
710.5 749.5 769.7
426.9 2,176.4 2,946.1
1,213.1 1,302.7 1,464.7
2,318.9 3,621.6 5,086.3
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5 67.5
- 28.5 29.3 29.3 30.0
10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5
80.3 97.3 114.7 132.3 150.3
72.4 74.6 76.7 78.9 81.1
41.2 51.9 63.0 74.3 85.6
494.7 495.0 495.7 496.0 496.7
797.6 856.3 888.4 919.8 952.7
3,743.7 4,600.0 5,488.4 6,408.2 7,360.7
1,532.6 1,732.4 1,856.7 1,978.2 2,155.7
6,618.9 8,351.3 10,208.0 12,186.2 14,341.9

(All figures in 000s)
1992 1993 1996 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Admin. Building Space 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 82.5 82.5 82.5
Police 31.5 32.3 33.0 33.8 33.8 33.8 37.5 37.5 37.5
Jail 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Fire 36.7 36.7 36.7 36.7 36.7 36.7 62.0 62.0 62.0
Streets Residential 169.3 188.7 208.3 228.3 268.3 268.3 290.3 312.3 336.3
Streets Collector 96.1 98.7 101.3 103.9 106.5 109.1 III.7 116.3 116.9
Parks 97.2 62.1 68.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 69.0 53.9 53.9
Stormwater 698.2 698.9 699.5 699.8 699.8 699.8 35.2 35.2 35.2
Per Year 1,016.0 982.6 1,011.8 1,036.5 1,059.1 1,081.7 658.2 687.7 712.3
Cumulative 8,376.9 9,357.3 10,369.1 11,605.6 12,666.7 13,566.6 16,206.6 16,892.3 15,606.6
TOTAL OPERATING & CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 2,263.6 2,362.1 2,819.1 2,556.2 2,667.9 2,833.5 2,371.6 2,666.6 2,578.6
CUMULATIVE 16,585.5 18,967.6 21,1766.7 26,320.9 26,988.8 29,822.3 32,193.9 36,660.5 37,239.1
- 95-

(All figures in 000s)
1983 1986 1985 1986
OPERATING EXPENSES A. General Government:
General Government 175.2 196.2 210.2 231.3
Other General Expenses 9.3 10.6 II.1 12.2
Admin. Building Space 26.2 27.8 29.0 32.6
Total 208.7 236.6 250.3 276.1
B. Public Safety:
Police 189.7 216.3 229.0 252.5
Jail 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1
Fire 116.9 116.9 116.9 185.6
Building Inspection 119.7 157.1 166.7 -3* 00
Total 627.9 690.1 696.5 626.1
C. Public Works:
Streets Residential 57.6 121.8 190.6 266.3
Streets Collector 6.7 16.3 22.3 30.8
Stormwater 83.2 167.5 252.7 339.1
Other 32.8 36.7 39.3 63.2
Total 180.1 360.3 506.9 679.6
D. Parks & Recreation:
Parks 60.3 65.1 68.6 53.2
Recreation 36.2 38.3 61.0 65.1
Total 76.5 83.6 89.6 98.3
TOTAL INCREASED OPERATING COSTS Per Year 891.6 1,168.2 1,339.1 1,677.9
Cumulative 891.6 2,039.6 3,378.7 5,056.6
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
252.3 280.3 160.2 167.2 156.2
13.6 16.8 7.6 7.8 8.2
35.0 38.7 19.3 20.5 21.7
300.7 333.8 166.9 175.5 186.1
275.6 305.9 155.0 160.5 168.9
2.3 2.5 1.3 1.3 1.6
185.6 185.6 116.9 116.9 116.9
206.6 215.8 183.8 110.3 163.0
669.7 709.6 657.0 389.0 630.2
368.8 660.7 686.8 536.9 585.9
60.2 50.9 56.3 61.7 67.5
626.6 515.8 597.0 678.6 760.5
67.2 52.6 26.2 27.5 28.8
862.8 1,059.8 1,166.3 1,302.7 1,662.7
58.0 66.5 32.2 32.2 35.5
69.2 56.7 27.6 27.6 30.0
107.2 119.2 59.6 59.6 65.5
1,960.6 2,222.6 1,869.8 1,926.8 2,122.5
6,997.0 9,219.6 11,069.2 12,996.0 15,118.5