In a word, no! As elsewhere explained, “In a nonexchange transaction, a government gives (or receives) value without directly receiving (or giving) equal value in return. This is different from an exchange transaction, in which each party receives and gives … Continue reading →
As we’ve elsewhere discussed, the District not only has the power to levy an ad valorem tax against all non-exempt parcels within its boundaries, but it actually takes advantage of this power. However, there are explicit monetary limits on the … Continue reading →
In a word, no! Given “the Nevada Constitution is The ‘Supreme Law of The State which `control[s] over any conflicting statutory provisions,’” “it is fundamental to our federal, constitutional system of government that a State legislature (or here a limited … Continue reading →
In a word, yes! Preface: Before we begin, we suggest the reader familiarize him/herself with the District’s Fund Structure. For purposes of this discussion we feel the reader needs understand the District’s Community Services and Beach Funds. So with that … Continue reading →
Because the RFF/BFF do not satisfy the minimum requisites for a legitimate “fee,” as we’ve elsewhere demonstrated, they do not qualify as “annexation charges.” Nevertheless, let’s assume arguendo the RFF/BFF can be “fees.” As we’ve elsewhere documented, according to staff … Continue reading →
For the reasons which follow, the answer is no! What is a “Special Assessment?” Since this subject is thoroughly examined at our What is a Special Assessment web page, rather than repeating ourselves, we simply refer the reader to this discussion. Listen … Continue reading →
Because the RFF/BFF do not satisfy the minimum requisites for a legitimate “fee,” as we’ve elsewhere demonstrated, they do not qualify as “rates, tolls or charges…for services or facilities furnished by the district.” Nevertheless, let’s assume arguendo the RFF/BFF can … Continue reading →
Because the RFF/BFF do not satisfy the minimum requisites for a legitimate “fee,” as we’ve elsewhere demonstrated, they do not qualify as “service charges.” Nevertheless, let’s assume arguendo the RFF/BFF can be “fees.” Here we address whether they can be … Continue reading →
Because the RFF/BFF do not satisfy the minimum requisites for a legitimate “fee,” as we’ve elsewhere demonstrated, they do not qualify as “charges for the availability of service.” Nevertheless, let’s assume arguendo the RFF/BFF can be “fees.” Here we address … Continue reading →
Because the RFF/BFF do not satisfy the minimum requisites for a legitimate “fee,” as we’ve elsewhere demonstrated, they do not qualify as “charges for the availability of” facilities. Nevertheless, let’s assume arguendo the RFF/BFF can be “fees.” As we’ve elsewhere … Continue reading →