Operating The Public’s Recreation Facilities And The Services Offered Thereat as if They Were Commercial, “For Profit,” Business Enterprises

The law is clear that no Nevada political subdivision can engage in a “for profit” enterprise1. That’s because public funds cannot be spent for private purposes2.

“It is a fundamental constitutional limitation upon the powers of government that activities engaged in by the state must have primarily a public rather than a private purpose. A public purpose is an activity that serves to benefit the community as a whole and which is directly related to the functions of government [see Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 184, 89 N.W.2d 635, 643 (1958). The term “is not capable of a precise definition, but the courts generally construe it to mean such an activity as will serve as a benefit to the community as a body and which, at the same time, is directly related to the functions of government.” The term “is based upon the activity as a whole, and must demonstrate ‘a predominance of public purpose (or a) close relationship to the public welfare'” (see City of Corbin v. Kentucky Utilities Company, 447 S.W.2d 356, 359 (Ky. 1969)].”3

  1. See page 5 of A.G.O. 2013-07 (September 23, 2013).(
  2. See State ex rel. Brennan v. Bowman, 89 Nev. 330, 332, 512 P.2d 1321, 1322 (1973); NRS 318.015(2).
  3. See Idaho Water Res. Bd. v. Kramer, 97 Idaho 535, 559, 548 P.2d 35, 59 (1976).