Historically, under Nevada law, the exercise of powers by the governing bodies of a county, incorporated city and other local governments (like GIDs) have been governed by the common-law rule on local governmental power known as Dillon’s Rule. Dillion’s Rule “(wa)s named after former Chief Justice John F. Dillon of the Iowa Supreme Court who in a case from 1868, and in later treatises on the law governing local governments, (he) set forth the common-law rule defining and limiting the powers of local governments.”¹ “In Nevada’s jurisprudence, the Nevada Supreme Court has adopted and applied Dillon’s Rule to county, city² and other local governments” [like general improvement districts³ (“GIDs”)]. Moreover, insofar as “any local governing body other than a board of county commissioners” and a city council are concerned (i.e., GIDs), “the provisions of NRS 244.137 (or NRS 268.001)…must not be interpreted to modify Dillon’s Rule“⁴. So in construing the facilities, services and powers all GIDs are authorized to furnish and exercise, under NRS 318 as well as other NRS provisions, we must first understand Dillon’s Rule.

Dillon’s Rule: “provides that (a)…governing body…possesses and may exercise only the following powers and no others: (a) those…granted in express terms by the Nevada Constitution, statute or…charter; (b) those…necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted⁵; and, (c) those…(absolutely) essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the (local governing body at issue) and not merely convenient but indispensable.”⁶ And “if there (be) any fair or reasonable doubt concerning the existence of a power, that doubt is (to be) resolved against the governing body…and the power (be) denied.”⁷

Nevada is One of Forty (40) “Dillon’s Rule“ States: The Nevada League of Cities identifies thirty-one (31) “Dillon’s Rule states…and (nine) 9 states (that) have (adopted) Dillon’s Rule only for certain types of municipalities.”⁸ To cement the case Dillon’s Rule is the mainstay in Nevada, one need only recognize it has been formally embodied into the NRS⁹.

How We Interpret Dillon’s Rule: Because in Nevada Dillon’s Rule is declared in the NRS⁴, “the preeminent canon of statutory interpretation requires us to presume…(that the) Legislature says…what it means and means…what it says(. Thus where as here)…the text is unambiguous…our inquiry begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well.“¹⁰ Given we must presume that the provisions of NRS 318 are clear and unambiguous, they are to be “enforce(d)…as written”¹¹ Thus when it comes to statutory construction insofar as a local government’s powers are concerned, Nevada offers no “wiggle room” because it has adopted Dillon’s Rule!

Thus, Those Statutes Which Provide Such Authority Must Be “Strictly Construed And Limited:”¹² Because GIDs are public agencies endowed with only such attributes of a municipality as may be deemed necessary¹³ for the performance of their limited objectives¹⁴.

Conclusion: So there you go! Whenever there is a question as to whether IVGID may acquire or furnish a particular facility or service, or exercise a power pertaining thereto, the question that must be asked is whether it adheres to Dillon’s Rule? And if there be “any fair or reasonable doubt…(it) is (to be) resolved against (IVGID)…and the power (be) denied.”⁶

So now you know!

1. See NRS 244.137(1) and 268.001(1).
2. See Tucker v. Mayor and Bd. of Alderman, 4 Nev. 20, 26 (1868); State ex rel. Rosenstock v. Swift, 11 Nev. 128 (1876)]; NRS 244.137(2); and, NRS 268.001(2).
3. Although the Rule has been expressly applied to county, city and other types of local government(s) [see Waltz v. Ormsby County, 1 Nev. 370, 376-377 (1865)] across the State, we don’t have a reported case which declares the Rule is applicable to GIDs. “The absence of cases involving special districts…most probably…stems from the fact (they)…are created to carry out relatively narrow, statutorily specified (i.e., limited) purposes with the method of financing those activities also prescribed by the underlying statute(s). This is far different from the situation Nevada cities and counties face: an increasing myriad of functions imposed by the state or federal governments, with a taxing regime almost fully centralized and controlled by the state government” [go to https://www.nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/NevLawyer_June_2013_Dillon’s_Rule.pdf. Also, see NRS 244.137(3)].
4. See NRS 244.137(7)(a) and NRS 268.001(7)(a).
5. NRS 318.210 is the statutory embodiment of this portion of Dillon’s Rule: a GID “board shall have and exercise all rights and powers necessary or incidental to or implied from the specific powers granted in this chapter.”
6. See NRS 244.137(3) and 268.001(3).
7. See NRS 244.137(4) and 268.001(4).
8. See page 5 of A Discussion of Home Rule in Nevada, Committee to Study Powers Delegated to Local Governments (February 18, 2010).
9. See NRS 244.137(2) and 268.001(2) which both instruct that “in Nevada’s jurisprudence, the Nevada Supreme Court has adopted and applied Dillon’s Rule to county, city and other local governments.”
10. See McDonald v. Sun Oil. Co., 548 F.3d 774, 780 (9th Cir. 2008).
11. See In re George J., 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 32, 279 P.3d 187, 190 (2012).
12. “To those expressly provided by the Legislature and no others” [see A.G.O. No. 63-61, p. 102, at p. 103 (August 12, 1963)].
13. GIDs are not true municipalities. Rather, they are “quasi-municipal” corporations. Hence their characterization as “quasi-municipal.”
14. See City of Aurora v. Aurora Sanitation Dist., 112 Colo. 406, 411, 149 P.2d 662, 664 (1944); Goodwin v. Thieman, 74 P.3d 526, 528 (Colo. App. 2003).