Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Tax Henderson topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clark County panel approves resolution to let Henderson seek voter renewal of 12¢ parks tax
Summary
The commission voted to adopt a resolution allowing the City of Henderson to place a June 2026 ballot question that would continue an existing 12¢ property tax dedicated to parks and recreation; staff said the levy generates about $20 million a year and would expire June 30, 2027 if not renewed.
The Clark County Debt Management Commission on a voice vote approved a resolution authorizing the chair to forward a proposal from the City of Henderson that would let voters renew a 12¢ property tax rate dedicated to parks and recreation.
The resolution permits the city to place the measure on the June 2026 ballot. Andy Artuso, municipal adviser with Zions Public Finance, told the commission, “This tax was originally enacted and approved by the voters back in 1997, and it's scheduled to expire 06/30/2027. So we want to get ahead of that expiration date and go to the voters in June 2026.”
The vote is the first formal step the city must take before it can present the levy to voters. “This particular tax generates about $20,000,000 a year for the City of Henderson which constitutes over a third of their park and recreation budget,” Artuso said, and the commission approved the resolution after brief questions and comments.
Why it matters: Commission members asked whether continuing the levy would change taxpayers' overall burdens. Artuso said the city’s current combined tax rate (about $2.96 per $100 of assessed value) leaves roughly 70¢ of capacity under the statutory cap; he warned that if the dedicated rate were allowed to lapse and later be reinstated it could be subject to the property tax cap, reducing potential revenue.
Commissioners also clarified how the funds may be used. According to the presentation, the 12¢ rate is intended for operating and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities; it is not earmarked for capital projects or to service debt. A commissioner summarized the point: “I think it's important to note that this does not raise or lower taxes,” during the discussion about continuity of the allocation.
The formal motion to approve the resolution was offered by Mr. Shaw and seconded by Councilman Stewart; the commission voted in favor and the motion “carries.” No public commenters spoke on the item during the meeting.
Discussion versus decision: The transcript shows factual briefing and clarifying questions (discussion) and a formal commission motion and vote to adopt and forward the resolution (decision). The action does not itself change the tax rate; it authorizes the city to place a renewal question before voters for consideration in June 2026.
What was not said or decided: The commission did not approve any change to the rate, nor did it appropriate funds. The transcript does not record a fiscal analysis beyond the $20 million-per-year figure, nor does it include final ballot language or an assurance of election outcome.
Looking ahead: If the city proceeds, the next steps will be placement of the question on the June 2026 ballot and subsequent voter action; the levy, if not renewed, will expire June 30, 2027 as noted in the briefing.
