Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Outside counsel says RDA can fund limited public‑safety measures but not ongoing police salaries
Summary
Outside counsel told the advisory board that Nevada redevelopment law focuses RDA powers on physical redevelopment and that spending RDA tax‑increment funds on police salaries is legally risky; narrow, project‑tied policing or environmental‑design measures are more likely to be allowable.
Outside counsel Rory Robinson told the Redevelopment Advisory Board on March 4 that Nevada’s Community Redevelopment Law narrowly frames redevelopment agencies’ powers around physical improvements and blight remediation, and that using tax‑increment funds to pay police salaries would be “two steps removed” from those statutory powers.
Robinson reviewed Chapters 279 and 268 of Nevada law and said the statute expressly authorizes activities such as planning, acquisition, demolition and construction in redevelopment areas. He said that some public‑safety spending—like crime‑prevention through environmental design (lighting, alley improvements, camera infrastructure) or short‑term security tied directly to a redevelopment project—could be defensible because it supports a property‑focused redevelopment purpose. “There could be some expenditure of funds…based on the nexus between the agency’s expressly enumerated powers and the need to have these policing activities take place,” he said.
But he warned that funding ongoing police positions or a standalone police force would likely exceed the agency’s statutory authority. “I would exercise great caution in any type of proposal involving directly funding the police,” Robinson said, adding that such funding should be limited in scope, duration and tied to a specific redevelopment activity.
Board members pushed for examples and operational detail. Members asked whether the RDA could pay for added patrols during a demolition, finance a police substation, or reimburse heightened patrols during a festival. Robinson repeatedly emphasized case‑by‑case analysis and the need for clear nexus findings that tie any public‑safety expense to an RDA project. He noted that the farther a proposal departs from the agency’s physical‑improvement mission, the shakier the statutory support.
Several board members and staff said they want options rather than a blunt prohibition: lighting upgrades, cameras, short‑term contracted security, or a police substation were discussed as possible, limited uses. The board also discussed seeking legislative clarification or an Attorney General opinion if it hopes to expand RDA use for public‑safety purposes beyond narrow, project‑specific measures.
Next steps: staff will bring the legal briefing and related questions to the redevelopment agency on March 25. Robinson recommended narrowly tailored proposals with documented nexus to redevelopment projects and, where broader authority is desired, pursuing legislative clarification or a formal AG opinion.
