Clark County - File #: 21-650

• File #: 21-650
• Status: Agenda Ready
• File created: 4/26/2021
• In control: Clark County Board of Commissioners
• On agenda: 5/4/2021
• Title: Discuss the Clark County Redevelopment Agency and direct staff accordingly. (For possible action)

Date	Action By	Action	Result
5/4/2021	Clark County Board of Commissioners	No Action Taken by the Board; Agenda note: DISCUSSION: Following introduction of the item, the Board was addressed by Shani Coleman, Director of Community and Economic Development, who advised of receiving a presentation from Applied Analysis in March regarding the feasibility of a redevelopment agency in Clark County; further advised that redevelopment is a specific type of economic development tool; discussed various types of economic development programs including tenant improvement programs (assists tenants moving into a new or old building with interior improvements or may assist with the redevelopment of a specific building), exterior improvement programs, sustainability improvement programs (interior or exterior improvements which address sustainability or environmental issues), fee waiver programs, debt relief and business loans (broad or targeted to a specific industry or geographic location), business incubators and accelerators, technical assistance, talent recruitment and development (develop a skilled and educated workforce), major projects; addressed funding options (general fund or redevelopment funding through State or Federal grants and programs); and Clark County redevelopment agency (RDA) options which included reauthorizing the existing RDA, reauthorizing the existing RDA and amending the plan, abandoning the existing RDA and starting a new RDA, or reauthorizing the existing RDA and starting a new RDA.; Commissioner Jones and Shani Coleman discussed the benefits of keeping the existing RDA versus starting a new RDA including that a RDA exists for 30 years, and that the existing RDA had approximately 12 years left; and using the existing RDA with amendments would take less time than establishing a new RDA.; Discussion followed regarding working with the legislature to extend the existing RDA; utilizing funds through a different financial process (such as County capital funds) rather than through a RDA; the County RDA may not overlap the city RDA; County funds have more spending flexibility; to reestablish the existing RDA and create new areas would follow an extensive evaluation process; and the programs may be established throughout the valley for economic development independent of the funding type.; Staff was directed to return to a future Board meeting for further discussion.

CLARK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

AGENDA ITEM

Petitioner:

Jessica L. Colvin, Chief Financial Officer

Recommendation: 

title

Discuss the Clark County Redevelopment Agency and direct staff accordingly. (For possible action)

body

FISCAL IMPACT:

Fund #:	N/A	Fund Name:	N/A
Fund Center:	N/A	Funded PGM/Grant:	N/A
Amount:	N/A
Description:	N/A
Additional Comments:	N/A

BACKGROUND: 

On March 2, 2021, the Board received a report on the completed study to determine feasibility of establishing a redevelopment agency under NRS 279.  The report informed that Clark County already had an existing statutorily created redevelopment agency which was authorized in 2002 with a redevelopment plan adopted in 2003.  The existing redevelopment agency contained three separate and distinct redevelopment areas identified as tax district 411, 471 and 341.  Clark County suspended the existing redevelopment agency's authority to operate on May 19, 2009.  In addition, the report informed the Board of six additional areas that may be considered for inclusion in a redevelopment area.

With information from the feasibility study and current provisions under NRS 279, the Board was advised of options they could consider regarding Clark County's redevelopment activity.  Under NRS 279.436, the Board could adopt a resolution "declaring the need for the agency to function," un-suspending and authorizing the existing agency to operate; or they could abandon the existing agency and the three existing areas and start a new redevelopment agency with new redevelopment areas in accordance with provisions in NRS 279, or the Board could consider a hybrid of both re-authorizing the existing agency and starting a new agency to operate simultaneously.

The board directed staff to bring the issue back for additional discussion in May.