The scenario involves a county in Nevada that has recently annexed a significant unincorporated area. This annexation, under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 268, requires the county to reassess its existing service levels and financial obligations within the newly expanded boundaries. Specifically, the county must ensure that it can provide essential public services, such as police protection, fire services, and road maintenance, to the annexed territory at a level comparable to or exceeding that provided in the original incorporated areas. NRS 268.047 outlines the requirement for a fiscal impact study prior to annexation, which would have detailed the projected costs and revenue adjustments. Following annexation, the county must implement a plan to integrate the new area’s infrastructure and service delivery mechanisms. This includes potentially adjusting property tax rates or creating special assessment districts to fund the increased service demands, consistent with the principles of equitable taxation and service provision. The county’s ability to issue bonds for capital improvements in the annexed area would be governed by NRS 269, which sets forth procedures for issuing bonds for public improvements in counties and municipalities, including requirements for voter approval or specific debt limitations. The question tests the understanding of the procedural and financial responsibilities that follow a successful annexation under Nevada law, emphasizing the need for service equalization and the legal framework for financing these expanded services.

The scenario involves a Nevada county considering the creation of a special district for enhanced public safety services in a newly developed unincorporated area. Nevada law, specifically NRS Chapter 277 and related statutes governing interlocal cooperation and special districts, outlines the process and requirements for such formations. The key consideration for the county board of supervisors is the procedural threshold for establishing a new district. Generally, the formation of a special district requires a petition signed by a specified percentage of property owners within the proposed district’s boundaries, or an ordinance passed by the governing body. However, the law also provides for the creation of districts upon the request of a majority of the property owners, which can sometimes bypass the formal petition process depending on the specific type of district and enabling legislation. In this case, the county is initiating the process, suggesting a need to meet the statutory requirements for district formation, which typically involves public hearings and a vote by the electorate or a supermajority of the governing body, depending on the district’s nature and the applicable statutes. The county must adhere to the procedural safeguards designed to ensure local consent and prevent the arbitrary imposition of new governance structures and potential tax liabilities. The formation process is often detailed within the statutes specific to the type of district being created, such as fire districts, sanitation districts, or in this case, a public safety district, which may have unique procedural nuances. The core legal principle is that the county must follow the legislative mandate for district creation, which is rooted in the principle of delegated authority from the state to local governments. The county’s ability to act is circumscribed by the Nevada Revised Statutes.

The scenario describes a situation where a county in Nevada is considering adopting an ordinance that would significantly restrict the types of businesses allowed within a specific zoning district. This action directly implicates the powers and limitations of local governments in Nevada concerning zoning and land use regulation. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 278 grants broad authority to cities and counties to adopt and enforce zoning regulations for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare. However, this authority is not absolute and is subject to various legal constraints, including the requirement that ordinances be reasonable, non-discriminatory, and not in conflict with state law or constitutional provisions. When a local government ordinance is challenged, courts often review it for reasonableness and adherence to established legal principles. The question of whether a specific business is a “nuisance” is a legal determination that typically requires evidence and due process, rather than a unilateral declaration by the county. Furthermore, ordinances cannot arbitrarily prohibit lawful businesses without a rational basis related to public health, safety, or welfare. If an ordinance is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or to violate due process rights, it can be invalidated by a court. The process of enacting an ordinance generally requires public notice and hearings, allowing affected parties to voice their concerns. The county’s ability to ban a specific category of business hinges on demonstrating a compelling public interest that outweighs the economic and personal freedoms of the business owners, and that the chosen method is the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. Without a clear and present danger or a demonstrated nuisance, such a broad prohibition would likely face legal challenges based on due process and equal protection clauses, as well as exceeding the scope of police powers delegated by the state.

In Nevada, the authority of a county to annex territory is primarily governed by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 268. Specifically, NRS 268.047 outlines the process for annexation by ordinance, which requires a resolution of intent followed by an ordinance passed by the county commission. For unincorporated towns that wish to incorporate and thereby annex territory, NRS 269.075 provides a mechanism. However, the question specifically addresses the annexation of territory by an *existing* county, not the incorporation of an unincorporated town. The power to annex territory by a county in Nevada is a legislative power delegated to the county by the state. This power is exercised through the adoption of an ordinance by the county’s board of county commissioners. The process typically involves public hearings and adherence to statutory procedural requirements, including notice. The key concept here is that annexation is a formal legislative act of the county government. Therefore, the most accurate and legally sound method for a county to annex territory is through the adoption of an ordinance. Other methods like a simple resolution or a direct vote of the annexed territory’s residents without a prior ordinance are not the primary or legally established mechanisms for county-level annexation in Nevada as per the statutory framework. While citizen petitions can initiate the process, the ultimate authority and method of annexation lies with the board of county commissioners acting through an ordinance.

The scenario involves a county in Nevada seeking to annex unincorporated territory. Nevada law, specifically NRS Chapter 268, governs municipal powers and annexation procedures. For a city or town to annex territory, it generally requires a petition signed by a certain percentage of property owners or registered voters within the territory, or a resolution by the governing body followed by an election in the annexed area. However, a key aspect of Nevada law is the distinction between different types of annexation and the procedural requirements. When a county’s board of county commissioners initiates annexation, it typically must follow a process that often involves public hearings and a resolution, with potential for an election if certain conditions are met or if a significant number of residents object. The specific threshold for a petition or the conditions for an election can vary based on the size of the territory and the population within it. In this case, the county’s board of county commissioners, acting as the governing body for the unincorporated territory, can initiate the annexation process by adopting a resolution. This resolution must be followed by a public hearing to allow for input from affected residents and property owners. After the hearing, if the board decides to proceed, they can adopt an ordinance to annex the territory. The law does not mandate a petition from residents for this specific type of initiation by the county itself. Furthermore, an election within the annexed territory is not always required for county-initiated annexations unless specifically triggered by a certain number of protests or if the territory meets particular population density criteria as outlined in state statutes. Therefore, the county’s ability to proceed with annexation via a resolution and subsequent ordinance, without a preceding petition from residents, is a valid procedural pathway under Nevada law for a county-initiated annexation of unincorporated territory.

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 244 governs county powers and duties. Specifically, NRS 244.165 grants boards of county commissioners the authority to enact ordinances for the public health, safety, and welfare. This authority is not absolute and is subject to limitations, including the requirement that ordinances must be reasonable and not in conflict with state law. When a county ordinance conflicts with a state statute, the state statute generally preempts the local ordinance. In this scenario, the county ordinance concerning the minimum lot size for new residential developments directly impacts land use and zoning, which are areas where the state has established a framework. The county’s attempt to impose a more restrictive minimum lot size than what is permitted by state law, or in a manner that is inconsistent with statewide land use planning goals, could be challenged on preemption grounds. Therefore, the board of county commissioners would need to ensure their ordinance aligns with or is at least not in conflict with relevant state statutes governing land use and subdivision development in Nevada. The ability to enact such an ordinance is contingent upon its consistency with the broader legal landscape established by the Nevada Legislature.

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 244 grants county commissioners broad authority to enact ordinances. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to limitations imposed by state law and constitutional principles. Specifically, ordinances must be consistent with the state constitution and all state statutes. They cannot conflict with or supersede state law on matters where the state has preempted the field. Furthermore, ordinances must serve a legitimate public purpose and be reasonable in their application. The process for enacting an ordinance typically involves public notice, hearings, and a vote by the governing body, as outlined in NRS 244.100. When a conflict arises between a county ordinance and state law, the state law generally prevails due to the principle of state preemption. In this scenario, the county ordinance attempting to establish a higher minimum wage than that set by state law would be invalid because minimum wage is a matter regulated by the state, and the state law would preempt the county ordinance. The county’s authority is to legislate on matters of local concern, not to contradict statewide policy established by the Nevada Legislature.

The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 244, specifically NRS 244.150, outlines the powers of county commissioners. This statute grants counties broad authority to enact ordinances for the “protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.” When a county ordinance conflicts with a state law, the principle of preemption generally dictates that the state law prevails. However, the scope of this preemption is not absolute and depends on whether the state has occupied the field of regulation or if the local ordinance directly conflicts with the state law’s intent or operation. In this scenario, the county ordinance regarding waste disposal is a local matter aimed at public health and safety. If the state law, such as NRS Chapter 444 concerning sanitation and public health, has established comprehensive regulations for waste management that intend to be exclusive, then the county ordinance might be preempted. However, if the state law allows for local supplementation or if the county’s ordinance addresses a specific local condition not fully covered by state law, it could be permissible. Without a specific state law directly prohibiting county ordinances on this precise aspect of waste disposal or clearly demonstrating state preemption of the entire field, the county generally retains the power to legislate on matters of local health and safety. The question hinges on whether the state law’s intent is to occupy the field exclusively or if it permits local regulation in this area. Given the broad grant of power in NRS 244.150 and the specific nature of waste disposal as a local health concern, the county’s ordinance is likely valid unless a direct conflict or clear state preemption exists. The key consideration is the absence of a specific state statute that expressly forbids or preempts such a county ordinance.

The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 278 governs land use planning and zoning. Specifically, NRS 278.320 outlines the powers and duties of planning commissions. When a city or county planning commission reviews a proposed amendment to the master plan or a zoning ordinance, it is required to hold a public hearing. Following the hearing, the commission must make a recommendation to the legislative body (city council or county board of commissioners). This recommendation is not binding but carries significant weight. The legislative body then considers the commission’s recommendation along with public testimony and other relevant factors before making a final decision on the proposed amendment. The process emphasizes public participation and the advisory role of the planning commission in land use decisions. The key here is that the planning commission’s role is advisory, meaning they provide a recommendation, but the ultimate authority rests with the elected legislative body. This structure ensures that policy decisions are made by those directly accountable to the electorate.

The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 244 grants boards of county commissioners broad powers to enact ordinances for the public health, safety, and welfare. However, these powers are not absolute and are subject to state preemption and constitutional limitations. When a county ordinance conflicts with a state statute, the state statute generally prevails due to the principle of state supremacy in legislative matters. In this scenario, the county ordinance attempting to regulate a matter already comprehensively addressed by state law, specifically the permissible zoning classifications for renewable energy facilities, would likely be deemed invalid if it contradicts or attempts to add requirements not present in the state legislation. NRS 278.020 et seq. outlines the powers of counties regarding planning and zoning, but these powers are exercised within the framework of state law. The Nevada Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principle that local governments cannot enact ordinances that conflict with state law, particularly in areas where the state has legislated comprehensively. Therefore, the county’s ordinance would be unenforceable because it attempts to regulate a subject matter that is already governed by state law, and its provisions are in conflict with the statewide zoning regulations for renewable energy projects.

The scenario presented involves a county’s legislative body, the Board of County Commissioners, seeking to enact a new ordinance that would impose a special assessment on properties within a defined improvement district. This district was previously established to fund infrastructure upgrades, specifically a new water treatment facility. Nevada law, particularly NRS Chapter 271, governs the creation of such districts and the levying of assessments for public improvements. When a county creates an improvement district and levies assessments, the primary legal framework dictates that these assessments must be reasonably related to the benefits conferred upon the properties within the district. The question asks about the legal standard for validating these assessments. Under Nevada law, special assessments are not considered taxes; rather, they are charges levied against properties to pay for public improvements that provide a special benefit to those properties. The key legal test is whether the assessment is proportional to the benefits received. This principle is rooted in due process and equal protection, ensuring that property owners are not unfairly burdened. The Board of County Commissioners must demonstrate a rational basis for the assessment methodology, ensuring it reflects the enhanced value or utility of the property due to the improvement. The Nevada Supreme Court has consistently held that assessments must be fair and equitable, reflecting the benefits conferred. Therefore, the most appropriate legal standard for the Board to consider when enacting this ordinance is that the assessments must be reasonably proportional to the benefits conferred upon the properties within the improvement district. This principle is a cornerstone of special assessment law across the United States, including Nevada.

The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 244 governs the powers and duties of county commissioners. Specifically, NRS 244.150 outlines the authority of county commissioners to adopt and enforce ordinances for the public health, safety, and welfare of the county. When a county proposes to adopt an ordinance that impacts land use within an unincorporated town, the process requires careful consideration of existing statutes and potential conflicts. In Nevada, unincorporated towns do not possess independent municipal powers. Their governance and regulatory authority are derived from and exercised by the county. Therefore, if a county ordinance is enacted that addresses zoning or land use within an unincorporated town, it supersedes any informal or less formal land use regulations that might have previously been followed within that town, provided the county ordinance is properly enacted according to statutory procedures, including public notice and hearings. The county’s authority under NRS 244.150 is broad and allows for comprehensive land use planning and regulation, even within areas designated as unincorporated towns. The concept of “home rule” for cities in Nevada is distinct from the powers granted to counties, and unincorporated towns do not benefit from such autonomy. Thus, the county commissioners have the ultimate authority to regulate land use within their jurisdiction, including unincorporated towns, through the adoption of ordinances.

In Nevada, the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 244 outlines the powers and duties of county commissioners. Specifically, NRS 244.165 grants counties the authority to enact ordinances for the protection and preservation of public health, safety, and welfare. When a county ordinance is challenged as exceeding the scope of this delegated authority, courts employ a standard of review that examines whether the ordinance is a reasonable exercise of the police power granted to local governments. The concept of “substantive due process” is central here, requiring that the ordinance have a legitimate governmental objective and be rationally related to achieving that objective. A local ordinance must not conflict with state law, a principle known as preemption. If a state law occupies the field of regulation, or if the local ordinance directly conflicts with state law, the local ordinance is typically invalid. In this scenario, the county ordinance regarding water usage restrictions during drought conditions, while addressing a critical public welfare issue, must be assessed against state water law and any existing statewide drought management plans. The question of whether the ordinance is a reasonable exercise of police power or an overreach that infringes on state authority or private property rights without due process requires careful legal analysis. The correct answer hinges on the principle that local ordinances must be consistent with and not preempted by state law, and must be a reasonable exercise of the police power for a legitimate public purpose.

The scenario presented involves a potential conflict of interest under Nevada law concerning a county commissioner voting on a zoning variance for a property owned by a close relative. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 281A governs ethics in government. Specifically, NRS 281A.420 addresses conflicts of interest for public officers and employees. This statute generally prohibits a public officer or employee from participating in any decision or taking any official action if they know or have reason to know that the decision or action will directly and foreseeably result in a financial benefit to themself or a business with which they are associated, or to a member of their immediate family. For the purposes of NRS 281A.420, a “member of the immediate family” includes a parent, spouse, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, or a person who stands in loco parentis. In this case, the county commissioner’s sibling owns the property. A sibling is explicitly included within the definition of “member of the immediate family” under NRS 281A.420. Therefore, the commissioner has a direct financial interest in the zoning variance, as it could increase the value of their sibling’s property, which is considered a financial benefit to a member of their immediate family. Consequently, the commissioner is prohibited from participating in the vote or any deliberation concerning the zoning variance. The appropriate course of action would be for the commissioner to recuse themselves from the matter.

The scenario presented involves a city council in Nevada considering a bond issuance to fund infrastructure improvements. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 350 governs the issuance of bonds by local governments. Specifically, NRS 350.020 outlines the general powers of counties, cities, and towns to borrow money and issue bonds for public improvements. The key consideration for a bond issuance, particularly for general obligation bonds, is voter approval. NRS 350.070 mandates that bonds payable from the general credit and revenues of the issuing entity, unless otherwise specifically exempted, require an election and approval by a majority of the voters. Revenue bonds, which are payable from specific revenue sources, may have different approval requirements as outlined in NRS 350.500 et seq. In this case, the council is discussing general obligation bonds for roads and parks, which are typically funded by the general fund and thus require voter consent. The statute does not grant inherent authority to bypass voter approval for such general obligation bonds through a simple council resolution, especially when the debt is to be repaid from general revenues. Therefore, the council must adhere to the statutory requirement for an election.

The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 271 governs the creation and powers of special districts, which are governmental entities created for specific purposes. When a county in Nevada proposes to create a new special district, such as a fire protection district, the process typically involves a petition signed by a certain percentage of eligible voters or property owners within the proposed district, or a resolution by the county board of commissioners. Following this initiation, a public hearing is mandatory, allowing for input from affected residents and stakeholders. The county board then reviews the petition or resolution, feasibility studies, and public testimony. If the board finds that the creation of the district is in the public interest and meets statutory requirements, it can adopt an ordinance or resolution formally establishing the district. This ordinance or resolution will specify the district’s boundaries, its initial governing body, and its powers and responsibilities, which are usually enumerated in the enabling legislation. The question tests the understanding of the procedural steps and the legal basis for establishing such districts under Nevada law, emphasizing the role of the county board of commissioners in the final decision-making authority.

The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 244 grants boards of county commissioners broad authority over county affairs, including the power to adopt ordinances. When a county ordinance conflicts with a state law, the state law generally prevails due to the principle of preemption. However, the scope of this preemption depends on whether the state law is considered a general law or a special law, and whether the subject matter is of statewide concern. NRS 244.145 addresses the validity of county ordinances, stating that they are presumed valid. If a county ordinance is challenged on the grounds of conflict with state law, a court would analyze the specific state statute and the county ordinance. In this scenario, the county ordinance regarding the minimum lot size for residential development in an unincorporated area of Washoe County directly conflicts with NRS 268.064, which sets statewide minimum standards for lot sizes for residential construction. NRS 268.064 is a statewide regulation designed to ensure a baseline of housing standards across Nevada. Therefore, the county ordinance, by attempting to impose a more restrictive standard than the state law, is preempted by the state law. The county cannot enact an ordinance that contradicts or undermines a state statute on a matter of statewide concern. The validity of the county ordinance would be questionable because it directly contravenes a specific state statute designed to regulate lot sizes statewide.

The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 244 governs the powers and duties of county commissioners. Specifically, NRS 244.140 grants counties the authority to levy a tax for the purpose of constructing or repairing public buildings, including courthouses. The statute specifies that the tax rate shall not exceed \( \$0.50 \) on each \( \$100 \) of taxable property. This limitation is a critical aspect of county fiscal powers, ensuring that such capital improvement projects are funded within defined fiscal boundaries and subject to voter approval for certain types of bonds. Understanding these statutory limitations is essential for county officials when planning and financing infrastructure development in Nevada. The power to levy taxes for specific public purposes, like building courthouses, is a core function of county government, but it is always circumscribed by legislative enactments to prevent excessive taxation.

The Nevada Local Government Securities Act, specifically NRS Chapter 350, governs the issuance of municipal bonds by local government entities in Nevada. When a local government proposes to issue bonds, it must adhere to specific procedural requirements to ensure transparency, public accountability, and fiscal responsibility. A crucial step involves public notification and the opportunity for voter protest. NRS 350.020 outlines the process for calling for a bond election, which typically includes publishing a notice of the proposed bond issuance and its purpose. Following this publication, a period is established during which registered voters of the local government may file a protest. If a sufficient number of protests are filed, as defined by statute, the local government may be required to hold an election to approve the bond issuance. The threshold for a valid protest is generally a percentage of the registered voters. For general obligation bonds, the protest threshold is typically ten percent of the registered voters. Revenue bonds, which are repaid from specific revenue streams rather than general taxing power, may have different protest thresholds or may not require an election if authorized by the governing body. The question focuses on general obligation bonds, where the ten percent threshold is a key statutory requirement for triggering an election if sufficient protests are lodged. This mechanism ensures that significant voter opposition can lead to a democratic decision on incurring substantial debt. The calculation involves determining the number of registered voters required to file protests. Given 15,000 registered voters, ten percent is calculated as \(0.10 \times 15,000 = 1,500\). Therefore, at least 1,500 registered voters must file a protest for the election to be required.

The scenario describes a situation where a county in Nevada is considering a new zoning ordinance that would significantly restrict the types of businesses allowed in a specific commercial district. This type of ordinance directly impacts property rights and economic development within the county. Nevada law, specifically within the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) concerning counties and municipalities, grants local governments the authority to enact zoning regulations. However, this authority is not absolute and is subject to legal constraints, including due process and equal protection considerations. When a local government body proposes a zoning change, Nevada law mandates specific procedures to be followed to ensure public participation and fairness. These procedures typically involve public hearings, notice to affected property owners, and a formal adoption process. The core of the question lies in understanding the legal framework governing such zoning decisions and the potential challenges that can arise. A key aspect of Nevada local government law is the balance between a local government’s power to regulate for the public welfare and the protection of individual property rights. Challenges to zoning ordinances often center on whether the ordinance is arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, or exceeds the statutory authority granted to the local government. The question tests the understanding of the procedural safeguards and substantive legal principles that underpin zoning decisions in Nevada. The correct answer reflects the legal avenues available to challenge such an ordinance based on the established principles of administrative and constitutional law as applied in Nevada.

In Nevada, the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 244 outlines the powers and duties of county commissioners. Specifically, NRS 244.150 addresses the authority of county commissioners to enter into contracts for public improvements or services. This statute grants broad powers, but these powers are subject to limitations and procedural requirements, including adherence to budget appropriations and public bidding laws where applicable. When a county proposes a significant capital project, such as constructing a new courthouse annex, the process typically involves several stages: initial planning and feasibility studies, securing funding (often through bond measures or dedicated taxes), the procurement process (which may include competitive bidding for design and construction contracts), and finally, the execution of the project. The county commissioners are the legislative and executive body responsible for authorizing and overseeing these actions. They must act within the scope of their statutory authority and follow established administrative procedures. A contract entered into without proper authorization or in violation of procurement laws could be deemed void or voidable. Therefore, the board’s formal resolution and approval are critical legal steps in binding the county to such an agreement.

Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) Chapter 278 governs land use planning and development, including the powers and duties of local governments. Specifically, NRS 278.020 grants cities and counties the authority to adopt and enforce zoning ordinances. When a conflict arises between a zoning ordinance and a private development agreement, the courts generally look to the statutory framework and the specific terms of the agreement. In Nevada, zoning ordinances are considered an exercise of the police power, which is a fundamental governmental authority to regulate for the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Private development agreements, while contractual in nature, must also conform to the overarching zoning and land use regulations established by the local government. If a development agreement purports to grant a right or exemption that directly contravenes a validly enacted zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance typically prevails because it reflects the public interest as determined by the legislative body. The concept of vested rights can sometimes create exceptions, but these are generally established through substantial investment and reliance on existing permits or approvals, not solely through a private contract that attempts to override public law. Therefore, a private agreement cannot unilaterally supersede a zoning ordinance if the ordinance is properly enacted and serves a legitimate public purpose. The primary authority rests with the legislative power of the local government to zone for public welfare.

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 244 governs county powers and duties. Specifically, NRS 244.146 outlines the authority of county commissioners to adopt ordinances for the protection and preservation of public health, safety, and welfare, which includes regulating the use of land. When a county adopts an ordinance, it must follow specific procedural requirements to ensure its validity and enforceability. These procedures typically involve public notice and hearings. For a county ordinance to be effective, it must be properly enacted, which means adhering to the statutory requirements for its passage. The process generally involves introduction, reading, public hearings, and a vote by the board of county commissioners. Failure to follow these prescribed steps can render an ordinance invalid or subject to legal challenge. In Nevada, the publication of an adopted ordinance is a crucial step in its effective date and public awareness. NRS 244.150 details the requirements for publication, stating that ordinances must be published by posting or by printing in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. This ensures that the public has access to the enacted laws. Therefore, an ordinance is generally considered effective after its proper enactment and subsequent publication as required by state law.

Nevada law, specifically NRS Chapter 244, governs the powers and duties of county commissioners. When a county proposes to annex territory that is contiguous to an existing city, the process involves specific procedures outlined in Nevada Revised Statutes. For a county to annex unincorporated territory, it must follow the provisions for the creation or alteration of county boundaries. However, the scenario describes a county proposing to annex territory that is already within the sphere of influence or recognized service area of an existing incorporated city. Nevada law, particularly NRS 271.385, addresses the annexation of territory by cities and often requires consent or a specific process involving the affected city when territory is annexed that is contiguous to or within a city’s planning jurisdiction. The question tests the understanding of which entity has the primary authority to annex territory that is adjacent to an incorporated city. While counties manage unincorporated areas, the annexation of territory that would become part of an incorporated city, or that directly impacts an incorporated city’s established boundaries or service areas, typically falls under the purview of the city’s annexation powers, often requiring intergovernmental cooperation or adherence to specific statutory procedures that recognize the city’s interest. Therefore, the county cannot unilaterally annex territory that is directly adjacent to and potentially within the planning or service area of an existing incorporated city without following a process that acknowledges the city’s role and the relevant statutes governing city annexations and inter-local agreements, or specific county annexation procedures that might be preempted by city annexation laws in such contiguous situations. The correct action involves the city, not the county acting alone, initiating or approving the annexation of such contiguous territory.

The scenario involves a county in Nevada considering the adoption of a new ordinance that would significantly impact property development rights. Nevada law, specifically NRS 244.265, grants counties broad powers to adopt and enforce ordinances for the public health, safety, and welfare. However, these powers are not absolute and are subject to state preemption and constitutional limitations. When a local ordinance conflicts with state law, the state law generally prevails. Furthermore, due process rights must be respected, meaning affected parties have a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard before an ordinance is enacted or enforced. The county must also consider the potential for legal challenges based on vague or arbitrary enforcement, or if the ordinance is deemed to exceed the county’s delegated authority. The process of ordinance adoption typically involves public hearings, review by legal counsel, and adherence to statutory procedural requirements. The question tests the understanding of the balance between local regulatory power and state preemption, as well as fundamental legal principles governing ordinance enactment in Nevada. The specific wording of the ordinance and its potential impact on existing property rights are crucial factors in determining its validity.

The scenario presented involves a city council in Nevada considering a zoning amendment that would allow for mixed-use development in a historically residential area. This type of decision is governed by Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) concerning land use planning and zoning. Specifically, NRS Chapter 278 outlines the powers and duties of cities and counties regarding planning and zoning. A critical aspect of such amendments is the process of public notification and hearing. Nevada law requires that notice of proposed zoning changes be published and that a public hearing be held to allow affected parties to voice their opinions. The purpose of this process is to ensure transparency, due process, and community input, which are fundamental principles of local government law. The question tests the understanding of the procedural safeguards required before a local government in Nevada can enact a zoning ordinance amendment. The correct option reflects the statutory requirement for public notice and hearing, which are essential components of due process in administrative actions like zoning changes. The other options present scenarios that either bypass these requirements or misinterpret the scope of the city council’s authority in such matters, failing to account for the procedural protections mandated by state law for property owners and the community.

In Nevada, the process for a city to annex territory is governed by specific statutes, primarily found within the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 277. Annexation can occur through various methods, including consent of property owners, incorporation of contiguous territory, or by ordinance if certain conditions are met. The question revolves around the scenario where a city wishes to annex unincorporated territory that is adjacent to its existing boundaries. Nevada law requires that for a city to annex territory by ordinance, the territory must be contiguous to the city’s existing limits. Furthermore, the proposed annexation must generally satisfy criteria related to population density, the provision of municipal services, and the character of the land. A key procedural requirement is that the city council must adopt an ordinance proposing the annexation. This ordinance must then be published according to statutory requirements. Following the adoption and publication, there is typically a period during which affected property owners or residents may have an opportunity to protest. If no valid protests are filed, or if protests are overcome according to statutory provisions, the annexation becomes effective. The scenario presented involves a city annexing unincorporated territory that is contiguous. The core legal principle tested here is the necessity of a formal ordinance adopted by the city council and the subsequent procedural steps, including publication, which are mandatory under Nevada law for a valid annexation by ordinance. The absence of a valid ordinance, or failure to follow the prescribed procedural steps, would render the annexation invalid. Therefore, the most accurate description of the initial legal step required for a city to annex contiguous unincorporated territory by ordinance in Nevada is the adoption of an ordinance by the city council.

The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 244 governs the powers and duties of county commissioners. Specifically, NRS 244.150 grants counties the authority to enact ordinances for the public health, safety, and welfare. When a county adopts an ordinance that conflicts with a state law, the state law generally prevails due to the principle of preemption. However, local governments in Nevada possess broad home rule powers, allowing them to legislate on matters not expressly prohibited by the state or preempted by federal law. The key here is that the county ordinance must not directly contradict or undermine a state statute. In this scenario, the county ordinance regarding noise levels, while aiming to protect public welfare, directly conflicts with the statewide standard established by NRS 407.066, which sets specific regulations for noise pollution within state parks, including those managed by counties. Since the state law provides a comprehensive regulatory scheme for noise within state parks, it preempts any conflicting local ordinances attempting to impose stricter or different standards for the same subject matter within those designated areas. Therefore, the county ordinance would be invalid in its application to the state park.

The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 244, specifically NRS 244.265, grants county commissioners the authority to enact ordinances for the public peace, health, safety, and welfare. This power is broad but not unlimited, as it must be exercised reasonably and in a manner consistent with state law. The concept of “police power” at the local level in Nevada allows counties to regulate for these purposes. When a county ordinance conflicts with a state statute, the state law generally preempts the local ordinance. However, the question asks about the specific authority to regulate for public health and safety, which is a core function of local government police power. The creation of a county health district is a statutory mechanism provided by Nevada law (NRS Chapter 439) that allows counties to establish dedicated public health services and enforce health regulations. While county commissioners can pass ordinances directly related to public health, establishing a health district is a more formal and specific method to achieve this, often involving a broader scope and dedicated administrative structure. Therefore, the most direct and encompassing authority for a county to implement comprehensive public health regulations and programs, as envisioned by the question, lies in its ability to form and operate a county health district, which is explicitly enabled by state statute for the purpose of safeguarding public health. This encompasses the power to adopt and enforce rules and regulations pertaining to public health, which directly addresses the scenario.

The Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 244, specifically NRS 244.146, governs the authority of county commissioners to levy a sales and use tax for the purpose of financing public infrastructure. This statute allows counties to impose a tax of up to 0.5% if approved by a majority of the county’s registered voters. The proceeds from this tax are typically earmarked for specific capital improvement projects or public works, as detailed in the ordinance establishing the tax. The question asks about the maximum rate a county commission in Nevada can impose for infrastructure financing without voter approval, which is a specific limitation set by state law. NRS 244.146 addresses the voter-approved mechanism. However, other sections of NRS 244 and related statutes, such as those concerning county general obligation bonds or special assessments, allow for different financing methods that do not directly require a sales tax voter referendum. The question is designed to test the understanding of the specific limitations on *sales and use tax* for infrastructure, as distinct from other forms of local government finance. While county commissions have broad powers, the imposition of a sales and use tax for this purpose is specifically tied to voter approval under NRS 244.146. Without voter approval, the county commission cannot impose such a sales and use tax. Therefore, the maximum rate they can impose *without voter approval* is zero percent for this specific funding mechanism.