Who knew that something as seemingly bland as an "interlocal service agreement" could spark a war of words between the City of Las Vegas and Clark County? 

But that's what happened in the wake of a Sept. 16 Las Vegas City Council meeting where council members brought up a touchy issue: Renegotiating a longstanding compact between the city and county that hashes out who pays for what in the northwest valley, a patchwork area of town where infrastructure and services cross city-county boundaries.

"The current version of the interlocal agreement does not serve the people of the northwest," Councilmember Francis Allen-Palenske said during the meeting, though she said she "welcomed" talks with the county. "We are left holding the monetary bag." 

The city's move to revisit the agreement inspired an immediate clapback from two county commissioners. 

"Clark County pays more than its fair share to provide services no matter the zip code. It's disappointing that so much information presented today by the City was wrong and one-sided," County Commissioners Marilyn Kirkpatrick and April Becker wrote in an emailed public statement following the meeting. "This is a money grab, plain and simple — this is not about services." 

The decade-long interlocal service agreement between the City of Las Vegas and Clark County is up for a five-year renewal in December — that is, unless either party provides a public hearing opportunity to trigger a renegotiation. The public hearing at the Sept. 16 city council threw down that gauntlet. 

Clark County and the City of Las Vegas are expected to address the expiring agreement this week, but separately — Clark County at its county commission meeting Oct. 6, and Las Vegas during its Oct.7 city council meeting. 

What's at stake in the possible reshaping of this agreement? A lot. Land, tax revenue, public services and political power.

This land is who's land?

The 2016 interlocal agreement was born out of a multiyear fight between city and county related to land annexation issues. While only 12 pages long, the agreement set guidelines for how the municipalities divide labor related to land use, park and trail planning, sewer and firefighter services as well as land annexation in the northwest valley. It also addressed flood control districts, transportation and street designs.

The agreement has long been a sensitive and contentious topic between the city and county, and Councilmembers Allen-Palenske and Nancy Brune broaching the topic of renegotiation Sept. 16 marks the latest chapter in a story stretching back decades. 

The two said their districts, both in the northwest, were picking up the slack for pockets of county land that were using the city's fire department resources. They also said that the county did not provide any funds for parks in the region. 

This notion of fairness — or lack of it — was brought up several times during the council meeting. Residents living in "county islands" use the city's sewer system, according to a presentation by Seth Floyd, Las Vegas director of community development. Residents living in county islands are also able to use the city's Las Vegas Fire & Rescue department, which services people within pockets of county land, according to information presented at the same meeting by Las Vegas Fire & Rescue Chief Fernando Gray. In other words, county residents use city services without paying city taxes.

The Northwestern part of Clark County, the region most affected by the interlocal agreement.

Source: Clark County GIS, January 2024.

City limits and unincorporated areas of the Las Vegas Valley as of January 2024. (Clark County GIS/clarkcounty.gov) Open the full map.

It's not a new complaint. A 2014 article from the Las Vegas-Review Journal rehashes many of the same arguments lobbed in a similar meeting back then, reporting that the city blamed the earlier annexation for creating "a lot of freeloaders," or "county taxpayers who receive all of the benefits of city services without having to pay all of the costs." 

Perhaps ironically, the 2016 agreement was intended to address these kinds of complaints. 

If you ask County Commissioner Tom Collins — a figure dubbed the "cowboy commissioner," who spoke at the council meeting earlier this month — the issue began in 2001, when state law changed to make annexation of unincorporated land much easier, giving cities incentive to expand their footprint. A summary of bills signed in 2001 outlines that AB179 expanded opportunities for cities in Nevada to incorporate rural land into their city boundaries and streamlined the annexation process. 

The law change provoked some controversy after Las Vegas tried to annex 52,000 acres of BLM land that same year, and the first interlocal agreement between the county and the city was born in 2002. That agreement lasted until 2008, when it was replaced by a new five-year contract with additional guidelines, which ran until 2013.

Between 2013 and the end of 2016, spats on land use bubbled up again. In 2016, the city grew by roughly 7 square miles due to 39 annexations, according to reporting from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Collins, who was in the assembly in 2001, was also a player in annexation back fight in 2014, as a county commissioner at odds with Las Vegas Councilmember Steve Ross, who was pushing to expand the boundaries of Las Vegas. 

Since the latest agreement was created in 2016, disputes between the city and the county have mostly settled, though in 2018 Las Vegas did try to annex 872 acres of county land that were surrounded by city property. The move prompted 1,200 letters in protest. 

Unlike other counties across Nevada, Clark County cannot "reannex" land from cities, meaning that once a property has been incorporated into Las Vegas, or any other city, it can't take the property back. Nevada state law states that annexation rules "apply only to cities located in a county whose population is 700,000 or more." Though not specified, Clark County is the only county in the state with a population that fits in the criteria.

On why the city council is pushing to renegotiate the agreement now, Collins theorized that it did not know the full history. 

"Most of the council members don't know shit from Shinola," said Collins, adding later that the county pitches in for more services than the city does. "They don't understand [the agreement]." 

"Kicking and screaming" 

The conflict over the interlocal agreement isn't a purely administrative spat. One particular sticky item for residents in the area who came out to speak at the Sept. 16 city council meeting is land annexation, which could potentially change the density of their neighborhoods as well as the taxes they pay. 

Parts of the northwest are designated as Rural Neighborhood Preservation areas, which seeks to protect the low-density, ranch or farmlike feel, something residents say is a draw to the area. 

Zoning regulations vary from city to city, and from county to city. Some areas of Las Vegas in the northwest allow for higher-density zoning, which would mean that property owners and developers can build more units per acre of land. 

Residents are also wary of potentially paying higher taxes if they are annexed. A neighborhood in the northwest might see two properties on either side of the street — one in the city, one in the county — with different tax rates, despite being valued at a similar rate. 

"The city's broke, so they're looking for a quick way to get revenue," Gail Powers, the owner of an equestrian farm on Clark County land, told The Nevada Independent. Her property, which she said has been in her family since the 1950s, is bordered by several plots of Las Vegas land. "A quick way to get revenue is annexing properties … it's about property tax." 

According to real estate valuation expert and adjunct UNLV lecturer Terrence Farr, city and county taxes are calculated differently, especially since the city has a smaller property tax revenue base, though it provides a lot of services. 

According to publicly available data, Powers, who lives and works on 4 acres of land, is charged at a 2.7 tax rate — her neighbor across the street on city land is charged at a 3.2 tax rate. This means that Powers pays $2.70 for every $100 of value on her home, while her neighbor pays $3.20. 

Despite being surrounded by several parcels of city land, Powers said she was firmly against annexation into the city. 

"That's when you're gonna see me kicking and screaming and going to jail on TV," Powers said.

Agree to disagree

What if the agreement lapses in December? 

Without the agreement, Las Vegas does not need permission from property owners to annex their land into city boundaries, though residents can block annexation efforts. That means that the city can annex land via a city council vote unless a "majority" of property owners in that area oppose it. If they act within 15 days of the annexation, they can block it, according to Nevada state law. 

The existing agreement outlines that the city cannot annex new land unless a Clark County property owner requests to join the city. It also blocks the county from trying to introduce legislation impeding city annexation rights. Sans agreement, these guidelines are no longer in place. 

When asked if either Brune or Allen-Palenske had a comment on the statement by the county, Jace Radke, public relations officer for the city, said that there would be more information presented at the meeting this week. 

"We expect that the City Council will comment as part of the discussion scheduled for the Oct. 7 City Council meeting," Radke wrote in a response to The Nevada Independent.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick also deferred commenting until the county's presentation on Oct. 6.