Opinion ID: 1193421
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Specific Provisions of Section 20.

Text: Finally, the City urges that the Act violates article 4, section 20, of the Nevada Constitution, which provides: The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases... . Among those cases are the following, which the City suggests apply to the Act: For the assessment and collection of taxes for state, county and township purposes and Regulating county and township business. i. The City's contention that the Act violates the provision of section 20 prohibiting a special or local law for the assessment and collection of taxes is meritless. Although the Act does grant to the Washoe County Airport Authority the power to levy and collect general taxes, and to fix a rate of levy, subject to the approval of Washoe County (Ch. 474, §§ 12-13, at 971-72), such provisions have been held to encompass only a different method of either assessment or collection than provided by the revenue laws of general application throughout the state. (Emphasis added.) Cauble v. Beemer, 64 Nev. 77, 87-88, 177 P.2d 677, 682 (1947). The allowance of special statutes for the levy and collection of taxes for particular local purposes has long been upheld. Gibson v. Mason, 5 Nev. 283 (1869); Thompson v. Turner, 24 Nev. 292, 53 P. 178 (1898); State ex rel. Henderson Banking Co. v. Lytton, 31 Nev. 67, 99 P. 855 (1909). ii. The City also contends that the Act violates the provision of section 20 prohibiting local or special laws [r]egulating county and township business. We do not agree. It is clear that the City's concern is with legislative intrusion into its own affairs and not with the relatively minor involvement of Washoe County in the facilitation of the Authority's business. [3] This court has pointed out that the provision of Section 20 prohibits regulating county business by special or local law and does not prohibit such a law merely relating to, pertaining to, or concerning county business. Washoe County Water Conserv'n Dist. v. Beemer, 56 Nev. 104, 117, 45 P.2d 779, 782 (1935). In Cauble v. Beemer, 64 Nev. 77, 90, 91, 177 P.2d 677, 683, 684 (1947), the court observed: It is manifest the framers of the constitutional provision prohibiting any local or special act regulating county business had in mind maintaining essential uniformity in the laws enacted to govern county business, in general, and its administration. [ See, e.g., County of Clark v. City of Las Vegas, 92 Nev. 323, 550 P.2d 779 (1976).] ... It was not, manifestly, such an act as ... relates and pertains to, and concerns, only a single item, or project, of county business... . The Washoe County Airport Authority Act does not regulate county business within the meaning of this provision of section 20. For these reasons, we conclude that the Act is constitutional and that the the judgment of the district court must be affirmed. THOMPSON and MANOUKIAN, JJ., concur.