This paper compares and contrasts the budgets of three government entities — Clark County in Nevada, the State of Nevada, and the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) — for the fiscal year 2006. It examines each budget's scale, revenue sources, major expenditure categories, capital planning strategies, and emergency funding provisions. The analysis reveals how budget complexity and scope grow substantially at each successive level of government, from county-level localized spending and capital improvement programs, to statewide wage and infrastructure investments, to the federal government's massive discretionary authority and supplemental emergency funding for defense, disaster relief, and public health.
In recent years, the budget strategies chosen by various branches of government have emerged as a pressing concern for citizens, city employees, and government officials alike. The budgets of these branches differ in terms of budget management, budget calendars, types of revenue, and major sources of revenue. All governmental agency budgets share the goal of significantly cutting costs, reducing the scope of operations through outsourcing, and improving flexibility and responsiveness through the empowerment of management. These trends are increasingly supported by new developments in information technology and information systems. Technological advances, supported by increased user expertise and familiarity with technology, have allowed budget management to break away from its traditional constraints. In addition to difficulties in identifying and measuring potential benefits and costs, problems arising from growing dependence on information technology have forced many governmental agencies to establish management control mechanisms. This paper compares and contrasts the budgets of Clark County in Nevada, the State of Nevada, and the White House's Office of Management and Budget.
A review of Clark County's official records indicates that Clark County's overall budget is the smallest of the three entities examined. For 2006, Clark County's estimated budget for general government expenses was $231,333,343. Judicial expenses totaled $158,819,249; public safety came to $1,064,883,910; health to $120,917,500; and community support to $13,862,194. These figures are only slightly larger than Clark County's 2005 expenses in each category.
Total revenues for Clark County included $582,139,688 in property taxes; $250,538,064 in licenses and permits; $13,022,896 in fines and forfeitures; and $1,353,971,713 in intergovernmental resources. Clark County's total government employees for 2006 included 1,390 judicial employees, 1,868 public safety employees, 225 sanitation employees, and 15 community support employees. The total population of Clark County for 2006 was 1,912,026.
These figures are consistently lower than the budget expenses and revenues of the State of Nevada, whose figures lie in the hundreds of millions, and the Office of Management and Budget, whose figures lie in the billions. The main differences among the three entities lie in the type and scope of budget spending. Clark County's spending is highly localized to that specific county. The State of Nevada's budget is larger, reflecting the sponsorship of statewide funded projects such as construction. The Office of Management and Budget's budget is the largest, reflecting revenues and expenditures generated by federal programs that the other two entities do not carry.
To increase revenues, Clark County instituted its Capital Improvement Program (CIP), a five-year plan reviewed and updated annually in conjunction with the preparation of the County's operating budget. The CIP's mission is to finance infrastructure improvements, government facility construction, and equipment acquisition. The goals of the CIP are to: (1) assess capital needs; (2) identify funding sources for capital projects and programs that will provide the greatest return on investment in terms of meeting increasing demand for infrastructure, public facilities, and services; (3) establish priorities among projects to increase the utility of county resources; and (4) improve financial planning through disclosure of future bond issues and assessment of fiscal impact.
Clark County's capital budget process includes both short-term and long-term projects. Short-term projects include general fixed assets with a relatively short useful life, such as information technology equipment and software, vehicles and furniture, and facility renovations and major maintenance programs such as countywide roof repairs, painting, and flooring.
Long-term projects for Clark County include infrastructure initiatives such as roadways, flood control, a Fire Department plan, Detention Center expansion, and regional parks and recreation centers. Long-term projects requiring substantial funding typically require long-term financing. The County Capital Projects Fund serves as the primary source of capital for general fund department capital projects. Funding sources include budgeted transfers and other transfers resulting from unanticipated revenues, as well as savings generated through position vacancies and cost-containment measures.
The State of Nevada's budget reflects a different approach to funding sources. While Clark County relies on position vacancies as a cost-containment measure, the State of Nevada recently instituted a wage increase for public works projects. The two entities therefore appear to address budget deficiencies through different means. By contrast, the Office of Management and Budget maintains reserves for supplemental and emergency funding totaling $153.1 billion. Neither Clark County nor the State of Nevada appears to carry emergency or supplemental funding provisions of comparable scale in their budgets.
"Nevada statewide budget figures and wage policy"
"Federal discretionary spending and emergency reserves"
Of the three budgets examined, the White House's Office of Management and Budget is by far the largest, incorporating federal programs, broad discretionary authority, and emergency funding reserves unavailable at the state or county level. The State of Nevada occupies a middle position, with a statewide budget that exceeds Clark County's localized expenditures but falls far short of federal scale. Clark County, the smallest of the three, relies on targeted programs such as the Capital Improvement Program to manage costs and plan for infrastructure needs. Together, the three budgets illustrate how fiscal scope, revenue diversity, and spending priorities expand significantly at each successive level of government.
You’re 62% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.