nevada Bonding Capacity Dispute resolved After Report Re-Release
A recent standoff between Nevada Treasurer Zach conine’s office and members of the state’s executive branch over access to a crucial debt capacity report has been resolved with the re-publication of the document. The dispute centered on the timing of the report, which outlines the state’s ability to take on further debt through bonds, and highlighted differing perspectives on openness and legislative oversight.
The treasurer’s office initially recalled the january report in May – a move described as unprecedented in state history – to account for “dramatically” shifting market conditions and p
The rescission of the report.”
Typically, the treasurer’s office releases this affordability report at the begining of each legislative session in odd-numbered years. This report serves as a guide for lawmakers as they make budgetary decisions and approve spending proposals. Subsequent bond issuances require approval from the Nevada Board of Finance, with the treasurer ultimately determining when to release the bonds.
the absence of an updated report during November’s special legislative session sparked frustration among some lawmakers and officials within the Governor’s Finance Office. Senator dina Neal (D-North Las Vegas) expressed concern that legislators were “flying blind” during a Nov. 13 hearing regarding a proposal to fund a new building at the University of Nevada, Reno, a project later financed through direct state funding.
“We have the obligation to deal with the finance and state debt,” Neal said. “Does the Legislature not have any power to either compel, subpoena or do anything to get that?”
Tiffany Greenameyer, director of the Governor’s Finance Office, indicated she was “slightly” offended when informed the report would not be issued until after the special session.
This discontent culminated in an unusual action by the Board of examiners, which reviews legislative appropriations, to demand the report’s release via an agenda item for its Tuesday meeting. However, the item was ultimately removed from discussion after Conine re-circulated the report and the process was clarified.
Conine characterized the agenda item as a “deep misunderstanding” of the established process, asserting that the governor’s office mistakenly believed the report was necessary to approve bonding.He learned of the agenda item only after being contacted by another constitutional officer. He further noted that, to his knowledge, an affordability report has never been specifically issued for a special legislative session.
According to conine, officials were aware that any new projections would likely be similar to, or lower than, the January report, and that the Legislature had already authorized spending exceeding the initial allocation. “No one reached out to our office to ask for it, which is a little frustrating, but there’s a lot going on,” he said. “We try not to assume malice when ignorance is probably the more likely cause.”
The affordability for the next two-year budget cycle remains at $1.2 billion, consistent with the original projection.However, the Legislature has authorized approximately $1.5 billion in bond funding – roughly $253 million more than initially allocated.Historically, the treasurer’s office has noted that legislative approvals frequently enough deviate from the affordability report’s recommendations, though the current $253 million difference is relatively substantial.
The Nevada Board of finance will now review the approved bonding proposals, including funding for the governor’s housing initiative, schools, and legislative office buildings. Treasurer Conine cautioned that issuing bonds exceeding the state’s affordability could limit future borrowing capacity. “To the extent that we issue bonds in excess of affordability, what that really means is that there’s less affordability in the future. We’re functionally taking from future years to pay for stuff now,” he explained.
The report is considered a snapshot in time, and is not consistently updated even when legislative approvals exceed or fall short of its recommendations. This dynamic underscores the Legislature’s ultimate authority in making financial choices, even as it relies on the treasurer’s office for guidance on the state’s debt capacity.
This story was updated on 12/11/25 at 7:27 a.m. to clarify details surrounding the re-circulation of the report.
