PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA

Monday, March 22, 2010 – 4:30 PM

All items are for action unless indicated by an asterisk (*).

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE *

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

1. Approval of Minutes from March 1, 2010 meeting

2. Matters pertaining to Boulder City Municipal Golf Course

A. Discussion and possible action on February 2010 operational reports

B. Verbal report from Maintenance Supervisor David Stanton on maintenance and playability issues at the Municipal Golf Course*

3. Matters pertaining to the Recreation Division of Parks and Recreation

A. Discussion and possible action on February, 2010 recreation operational reports

B. Verbal report from Recreation Program Coordinator Patty Sullivan on the status of special interest classes, special events, youth center and art center*

C. Verbal report from Sports Coordinator Tay Deering on the status of youth and adult sports*

4. Matters pertaining to the Aquatic Division of Parks and Recreation Department

A. Discussion and possible action on the January 2010, operational reports

B. Verbal report from Aquatic Coordinator Sheri O'Berto on classes, special events and maintenance issues at the swim pool complex*

5. Verbal report from Director Roger Hall on mountain biking, special events, and the aerial trail system at Bootleg Canyon*

6. Power Point presentation from Patty Sullivan

7. Discussion and possible action regarding the Goals and Objectives for the Parks and Recreation Commission for the Calendar Year 2010

8. Parks and Recreation Commission Reports*

A. Verbal reports on Parks and Recreation facilities

B. Verbal reports concerning maintenance issues

C. Verbal reports concerning various operations of Parks and Recreation

D. Verbal reports on community events

Public Comment *

ADJOURNMENT

Accompanying informational material on the agenda items is on file and is

available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, 401 California Avenue,

Boulder City, Nevada and the Boulder City Library, 701 Adams Boulevard,

Boulder City, Nevada.

Notice to persons with disabilities: Members of the public who are disabled and

require special assistance or accommodations at the meeting are requested to

notify the City Clerk by telephoning (702) 293-9208 at least seventy-two hours in

advance of the meeting.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Tuesday, March 09, 2010 – 7:00 PM

ALL ITEMS ARE FOR ACTION UNLESS INDICATED BY AN ASTERISK (*)

CALL TO ORDER

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE *

APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA (Item Nos. 7 - 13 )

APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA (Item Nos. 1- 6 ) AS FOLLOWS:

Agenda item 1. Approval of the minutes of the February 23, 2010, regular meeting

Agenda item 2. Resolution No. 5540, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, approving Interlocal Agreement No. 10-1299 between the City of Boulder City and the Clark County Regional Flood Control District (CCRFCD) for the Buchanan Blvd., Phase III Improvements (B.C. Project No. 09-785-DR(1)

Overview:

· Funding Source for this project is from the Clark County Regional Flood Control District.

· CCRFCD has approved funding in the amount of $311,000 for engineering design and $15,000 for environmental mitigation for a total of $326,000.

· Advantage Civil Design Group, LLP is the consulting engineering firm selected to design the facilities included in this project.

 Background Information: Boulder City conducted a consultant selection process to obtain the services of a consulting engineering firm to design various flood control projects as outlined in the 2008 Boulder City Flood Control Master Plan Update. Through this process Advantage Civil Design Group, LLP was selected to perform the design of the Buchanan Blvd., Phase III Improvements project for the Georgia BuchananWatershed. This is one of three watersheds in which flood control improvements are being designed. The other two, Hemenway and North Railroad, are included in separate funding agreements.

The flood control facilities for this project are described in the 2008 Master Plan Update, as Structures No.’s GBAP 0001, GBGR 0001, GBBC 0110, 0149 and 0153 and are identified in the Regional Flood Control District’s Ten-Year Construction Program. The improvements shall consist of a soil cement lined channel, four 12’ x 5’ reinforced concrete box (RCB) culverts, two 18’ x 5’ RCB culverts and the upsizing of a 42” storm drain to a 60” storm drain as necessary to control floodwaters. The soil cement channel will connect to the existing channel on the southeast end of the airport and convey flows around the wastewater treatment plant. All of the other improvements will be installed on Buchanan Boulevard, replacing the existing improvements that are undersized.

Funding for this project has been approved by the Clark County Regional Flood Control District in the amount of $311,000 for engineering design and $15,000 for environmental mitigation for a total available of $326,000. Financial: Funding for this project will come from the Clark County Regional Flood Control District.

Agenda item 3. Resolution No. 5541, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City,

approving Interlocal Agreement No. 10-1300 between the City of Boulder City and the Clark County Regional Flood Control District (CCRFCD) for the Hemenway System, Phase II Improvements (B.C. Project No. 09-0785- DR(2)

Overview:

· Funding Source for this project is from the Clark County Regional Flood Control District.

· CCRFCD has approved funding in the amount of $180,000 for engineering design and $15,000 for environmental mitigation for a total of $195,000.

· Advantage Civil Design Group, LLP is the consulting engineering firm selected to design the facilities included in this project.

Background Information: Boulder City conducted a consultant selection process to obtain the services of a consulting engineering firm to design various flood control projects as outlined in the 2008 Boulder City Flood Control Master Plan Update. Through this process Advantage Civil Design Group, LLP was selected to perform the design of the Hemenway System,

Phase II Improvements project. This is one of three watersheds in which flood control improvements are being designed. The other two, North Railroad and Georgia Buchanan, are included in separate funding agreements.

This facility is described in the 2008 Master Plan Update, as Structures No.’s HMTH 0034, HMLV 0006, 0019, HMWA 0005, 0105, 0158, 0173, 0175 and 0182 and HMLM 0066 and 0085 and is identified in the Regional Flood Control District’s Ten-Year Construction Program. The improvements shall consist of flood water facilities including riprap, levee improvements, concrete channels, sediment basins, two 8’ x 5’ and one 12’ x 4’ reinforced concrete box culverts, as may be necessary to control floodwaters.

Funding for this project has been approved by the Clark County Regional Flood Control District in the amount of $180,000 for engineering design and $15,000 for environmental mitigation for a total of $195,000.

Financial: Funding for this project will come from the Clark County Regional Flood Control District.

Agenda item 4. Resolution No. 5542, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, approving Interlocal Agreement No. 10-1301 between the City of Boulder City and the Clark County Regional Flood Control District (CCRFCD) for the North Railroad Conveyance (B.C. Project No. 09-0785-DR(3)

Overview:

· Funding Source for this project is from the Clark County Regional Flood Control District.

· CCRFCD has approved funding in the amount of $417,000 for engineering design and $15,000 for environmental mitigation for a total of $432,000.

· Advantage Civil Design Group, LLP is the consulting engineering firm selected to design the facilities included in this project.

Background Information: Boulder City conducted a consultant selection process to obtain the services of a consulting engineering firm to design various flood control projects as outlined in the 2008 Boulder City Flood Control Master Plan Update.

Through this process Advantage Civil Design Group, LLP was selected to perform design of the North Railroad improvements are being designed. The other two, Hemenway and Georgia Buchanan, are included in separate funding agreements.

This facility is described in the 2008 Master Plan Update, as Structures No.’s NRIN 0031, NRRR 0000, 0049, 0050, 0089 and 0106 and is identified in the Regional Flood Control District’s Ten-Year Construction Program. The improvements shall consist of flood water facilities including two 10’ x 5’ reinforced concrete box (RCB) culverts, concrete channel, levee improvements, a 42” storm drain and other appurtenances as necessary to control floodwaters.

Funding for this project has been approved by the Clark County Regional Flood Control District in the amount of $417,000 for engineering design and $15,000 for environmental mitigation for a total of $432,000. Financial: Funding for this project will come from the Clark County Regional Flood Control District.

Agenda item 5. Resolution No. 5543, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, approving Agreement No. 10-1302, between the City of Boulder City and Advantage Civil Design Group, LLP, for the design of the Boulder City Flood Control Facilities Design & Local Area Drainage Study, B.C. Project No. 09-0785-DR

Overview:

· Funding Source for this project is from the Clark County Regional Flood Control District (CCRFCD).

· The consulting firm of Advantage Civil Design Group, LLP was selected through a Request for Statements of Qualifications (SOQ).

· Advantage Civil Design Group has provided a scope of work and fee of $896.081.00 to perform the Boulder City Flood Control Facilities Design.

· The Local Area Drainage Study portion of the project has been postponed at this time due to budget constraints in Boulder City and at the CCRFCD.

Background Information: Boulder City conducted a consultant services selection in order to select a consulting engineering firm to perform the design of various flood control facilities identified in the 2008 Boulder City Master Plan Update. All of the projects that will be designed are listed in the first two years of the CCRFCD’s Ten-year Construction Program. All design and construction will be funded by the CCRFCD.

Public Works staff advertised a Request for Statements of Qualifications (SOQ) from interested and qualified professional engineering firms to perform the design of the various flood control facilities and prepare a local area drainage study. Fifteen SOQs were received and reviewed by Public Works and CCRFCD staff. The field was shortlisted to four firms to interview. Based on the interviews and SOQs the firm of Advantage Civil Design Group, LLP was selected as the firm best suited to perform the work.

The facilities to be designed are located in the Hemenway, North Railroad and Georgia Buchanan watersheds. Advantage Civil Design Group will be designing box culverts, concrete and soil cement channels, levee improvements, riprap erosion protection, sediment basins, and storm drains.

The Local Area Drainage Study portion of the project has been postponed due to budget constraints in Boulder City and at the CCRFCD. This portion of the project would have been the preparation of a drainage study to identify drainage improvements needed in Boulder City that are not considered regional facilities. The CCRFCD provides partial funding, when available, for construction of local facilities that are identified in a local area drainage study and drain into regional facilities. Financial: Funding for this project will come from the Clark County Regional Flood Control District.

Agenda item 6. Resolution No. 5544, approving Agreement No. 10-1303, an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Boulder City and Clark County for the Nuclear Waste Repository Program

Overview:

· Revenue Source for this project is via Clark County through funding provided by the U.S. Department of Energy

· Interlocal Agreement provides the City funding to participate in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Project affected units of government review

· The Agreement provides funding in the amount of $36,000 for public outreach and education campaigns, and related costs associated with the attending of meetings, conferences and educational seminars related to Yucca Mountain

· The City has entered into similar agreements in past years for funding

Background Information: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has provided funding to Clark County to operate the Clark County Nuclear Waste Division’s DOE Yucca Mountain Repository Monitoring Program. The program includes local participation by affected entities within Clark County. Boulder City participates as a member of the Clark County Nuclear Waste Steering Committee.

To continue our participation with this program, it is necessary for the City to enter into an interlocal agreement with Clark County. The agreement requires that the City participate and attend the steering committee meetings, and that we may participate in additional meetings outside of Clark County (i.e., Carson City, Washington D.C.) The agreement provides for $30,000 to be used to pay for a Community Indicators

Monitoring Website and other community information campaigns to educate our residents about the Yucca Mountain project. The City has previously entered into agreements with Urban Environmental Research (“UER”) to provide the informational website and the informational campaign. All other participants in the Yucca Mountain Repository Monitoring Program (i.e., Henderson, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Clark County, and the Moapa Band of Piutes) also use UER for the same purpose as the provider of monitoring services. The website for the community monitoring aspect can be accessed through the following URL: http://www.monitoringprogram.com/

The City has previously designated the Community Development Director (Brok Armantrout) as the staff liaison to attend the meetings of the fellow interlocal participants. The other agencies who participate include: City of Henderson, City of Las Vegas, City of North Las Vegas, City of Mesquite, Clark County, Paiute Nation, Nevada Department of Transportation, State of Nevada Emergency Management, and 5 local citizens appointed by Clark County Commission to represent the various unincorporated communities within the county. Mr. Armantrout attends the meetings when they are called – roughly every other month.

Other: The money is provided to the City as a reimbursement to expenses incurred. The City has been able to spend prior grant awards for informational campaigns. The City has been able to meet our obligations under the terms of prior agreements, and will continue to make good faith efforts to do so under this agreement as well. Clark County Nuclear Waste Division has been very helpful in providing technical assistance. The proposed Federal Budget (as presented by President Obama) calls for the abandonment of licensing process before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for use of Yucca Mountain as a high level nuclear material storage facility. However, since the announcement of the proposed abandonment, several States have filed suit to force the continued review of the current application pending before the NRC. Until such time that the facility site has been abandoned and all avenues of appeals are exhausted, Clark County intends to continue to participate in the Affected Local Units of Government program through the Department of Energy. As such, Boulder City will

continue to participate in local efforts.

PUBLIC COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS*

REGULAR AGENDA

Agenda item 7. Presentations:

A. Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to XXXX, XXXX, Henry Bruckman, and XXXX for March nominations in Excellence in Education Award*

B. Introduction of Senator Lee and a brief presentation regarding his outreach to local governments*

Agenda item 8. Consideration of Bill No. 1601 approving Amendment No. 09-1287A between the City of Boulder City and SolBio Energy I, LLC to amend the Lease Agreement by adding specific title exceptions for the property and amending the surety provision during construction

Overview:

· The City has entered a lease with SolBio Energy I, LLC.

 · Subsequent to executing the lease the parties recognized that certain language regarding SolBio’s duty to reclaim the property upon termination of the lease needed to be changed to reflect the clear intent of the parties

· Additionally, SolBio had not yet completed its due diligence with regard to title exceptions to the leased land. This process has been completed and the title exceptions need to be amended to reflect the information obtained.

· The parties have now resolved these issues and wish to amend the lease to reflect the necessary changes

· Bill No. 1601 approves the amendment to the lease.

Agenda item 9. Selection of finalists in connection with the Nevada League of Cities Youth Award and Scholarship Programs

Agenda item 10. Discussion and possible staff discussion on the recommendation of the Airport Advisory Committee to amend the Airport Rules and Regulations to modify the membership criteria of the Airport Advisory Committee

Overview:

· The Airport Advisory Committee membership is very selective in the eligibility for membership

· City Council directed Staff at the October 27, 2009 meeting to initiate an ordinance amendment to widen the eligibility pool by including up to two city residents at large for possible service on the AAC.

· On November 24, 2009 Bill No. 1591 an Ordinance of the City of Boulder City amending the airport Rules and Regulations to modify the membership criteria of the Airport Advisory committee was presented to City Council.

· City Council remanded the item to the AAC for  Recommendations

Background Information: The Boulder City Municipal Airport Rules and Regulations  were adopted by reference under §9-4-7 as part of the Boulder City Municipal Code (see Ordinance 1236 for complete text). The Rules and Regulations, among other things, set forth the eligibility criteria for membership on the Airport Advisory Committee (AAC) in §2.4.1.a. Specifically, the Rules and Regulations specify that to be a Committee member, the candidate must:

· Hold no other public office

· Be residents of Boulder City

· Be active participants on the airport with recognized aviation experience or expertise

· Hold a pilot’s license, medical certificate and a current flight review

OR

· Be recommended by members of the Committee

Many of the active pilots at the airport also have employment in the air transport industry (or air cargo). Generally, the past pool of candidates for service on the Airport Advisory Committee has consisted of a larger percentage of these types of pilots, and in recent years, they are representative of those whom are appointed to serve on the Committee.

For those who work in the Air Transport or Air Cargo industries, they often find themselves at the mercy of their employer when receiving their work schedules. Occasionally they are tasked to work on the same date as the regularly scheduled Airport Advisory Committee meetings. As a result, in the past several years, the Committee has lost 4 of its members due to excessive absences.

The AAC membership had two vacancies in late October and until late November there existed only one eligible application for service in the office of the City Clerk. The City Council discussed the membership criteria for the AAC at their regular Council Meeting held on October 27th. At that meeting, the Council issued a Staff Directive that an amendment be prepared to the Rules and Regulations to include a provision by which up to two members of the committee may be appointed from the Boulder City community at-large – meaning that they did not need to be pilots or active on the airport.

On November 24, 2009 Staff presented Bill No. 1591 an Ordinance of the City of Boulder City amending the airport Rules and Regulations to modify the membership criteria of the AAC. Specifically the Bill amends the membership criteria to permit the City Council to select up to two (2) Boulder City residents at-large to serve. The selection of at-large is permissive and not mandatory.

The majority of City Council members reconsidered the decision to include at-large members on the AAC. It was acknowledged that aviation knowledge and experience is an important criteria for AAC membership and that the City Council served as the “atlarge” representatives of the community. It was also stated it may not be appropriate for the AAC to recommend individuals to be on the committee, as it is a conflict of interest.

A motion was made to remand the item to the AAC for recommendation and consideration of the City Council having the ability to recommend AAC members. The motion was seconded and approved.

On the February regular Airport Advisory Committee meeting, the AAC discussed the membership eligibility criteria as recommended by City Council. Member Mattei made a motion to forward to the City Council.

The motion moved that: “the Airport Advisory Committee strongly disagrees with adding any at-large committee members to the committee as it hinders the ability of the AAC to provide the expertise required to the City Council.” The motion was seconded by Member Peterson; the vote was unanimous.

Member Mattei made a second motion to forward to the City Council regarding the qualifications of Airport Advisory Committee members. It was moved that: “The current membership criteria be modified to remove the existing five bullet points with new language that reads:

Members shall:

· Hold no other public office

· Be verifiable residents of Boulder City

· Be active or past participants on the airport or have recognized backgrounds of

aviation experience or expertise. “

The motion was seconded by Member Bacon. The vote was unanimous.

The AAC also moved to amend the Rules and Regulations to limit public participation on each item to no more than five (5) minutes, with the chair having discretion to waive the restriction (similar to the Council rule). The vote was 5-2, with Members Douglass and Thomas voting no.

Agenda item 11. Appointment to the Historic Preservation Committee

Overview:

· Alan Bowman resigned from the Historic Preservation Committee on February 24, 2010

· One appointment is needed to fill the unexpired term ending August 31, 2011

Background Information:

The Historic Preservation Committee consists of five members who

serve three year terms. The committee was established to advise the Planning Commission and City Council and to aid property owners in maintaining and enhancing the worthwhile historical resources of Boulder City.

Alan Bowman submitted his resignation on February 24, 2010, leaving a vacancy with a term expiring August 31, 2011.

Agenda item 12. Public Comments *

Agenda item 13. City Council’s Report *

Accompanying information material on the agenda items is on file and is available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, 401 California Avenue, Boulder City, Nevada; the Boulder City Library, 701 Adams Boulevard, Boulder City, Nevada; and the Boulder City website, www.bcnv.org .

AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA

Tuesday, March 02, 2010 – 6:00 PM

All items are for action unless indicated by an asterisk (*).

CALL TO ORDER

AGENDA

Agenda item 1. Minutes of the February 2, 2010, regular meeting

Agenda item 2. Receive update on airport projects and activities*

Overview:

· Airport Construction Projects

· Airport Ground Vehicle Operations Program

· Helicopter Layout

· Tenant Safety Team Meeting

Airport Construction Projects:

The Runway ‘9R-27L’ Safety Enhancement Construction Project is nearly complete. The asphalt was poured the week of February 1st, along with a fresh coat of paint for the runway markings. Runway grooving (to increase the coefficient of friction) has been scheduled on March 8th. The grooving work will be completed as day and night work to reduce the construction time. The runway is scheduled to be closed from 0600 March 8, 2010 and reopen 0600 March 12, 2010. Runway 9R/27L will be reopened if there is a crosswind component of more than 15 knots (day only) on 15/33. Upon completion of the grooving, the markings will be repainted.

Runway 15/33 Safety Enhancement Project was advertized for bid on February 16th with bid opening on March 9th at 1pm. This project will entail similar work as the runway 27L-9R Safety Enhancement Project. The safety areas will be re-stabilized and brought to standard and the runway will receive a 2 inch layer of asphalt. Run-up areas are not included in this project because of limited finds and the high construction costs associated with installing run-up areas.

Ground Vehicle Operations:

City Council approved the Ground Vehicle Operations Program on February 9th with an implementation date of March 1st. Ground Vehicle training classes have been held 4 times a week. To date approximately 35 people have been trained and training classes will continue until all employees requiring AMA access have been trained. On-going training will continue for new employees.

Helicopter Layout:

The new FATO’s (Final Approach and Take-off areas) were painted by Papillon around November of last year. There are three new spots located just north of taxiway delta. The new markings eliminated the old non-standard markings on Taxiway Delta. Helicopters now hover taxi to one of the three locations, look for traffic and then cross the taxiway. This offers a much safer alternative then operating directly on the taxiway.

A loading and unloading helicopter spot has been installed on the Southeast corner of the City Terminal Ramp. This spot will allow helicopter pilots in the hangar area to tug their aircraft to the spot without having to go all the way to the transient helicopter parking for take-off and landing. The intent of the spot is for based helicopter load and offload use. The #1 FATO is to be used for arrivals and departures, there is to be no taking off and landing from this new spot.

Tenant Safety Team Meeting:

The meeting is scheduled for March 18th at 6pm, at the City Council Chambers. The FAA FAST Team will give a Safety Presentation, the tour operators will review flight approach and departure patterns, the City will review the new FATO’s, Ground Vehicle Operations Program, upcoming construction, as well as, safety and security around the airport.

Agenda item 3. Discussion and possible Staff directive on subcontract between Stars and Stripes Air Tours and BFE, LLC

Pulled from agenda

Agenda item 4. Receive monthly update on Airport revenues*

Overview:

· The Airport Advisory Committee requested at their regular October 2008 meeting that a standard agenda item be included for monthly revenues for the Airport

· The Airport Revenue Report provided in this packet is the same report provided to the City Council

Background Information: At the regular meeting of the Airport Advisory Committee in October 2008, it was requested that Staff include as a standard agenda item the report provided to the City Council on airport revenues. Attached is the most recent report provided to the Council.

Agenda item 5. Public Comment *

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 – 7:00 PM

ALL ITEMS ARE FOR ACTION UNLESS INDICATED BY AN ASTERISK (*)

CALL TO ORDER

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE *

APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA (Item Nos. 6 - 15)

APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA (Item Nos. 1- 5) AS FOLLOWS:

Agenda item 1. Approval of the minutes of the February 9, 2010, regular meeting

Agenda item 2. Resolution No. 5532, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, approving the Boulder City Fire Department Knox Box Upgrade Project through the RDA Capital Project/Special Project Program

Overview:

· Funding Source for this project is Redevelopment Agency Capital Project/Special Project Program

· Program converts existing Knox Box technology with a more secure and accountable system

· Redevelopment Agency Board approved the project and project funding on February 4, 2010

· Council Action authorizes the expenditure

Background Information: The Redevelopment Agency Board recently reviewed and approved a request by the Boulder City Fire Department to upgrade the secure access Knox Box system for implementation.

The initial program was approved with funding at $50,000. The approval action took place at the regular quarterly meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on February 4, 2010. City Council action is required to approve the funding for budgeting and disbursement. Resolution No. 5532 authorizes the Finance Department to disburse funds in accordance with applicable law.

Agenda item 3. Resolution No. 5533, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, approving the Boulder City Department of Public Works program "City Street and Trail striping and safety enhancement" project, funded under the RDA Capital Project/Special Project Program

Overview:

· Funding Source for this project is Redevelopment Agency Capital Project/Special Project Program

· Program provides funding for striping and signage for the City’s bicycle and walking trail network, and improved traffic safety

· Redevelopment Agency Board approved the project and project funding on February 4, 2010

· Council Action authorizes the expenditure Background Information: The Redevelopment Agency Board recently

reviewed and approved a request by the Boulder City Public Works Department to purchase necessary equipment, vehicles and supplies to paint striping and install signage throughout the City’s bicycle and walking trail network for implementation. The initial program was approved with funding at $100,000 with additional funding approved for FY 11/12, 12/13 and 13/14 at $20,000 each year for supplies and maintenance. The approval action took place at the regular quarterly meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on February 4, 2010.

City Council action is required to approve the funding for budgeting and disbursement. Resolution No. 5532 authorizes the Finance Department to disburse funds in accordance with applicable law.

Agenda item 4. Resolution 5534, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, approving the acceptance and appropriation of grant funds from the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, in the amount of $600,000 for construction of the Eldorado Valley Regional Public Safety Training Facility (Range/EVOC)

Overview:

· The City of Boulder City and the City of Henderson executed a Memorandum of Understanding (09-1248) to develop a Regional Public Safety Training Facility in the Eldorado Valley area of Boulder City.

· In 2009 the Police Department applied for and has been approved to receive $600,000 in grant funds from the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, to assist in the construction of the facility.

Background Information: In 2009 the Police Department applied for a grant through the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, to assist in the construction of the Eldorado Valley Regional Public Safety Training Facility (EVRPSTF). On September 18, 2009 the Police Department was notified that a grant was approved in the amount of $600,000 for the project. According to the grant restrictions, the funds are designated, “to construct a Regional Training and Shooting Facility.”

The EVRPSTF is a joint project involving the City of Boulder City and the City of Henderson, and it will provide a long term, safe and secure facility for both entities to train their respective officers in weapons proficiency and qualifications, as well as emergency vehicle operations. Boulder City and Henderson Fire Departments will also utilize the facility for emergency vehicle operations training.

The EVRPSTF will be made available to other local, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies for training purposes. A fee schedule will be established for agencies other than Boulder City and Henderson to provide funding for capital improvements, operational and maintenance costs of the facility.

Recommendation: The Police Department Staff respectfully requests that the City Council approve Resolution No. 5534 approving the acceptance and appropriation of grant funds from the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, in the amount of $600,000 for construction of the Eldorado Valley Regional Public Safety Training Facility (EVRPSTF).

Agenda item 5. City Manager's Report:

A. Claims Paid List, January 2010

· Checks written 1/1/10-1/31/10, page 1-28 Total $1,957,128.77

· All checks were written on Bank of America

B. Financial Report, January 2010

PUBLIC COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS*

REGULAR AGENDA

Agenda item 6. Presentation by Dennis Campbell of the Southern Nevada Health District regarding illegal desert dumping (as requested by Council member Strickland)

Overview:

· Illegal dumping is the improper and/or unauthorized disposal of solid waste and is a significant problem in Clark County.

· The SolidWaste and Compliance Section of the SNHD handles approximately 1,800 complaints annually.

· Possible monetary award for providing information that leads to an administrative penalty or conviction

· Dennis Campbell, Environmental Health Manager from the SNHD, and Amy Irani will provide a presentation regarding illegal dumping activities in Boulder City in an effort to raise community awareness

Agenda item 7. Presentation of the January 2010 Monthly Monitoring Reports for Boulder City golf courses*

Overview:

· Boulder Creek revenue is $212,000 lower than last year at this time and expense is $196,107 lower.

· Boulder City Municipal golf course revenue is $59,371 lower than last year at this time and expense is $52,245 lower. Background Information: Attached are Monitoring reports for Boulder Creek and Boulder City golf courses for January 2010. A fund balance report for the General and Utility funds is included that reflects any impact of golf operations on these funds.

January Playing Conditions: January was a slower month for golf with mostly cold mornings followed by some windy afternoons. Actual golf course conditions were good.

Boulder Creek Golf Club total rounds played for the month (58% of FY complete) were 1,985 rounds, 1,066 less than the same month last year. Year to date receipts of $1,190,557 were at 44.3% of budget and down $212,000 (15%) from last year. Year to date expenses of $1,124,567 were 57.4% of budget and $196,107 lower than last year at this time.

January revenue/round comparison:

2008               2009              2010

Revenue per round $55.52           $51.17           $48.87

Rounds                      2,278             3,051              1,985

Total golf revenue    143,476         167,134         104,647

Utility Payments: The total utility expense paid since the course opened is $4,215,487. The City's delivery charge for the cost of this water is $2,350,760, so the golf course has contributed $1,864,727 in added income to the Utility Fund. During the current month, $11,778 in current charges were paid, leaving the unpaid current charges at $0 and the unpaid prior years utility charges at $1,710,549.

Boulder Creek cash and cash equivalents at 1/31/10 was $(268,941), a $16,173 decrease from the previous month and a $230,494 decrease from the same month last year.

I couldn’t copy the Municipal GC figures for this.

Fund Balance in the General Fund at January 31, 2010 is 2,006,253 (9% of expenditures) down from the previous month. The Utility Fund balance is $39,385,830. * Cash and cash equivalents in the Utility Fund at January 31, 2010 was $4,447,610, a $144,454 increase from the previous month and a $1,018,878 increase compared to the same month last year.

General Fund  Utility Fund

Beginning Fund Balance as of 7/1/09 $ 2,488,855    $ 37,014,479

Year-to-Date Revenues                                  11,576,057     13,592,216

Less: Year-to-Date Expenditures                   12,058,659     11,220,865

Current Fund Balance as of 1/31/10              $ 2,006,253    $ 39,385,830 *

Percent of Budgeted Expenditures 9%

Agenda item 8. Presentation and discussion of cumulative and current financial results

regarding Boulder Creek Golf Course, its impact on other City funds, the requirements of Nevada Statutes related thereto, and the validity of non- GAAP accounting methods in portraying the results (as requested by Council member Chandler)

Overview:

· The Mayor has previously ruled that full discussion of cumulative and current financial results, their impact on other City funds, the requirements of Nevada Statutes related thereto, and the validity of non-GAAP accounting methods in portraying the results is not permitted under the standing Monthly Monitoring Report Agenda Item.

Background Information: The historic and ongoing financial losses at the City’s golf courses continue to be a serious burden on the residents of Boulder City. There is disagreement as to the nature and extent of the losses. The public interest requires a more thorough explanation of these matters, including their impact on the City’s overall financial situation, on other City funds, the requirements of Nevada Statutes related thereto, and the validity of non-GAAP accounting methods in portraying the results.

Agenda item 9. Matters pertaining to the Public Works Development Service fees for Boulder City:

A. Public hearing on Business Impact Statement for Public Works Development Service fees

B. Resolution No. 5535 adopting the Business Impact Statement for the implementation of the PublicWorks Development Service fees

C. Resolution No. 5536 adopting the PublicWorks Development Service fees

Overview:

· The PublicWorks Development Service Fees have not been updated in over 20 years

· New fees proposed – Traffic Study, Hydrology Study, Barricade Plan

· A public workshop was held on February 8, 2010 in the Council Chambers at City Hall and there were no attendees

· No written comments were received

Background Information: The Public Works Development Service Fees haven’t been updated in over 20 years. Design criteria and building codes are more complex than in the past and require detailed reviews. Inspections are more time consuming due to the requirements of construction codes.

Up to this point, Boulder City has not collected fees for Hydrology Reviews and Traffic Study Reviews. A fee is being proposed to both and will be calculated based upon acreage as shown on the attached Public Works Development Service Fee Comparison Chart. Boulder City currently collects $10.00 for an Excavation Permit and is proposing a new fee in the amount of $300.00 if less than 60 feet and an additional $1.00 per foot over 60 feet. Boulder City’s current fee to obtain a Driveway/Sidewalk Permit is $10.00 and it is being proposed to increase the fee to $95.00. It is also required by City Code to obtain an Obstruction Permit which has been no charge in the past. A fee in the amount of $50.00 is being proposed. There are no charges in place for Barricade Plans and the recommended fee proposal is $50.00.

Currently, there are no fees established for Bond Replacement, Bond Progress Reduction, Bond Final Reduction and Bond Maintenance/Release. The fees being proposed are as follows: Bond Replacement $500.00; Bond Progress Reduction $100.00; Bond Final Reduction $550.00; and Bond Maintenance/Release $100.00. It is also being proposed that developers post a bond and pay fees for drainage improvements and perimeter walls, whether these improvements are to be publicly or privately maintained, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Other increases being proposed to Civil Improvements can be found on the attached PublicWorks Development Service Fee Comparison Chart.

Staff researched similar fees charged by other agencies in Clark County. The proposed fee schedule is very similar to the City of Henderson, with minor changes to fit Boulder City. Staff is proposing an increase in fees that will help recover the cost for providing such services including additional time spent on job-site inspections.

Agenda item 10. Matters pertaining to a drainage easement in the Eldorado Valley Energy Zone:

A. Resolution No. 5537 approving Agreement No. 10-1297, an agreement between the City of Boulder City and El Dorado Energy, LLC, to terminate Boulder City Agreement No. 09-1285

B. Resolution No. 5538 approving a Terminable Drainage Easement between the City of Boulder City and El Dorado Energy, LLC, for the construction and maintenance of a drainage easement in the Eldorado Valley Energy Zone

Overview:

· The City owns certain real property located in the Eldorado Valley Energy Zone on which Acciona Solar Power Inc., holds an option for future solar development

· Eldorado Energy/Copper Mountain Solar needs an easement on or over a portion of the aforementioned property under option to Acciona in order to provide drainage to its solar development

· Acciona has consented to the drainage easement on the option property with the understanding that if Acciona exercises its option on the property, Acciona will take responsibility for maintenance of the drainage easement

· This matter was originally addressed in November of 2009, but the agreement that was approved (09-1285) did not contain the actual agreement of the parties.

· Resolution 5537 (Agreement No. 10-1297) is an agreement to terminate the original drainage easement approved in November, 2009.

· Resolution 5538 (Agreement No. 10-1298) is the new agreement which accurately reflects the true intent of the parties.

Agenda item 11. Discussion and possible staff directive regarding proposed changes to the Boulder City Energy Assistance Program (BCEAP)

A. Staff report and discussion regarding procedural changes and documentation necessary for the effective administration of the program

B. City Attorney's report regarding the cap on the number of program participants and possible sanctions for the submission of fraudulent BCEAP applications

C. Staff report on the logistics/administrative necessary for the establishment of a program allowing ratepayers to contribute to the BCEAP through their monthly billing payments

D. Consideration of Resolution No. 5539 increasing the BCEAP from 10% to 35%, effective the month following the adoption of the Resolution, and restructuring program guidelines.

Overview 11A:

· City Council directed staff to develop new guidelines for the administration of the BCEAP

· Staff direction was also given to develop a mechanism for utility customers to be able to contribute funds to the BCEAP through their monthly billing payments

· Resolution No. 5539 was prepared implementing procedural changes and increasing the discount from 10% to 35%

Background Information 11A: The BCEAP has been in existence in some form since March 1978, providing a 10% discount on utility services to eligible customers. Currently there are 92 customers receiving assistance at a cost of approximately $6,000 since July 2009. Total costs of the program were around $7,100 for FY 2009. Since this amount represents the costs of the 10% discount increasing the discount to 35% would result in program costs of around $25,000 for each 100 participants.

A. Staff report regarding procedural changes and documentation necessary for the effective administration of the program.

Staff recommendations for administrative changes have been incorporated into a new

application that has been expanded to identify the types of documentation to acceptable to establish the applicant’s income, additional information regarding the applicant and a certification of the correctness of the information by the applicant. While these expanded requirements may appear to create additional requirements on program applicants it should be pointed out that these requirements are less stringent than the requirements for any State or Federal assistance. Additionally, this new documentation will provide a greater level of assurance that there are uniform income verification standards in use. A copy of the revised application is provided at Attachment A.

B. City Attorney's report regarding the cap on the number of program participants and possible sanctions for the submission of fraudulent BCEAP applications This item will be discussed in a separate staff report from the City Attorney.

C. Staff report on the logistics/administrative necessary for the establishment of a program allowing ratepayers to contribute to the BCEAP through their monthly billing payments

If the City Council desires to establish such a program we could create an appropriate method to accomplish this. I would point out that there would be continuing costs associated with segregating these funds and applying them to the costs of the program.

D. Consideration of Resolution No. 5539 increasing the BCEAP from 10% to 35%,

effective the month following the adoption of the Resolution, and restructuring program guideline

Resolution No. 5539 has been provided to incorporate the recommended staff changes and increase the discount from 10% to 35%. The following sections have been changed or added:

Section 3:1. – This section provides for the changes in the expanded application.

Section 3:3. – This section adds the requirement for the applicants to apply for and be approved by the State of Nevada for assistance within 120 days of their application. Failure to apply or denial by the State would remove the applicant from the BCEAP. Section 3:5. - This section adds the administrative remedy of removal from program for false information provided by the applicant. A first violation would result in removal from the program for one year. A second violation would permanently remove the applicant from the program.

Other Considerations: If the City Council increases the discount associated with the program it is expected that program applications would significantly increase particularly in these economic times. Since this matter was discussed at the January 26, 2010, meeting the billing department has been contacted by 86 customers concerning the program. In order to be able to respond to these expected additional applications we would have to increase part-time staffing in the department by 12 hours per week at a cost of $275 per week.

If the program is changed by resolution of the City Council staff recommends that all current participants should be required to reapply under the new guidelines within 60 days of the adoption of the resolution or they would be removed from the program. Recommendation: The Finance Department Staff respectfully requests that the City Council receive adopt Resolution No. 5539, increasing the discount from 10% to 35% and incorporating the program changes discussed above.

Overview 11B:

· Cap issues:

· The Equal Protection Clause, part of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that “no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

· Boulder City is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada.

· Every resident of Boulder City should be allowed to apply for consideration under the BCEAP.

· Every Boulder City resident who meets the qualifications for participation in the BCEAP should be allowed to participate.

· Anything less would fail equal protection scrutiny

· Fraudulent Application issues:

· The type of fraud at issue here is ordinarily called “benefits fraud.”

· There are a number of types of benefits fraud.

· Penalties for benefits fraud can be administrative, civil, or criminal, or a

combination of administrative/civil/criminal Background Information:

Cap issues:

The fundamental legal concept here is the principal of equal protection. Under that concept, if the City establishes the proposed BCEAP, every person within its jurisdiction who qualifies under the guidelines should be allowed to participate in the program. Anything less would turn participation in the program into a game or race to see who can get into the program first. The City can establish qualifications for the program, but every person who meets those qualifications should be allowed to enjoy the benefits.

Rather than limiting the number of persons who can be allowed into the program, a better option would be to limit the amount of time that the program will be operational. By including a sunset clause into the policy, the program could terminate after a specific date unless Council action is taken to extend it. At least under a sunset clause, all participants would be treated equally.

Fraudulent application issues:

Common law fraud has nine elements:

1. a representation of an existing fact;

2. its materiality (the fact is significant to the issue or matter at hand);

3. its falsity;

4. the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;

5. the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;

6. plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;

7. plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;

8. plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and

9. consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.

Most jurisdictions in the United States require that each element be pled with particularity and be proved with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence (very probable evidence) to establish a claim of fraud. In criminal fraud, the standard of proof is much higher – beyond a reasonable doubt. The measure of damages in Civil fraud cases is ordinarily computed by the "benefit of the bargain" rule, which is the difference between the value of the property had it been as represented, and its actual value. Special damages may be allowed if shown proximately caused by defendant's fraud and the damage amounts are proved with specificity. There are dozens of different types of fraud that can be alleged.

Benefit Fraud is any fraudulent act committed with the intent of getting government

benefits.

Types of Benefit Fraud would include, but not be limited to:

1. Reporting false or misleading information when submitting an application, or other required communication.

2. Failing to report monies received from employment or other sources.

3. Failing to report the presence of additional household members that reside in their household and contribute to the financial good of the household.

4. Collecting benefits for household members who do not reside in the applicant’s household.

5. Failing to disclose all assets and/or resources required in the application.

Penalties can be either administrative, civil, criminal or a combination of any or all of

these three categories:

1. Administrative Sanctions are the most common penalty. Under Nevada Law,

benefits fraud would include:

:

A. First Offense: Denial of benefits for one year

B. Second Offense: Denial of benefits for two years.

C. Third Offense: Permanent denial of benefits

The State administrative sanctions are specific to certain types of state welfare fraud

and the City is not required to follow the same sanctions when instituting a local benefits policy. The City Council might want to consider a two strikes sanction policy rather than a three strikes policy (i.e. First offense: denial of benefits for one year, Second offense; denial of benefits permanently). The Council has that latitude.

 As part of this regulation, the City Council would also have to provide for an administrative appeal process (Fourteenth Amendment again - procedural due process) for those who wish to challenge any finding against them of benefit fraud.

2. Criminal Sanctions could also be imposed, such as:

A. Fine: up to $1,000

B. Jail: up to 6 months

C. Both jail and a fine

D. Restitution of financial benefit fraudulently received

Because the City’s jurisdiction is limited to misdemeanors, the imposition of criminal sanctions is not recommended. As stated above, common law fraud has nine elements associated with it that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The cost of going to trial on such a matter is quite high. Most defendants would quite likely qualify as indigent and unable to pay any fines levied. If jail was also to be a factor, indigent defendants would have to be provided with defense counsel, usually at the City’s expense. Due to the fact that the administrative sanctions are much less complicated to prove and administer, criminal sanctions are not necessary and quite probably counter productive.

Recommendation:

1. That the City Council carefully consider the implications of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution when determining how to limit or cap participation in the BCEAP program.

2. That the City Council consider imposition of administrative sanctions for benefit fraud.

Agenda item 12. Introduction of Bill No. 1601 approving Amendment No. 09-1287A between the City of Boulder City and SolBio Energy I, LLC to amend the Lease Agreement by adding specific title exceptions for the property and amending the surety provision during construction

Overview:

· The City has entered a lease with SolBio Energy I, LLC.

· Subsequent to executing the lease the parties recognized that certain language regarding reclamation of the property needed to be changed to reflect the intent of the parties

· Additionally, SolBio had not yet completed its due diligence with regard to title exceptions to the leased land.

· The parties have now resolved these issues and wish to amend the lease to reflect the necessary changes

· Bill No. 1601 approves the amendment to the lease.

Agenda item 13. Appointments:

A. Airport Advisory Committee

B. Golf Course Green Committee

Overview:

· Airport Advisory Committee – the terms of Victor Thomas and Antoinette Mattei expire February 28, 2010.

· Golf Course Greens Committee – the terms of Harold Critcher, Robert Towles and Carlene Voerding expire February 28, 2010.

Agenda item 14. Public Comments *

Agenda item 15. City Council’s Report *

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 – 4:00 PM

ALL ITEMS ARE FOR ACTION UNLESS INDICATED BY AN ASTERISK (*)

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE *

APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA (Item Nos. 1 - 3)

REGULAR AGENDA

1. Discussion by CM regarding the Fiscal Year 2011 Operating and Capital Budget

A. Motion to recess the Special City Council meeting and enter closed session to discuss possible labor negotiations

B. Motion to end the Special Closed Session and to reconvene to the Regular Open Meeting

Overview:

· The biannual budget review was presented in January, 2010.

· City Manager has prepared a proposed FY ’11 operating budget for the City Council’s consideration.

· A second budget meeting is scheduled for March 25, 2010.

· She is seeking feedback and direction regarding the proposed budget, so any changes can be reviewed at the March budget meeting.

· The Tentative Budget will be scheduled for approval on April 9, 2010.

· The Final Budget will be scheduled for approval on May 19, 2010.

Background Information:

General Fund Historical Background: The FY ’10 budget anticipates revenues of approximately $22M and expenses of approximately $22.6M and an ending General Fund balance of $1.7M.

When the Final Budget was adopted last year, I told the City Council that I was not comfortable with drawing down the ending fund balance to this extent, so I planned to hold positions open to further reduce expenses. When the revenues were tabulated from the prior year’s activities, it became clear to me that expenses must be reduced this year by at least $1M because this year’s consolidated tax projection was $600,000 less than last year’s actual and the Hang Time Sport’s lease included in the revenue projections ($273,600) never materialized.

Positions vacant from the prior year were left vacant, and in September, the “Save A Million” plan for reduced spending was implemented. Approximately, $750,000 of the savings came from reduced labor costs and $250,000 came from reductions in other categories.

At the biannual budget review, I indicated that revised projections indicate that revenues will be down by about $900,000 from the FY ’10 projected budget, and despite reducing expenses another $1M and adding unprojected revenues of $800,000 (SolBio), the ending fund balance at this end of this year is likely to be $2M. This is up from the adopted budget, but not where I anticipated it to be given reduced spending and new revenues.

Today: All of the reduced spending that was implemented in December, 2008, ($1.6M), was carried over into this year’s budget. Further budget reductions were put into place in September, 2009. This has resulted in operating budgets that have been stripped of any excess funding and positions that have been held vacant for far longer than ever anticipated. I have tried to give you an idea of how things have changed over the past two budget cycles by compiling a list which is attached as Exhibit 1. In general, much of the savings is attributed to reducing labor costs through a variety of methods including:

· Renegotiating labor contracts to reduced cost-of-living increases;

· Eliminating cost-of-living increases for Department Heads and part-time employees;

· Transitioning the Municipal Golf Course to contract labor;

· Insurance savings by Teamster’s freeze on premiums for 1 year;

· Reduction of part-time employees in the Recreation Department;

· Reduction of part-time employee hours/hourly salary;

· Eliminating car allowance for three new employees;

· Reducing the entry salary for Division Head/Department Head recruitments;

· Reducing overtime expense at Fire Department by allowing 5-person shifts;

· Covering Police Department employee expense (new K-9 officer) through use of Forfeiture Funding;

· Eliminating most contract labor in Landscape;

· Holding open or delaying the filling of virtually every vacancy that occurs

via retirement.

Although there have been some reductions in service levels, the City has continued to provide all of the services it has provided prior to the 2008 decline. This is not without consequence. Lack of funding has impacted workflow and ability to get work done on a timely basis, employee burnout, reductions in landscape and golf course maintenance, offices being closed during lunch periods, some reduction in hours for recreation activities, more difficulty in the FD response to back-to-back calls, and PD utilizing traffic unit for patrol activities when shortages on shift occur. Even with these difficulties, I believe we’ve done a good job of providing City services.

Deferral of capital expense has also reduced expenses in the General Fund. Twelve vehicles and/or pieces of equipment in our fleet have now reached the “poor” ranking and should be considered for immediate replacement. Thirty-two vehicles and/or pieces of equipment have reached the “fair” ranking and should be considered for replacement within a year. And, as you know, my number one priority last year for capital funding— Fire Department rescues and Police Department cruisers--remained unfunded. The following vehicles and/or pieces of equipment are scheduled for immediate replacement:

· Six police vehicles;

· Two public works utility vehicles;

· Rescue, truck and utility vehicle for Fire Department;

· Pickup for Recreation Department.

As with reductions of labor, deferral of capital is not without consequence; if we don’t begin to fund vehicle and equipment replacement, it will take the City years to rebuild our fleet in the future. Looking ahead: The reduced spending plans that have been in place for the past two years have kept the City afloat; however, these plans are not sustainable in the long run. I believe that now is the time for the City to make a conscious decision to allocate funding to critical areas and reduce funding to less critical areas. This is what I call,

“Planning for the New Normal” (see Exhibit 2).

I believe reduced revenues are a given, at least until our new lease revenues come into play. Right now, there is some uncertainty as to whether or not we will see the revenues from these solar leases or not. In addition, there are outside influences that may be establishing our priorities for us, namely the Hoover Dam Bridge opening later this year. No one knows the real impact of the additional traffic coming through Boulder City; however, it is safe to say that there is no doubt that the additional traffic will impact our Public Safety services. The Public Safety budgets that you see today are minimum budgets—these budgets do not provide for any leeway for enhancing services for police and fire. The proposed budget does not contain a “back-up plan” for funding capital should the ballot question for public safety vehicles not be authorized by voters.

The proposed FY ’11 General Fund budget: The proposed budget reduces or stabilizes funding in less critical areas and reallocates funding to support public safety. It also begins to provide some funding for capital and allows a few critical positions to be filled at different periods throughout the year. This is a very lean GF budget—there are no excesses here. Travel and training, supplies and contractual expenses are at a minimum. Of the $5M in additional requests received for funding, only a little over $400,000 was approved. The budget achieves my goal of maintaining service levels and all full-time positions while keeping what I believe to be a minimum ending fund balance of just over $2M. No property tax increase is recommended for next year, and most revenues have been projected as flat (solar leases & permitting associated with solar leases are the exception to this rule).

Here is an overview of the proposed budget:

· No property tax increase recommended;

· Utility Fund transfer has been recomputed to $2.325M, consistent with City Council’s policy;

· City Clerk’s budget increased for $125K in election expense and to fill the Deputy City Clerk position in January, 2011;

· Municipal Court budget reflects funding for part-time warrant collection team and courthouse expansion project;

· Personnel Administrator’s secretary position remains unfilled;

· Floating clerical service expense eliminated; City Hall will close on Friday morning;

· One police officer vacancy will be filled in October, one police officer vacancy one police officer vacancy to be filled in June, one police officer position will remain open until FY ’12;

· Deputy Chief position will be eliminated and a Sergeant position will be filled (total number of sworn positions remain at 35);

· Deputy Fire Chief position will remain open;

· Fire reserve funding has been increased by $20K to help provide shift coverage;

· Fire Department wash down area funded to avoid EPA sanctions;

· Tools, jacks, air compressor and misc. equipment approved for street operations;

· Contractual expense in landscape further reduced; turf mower & irrigation

controller system funded;

· Plan copier for engineering approved;

· Municipal golf expenses reduced by $200K through reduced maintenance and reduced labor;

· Part-time labor expense reduced by approx. $40K in Recreation Department;

· Youth Center, Art Center and ABC Park Administrative Building to be closed;

· Trailmaster position remains open;

· Public Works Superintendent position is filled;

· Public Works Director’s department secretary position remains vacant;

· Building Inspector and Limited Term Inspector remains vacant (unless funding provided to hire limited-term through contracts or fees)

· Boulder Creek transfer increased to $1.1M for debt service.

The City needs to maintain its full-time personnel if it wants to maintain services levels and, at the same time, labor costs must be controlled. As a part of this proposed budget, I am recommending:

· No cost-of-living increases for employees;

· A cap on the City’s contribution for insurance of $956 for all employees;

· Elimination of the “vacation buy-back” program.

This is a good first step in controlling employee expense, and I would also recommend that the City Council consider carrying these changes into FY ’12. The stabilizing of labor costs would allow additional revenues to be used to rebuild fund balances and fund one-time capital expenses in the future.

There are areas that I require clarification from the City Council in connection with preparing a tentative budget. At this point in time, it makes sense to combine Boulder Creek Golf Club into the General Fund. The Finance Director has indicated that the expenses and revenues could be captured in a separate golf division so they could be monitored; however, at the end of the year the expenses and revenues would be rolled into the General Fund. Although I have discussed this with the City Council, some directive from the City Council would be helpful as I work to finalize the budget. The second area is the ending fund balance itself. Last year, a budget was approved with a $1.7M ending fund balance, and given the fluctuations in revenues, I am not comfortable with a General Fund balance goal of less than $2M. It would be helpful to me if the City Council would state its ending fund balance goal, so I could prepare a budget consistent with its goals.

Background Information for the Utility Fund:

Utility Fund Historical Background: In October, 2008, the City Council approved a 10% across-the-board water rate increase and a sewer rate increase which was anticipated to generate an additional $500,000 which would be placed in a reserve account for the third intake. A second 10% water rate increase was planned for October of 2009, but the City Council did not implement this increase as planned. An electric rate increase of .75 cents per kilowatt hour was approved in July, 2009, and this increase was expected to generate $1.125M annually. The revenue from this increase was to be used to establish a rate stabilization reserve account ($250,000), a third intake reserve account ($500,000) and the remaining to offset electric operating shortfalls ($400,000).

This plan did not work out as anticipated. The October 1, 2009, water rate increase was

not implemented because NV Energy filed for its rate increase, and the City Council did not want to subject rate payers to both another electric rate increase and another water rate increase. The electric rate increase of July, 2009, did not generate the revenue anticipated. During the past six months, it has generated about $300,000 of additional revenue. Based upon new NV Energy rates and new estimates for wholesale electric

costs, the City needs to increase its revenues by $3.6M to cover these costs. The old plan to establish a rate stabilization reserve account and a third intake reserve account was scrapped and the additional revenue was used to offset increased electric costs. In addition, the City Council approved a 35% increase in the electric rate to recover the remaining increased costs of electric power purchases.

Currently, the funding plan for the Third Intake is addressed. I have worked with the SNWA to defer some of the costs associated with the third intake to year 6. $500,000 annually is required from 2010-2015, then the debt services increases to $1.1M. Currently, $750,000 is being set aside in the third intake reserve from the BCGC utility loan repayment, and $350,000 is being set aside from the October 1, 2008, water and sewer rate increase. (The increase did not generate the $500,000 estimated.) In addition, the City Council has placed a land sale ballot question on the November, 2010, election, and any proceeds from a land sale could help supplement debt service for the third intake.

Looking ahead: If our long-term goal is to stabilize the City’s rates (and it is mine), then the City must establish adequate electric reserves. For the first few months, the City has been successful in securing power at less than NV Energy’s costs; however, there are many variables that impact energy costs that are outside our control. The energy market itself fluctuates tremendously. The lake levels affect the amount of power we receive from Hoover, and the lake levels continue to decline. SNWA predicts the lowering of lake levels to continue next year, even if there is adequate snowfall in the Rockies, and this will reduce electricity production and the amount of power we get from Hoover next year. SNWA will no longer be purchasing power through the Colorado River Commission, so the City will be paying more for its power because it will be purchasing smaller blocks of power than it was previously. And, although wholesale power costs are fairly good right now, the trend shows that power costs are moving upward, not downward. Finally, our Hoover power contracts expire in 2017, and even if they are extended (we think they will be) the parameters will be different, and Boulder City will not receive the same amount of power as it has previously.

I firmly believe that the City must establish an electric rate stabilization account this year to protect our rate payers from this fluctuating electric market. Placing $250,000 annually in this account would provide the City with a mechanism to pay higher wholesale costs without adjusting rates. In addition, electric capital reserves must be re-established. The cost of transformers, substations and, in general, electric facilities are BIG. The good thing is they don’t have to be replaced often. Today, the utility fund literally could not afford to write a check for $1.5M should a transformer fail. Placing another $250,000 in a capital reserve account would allow the City to build the financial resources to protect the reliability of our electric system. Now is the time to do this, before we fall into a more unfavorable wholesale electric market.

The proposed FY ’11 Utility Fund budget: The same careful attention has been given to Utility Fund expense as has been done with the General Fund expense. Here is an overview of the proposed budget:

· Part-time employee expense added for outside collection monitoring at the landfill on weekends;

· SCADA training and program added for Electrical Department.;

· Funding provided for a program to lower electric demand for residential;

· Water & Sewer Supervisor will remain vacant until January 2011.

I believe through careful planning, the City can maintain its existing electric and water rate structure for many years. It will take a systematic, planned approach to accomplish this goal. I am recommending the City Council take the following first steps:

· Establish an electric rate stabilization account and contribute $250,000 to the account;

· Establish an electric capital reserve account and contribute $250,000 to the account;

· Allow some additional revenue to be used for operating to compensate for losses that have accumulated during the last several budget cycles, so programs and equipment can be adequately funded. The budget highlights and budget detail is attached for the City Council’s review and consideration. (Exhibit 3 - Budget)

Agenda item 1a and b

Overview:

· Open meeting law allows the City Council to enter into a closed session to discuss labor negotiations.

· The City Manager’s recommended budget includes recommendations that are subject to collective bargaining negotiation & contract amendments.

· The City Council may desire to discuss these recommendations and/or other labor-related issues which are subject to collective bargaining.

· Any action must be taken in an open session.

Background Information: The recommended budget includes several matters that are governed by collective bargaining contracts. These matters include: providing no cost of living increase for FY ’11,

capping the insurance premium paid by the City, and waiver of the vacation buy-back provision. None of these actions could be done unilaterally by the City Council, the various collective bargaining groups must agree to the changes before they could be implemented.

The City has agreed to not implement a reduction in workforce for any Teamster or Police Protective Group through June 30, 2011, unless the General Fund balance drops below $1M. The recommended budget anticipates a General Fund balance of approximately $2M and no reduction of the workforce. However, the $365,897 in General Fund savings derived from these wage concessions are needed to protect this $2M ending fund balance. The General Fund has significant swings in its overall fund balance. During FY ’09, the General Fund dropped over $1M from the ending fund balance in one month and increased by as much as $800,000 in another month. Should the City Council desire to discuss any collective bargaining issues, it is recommended that it enter into closed session to discuss those issues. Any directive given to the City Manager should be done in open session under Agenda Item No. 2.

2. Staff directive regarding the Fiscal Year 2011 Operating and Capital Budget

3. Public Comments *

Accompanying information material on the agenda items is on file and is

available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, 401 California Avenue,

Boulder City, Nevada; the Boulder City Library, 701 Adams Boulevard, Boulder

City, Nevada; and the Boulder City website, www.bcnv.org .

“Notice to persons with disabilities: Members of the public who are disabled and

require special assistance or accommodations at the meeting are requested to

notify the City Clerk by telephoning (702) 293-9208 at least seventy-two hours in

advance of the meeting.”

1

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 – 7:00 PM

ALL ITEMS ARE FOR ACTION UNLESS INDICATED BY AN ASTERISK (*)

CALL TO ORDER

INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE *

APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA (Item Nos. 8 - 22)

APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA (Item Nos. 1- 7) AS FOLLOWS:

Agenda item 1. Approval of minutes:

A. January 12, 2010, Regular meeting

B. January 13, 2010, Special meeting

Agenda item 2. Resolution No. 5516, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, awarding a bid for the 2009 Pavement Reconstruction Project, B.C. Project No. 09-0768-STR, bids opened January 14, 2010 (7 bids received)

Overview:

· Funding Source for this project is from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Stimulus).

· December 17, 2009, Notice Inviting Bids advertised.

· January 14, 2010, 7 bids received, opened and tabulated.

· Las Vegas Paving Corporation is the apparent low bidder with a low bid of $987,000.

· Public Works staff will obtain surveying and materials testing services in an amount not to exceed $70,000.

Background Information: This project includes pulverizing in place the existing pavement and replacement with 4” and 5” asphalt pavement, concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter, ADA improvements and underground utility work on Nevada Way from Quartzite Drive to US 93, Utah Street from 6th Street to Adams Boulevard and Wyoming from Nevada Way to Utah Street. Fire hydrants will be replaced as part of the work. Storm drain will be installed on Nevada Way below Quartzite to convey storm water into the public drainage system installed as part of the Tuscany Retreat development. Street lights will be installed on Nevada from Quartzite to the Visitor’s Center.

On May 22, 2009 Boulder City entered into Agreement No. 09-1252 with the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to fund up to $1 million for this project. The engineer’s cost estimate of $1.4 million for the project was prepared prior to entering into the NDOT Agreement. City Council entered into Agreement No. 09-1255 with the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) in the amount of $400,000.00 to cover the additional projected cost of this project.

Like all other entities, Boulder City received very favorable bids for our Stimulus funded roadway project. Since this is a federally funded project, the plan approval process is quite complex. In addition to design, certifications had to be obtained for right-of-way and environmental clearances. Like other entities, this process took over 6 months to complete. This precludes adding more roadways to the program after the bids are received and still be able to meet the award deadline of February 15, 2010. Therefore, other entities will likely not be able to spend all of the Stimulus funding allocated to them early in 2009.

Since Boulder City included an extra amount of work in the bid package from the beginning, the full $1 million of Stimulus funding will be spent. The low bid is $987,000, but City staff time, surveying, and materials testing can also be charged to the project. Public Works staff will obtain surveying and materials testing services in an amount not to exceed $70, 000 for the project.

Financial: Funding Source for this project is from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Stimulus) through a funding agreement with the NDOT and the RTC. re-foot sediment basin. The improvements will connect to the box culvert, NRIN 0065, installed with the Yucca Street Improvements.

Funding for this project is $1,698.205 for construction and $136,000 for construction management for a total of $1,834,295. Agreement No. 09-1293 is attached.

Financial: Funding for this project will come from the Clark County Regional Flood Control District.

Agenda item 3. Resolution No. 5517, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, approving final acceptance and bond release for Giroux and Cummins for a parcel map development known as Denver Heights D.123

Action Requested: That the City Council approve Final Acceptance & Bond Release for D.123, located on Denver Street, being grading, water, sewer and electrical utility installations and asphalt paving. A Development Off-Site Improvement Agreement was executed on April 30, 2008. The developer posted the necessary bond on May 8, 2008. A final inspection was made and found the project complete, according to specifications. As-builts have not been received.

Agenda item 4. Resolution No. 5518, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, approving Agreement No. 09-1293 between the City of Boulder City and the Clark County Regional Flood Control District (CCRFCD) to fund the construction of the Yucca Debris Basin, Collection and Outfall, B.C. Project No. 04-0605-DR

Overview:

· CCRFCD has approved funding in the amount of $1,698,295 for construction and $136,000 for construction management.

· The plans and specifications are 95% complete.

· Public Works staff is working with the design engineer to address staff and CCRFCD staff comments on the plans and specifications.

· The project will be advertised for bids once final approval of the plans and specifications is obtained from the CCRFCD.

Background Information: The Yucca Debris Basin, Collection and Outfall project is described in the 2008 Master Plan Update as Facility Numbers NRIN 0040, NRIN 0065 (existing), NRIN 0066 and NRIN 0067. The proposed improvements include construction of a concrete channel and 1- acre-foot sediment basin. The improvements will connect to the box culvert, NRIN 0065, installed with the Yucca Street Improvements.

Funding for this project is $1,698.205 for construction and $136,000 for construction management for a total of $1,834,295. Agreement No. 09-1293 is attached. Financial: Funding for this project will come from the Clark County Regional Flood Control District.

Agenda item 5. Resolution No. 5519 approving Interlocal Agreement 09-1294 for shared funding of regional homeless coordination and inclement weather shelter for Fiscal Year 2009-2010

· Overview: The City of Boulder City is a member of the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC) and works with the City of Las Vegas, the City of Henderson, the City of North Las Vegas and the County of Clark to maximize funds in the solution of the homeless issue on a county-wide basis.

Background Information: As a member of the SNRPC, Boulder City continues to work with the other members on solutions to the homeless issue. Adoption of this agreement will be for the purpose of providing funding of regional homeless coordination and inclement weather shelter. The SNRPC is using a population based formula to determine Boulder City’s share of this funding, which is $8,124.21 for FY 2009-2010.

Agenda item 6. Resolution 5520, repealing and replacing Resolution No. 5487, approving Interlocal Agreement No. 09-1295 between the City of Boulder City Police Department and the State of Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to provide DMV services in Boulder City

Overview:

· The Police Department has provided limited DMV services to Boulder City residents since 2003.

· The former Interlocal Agreement, No. 07-1158, is expired.

· The subsequent Interlocal Agreement, No. 09-1286, was never executed by the DMV due to a last minute change they made to Item No. 7 (Consideration).

· The revised Interlocal Agreement No. 09-1295 will provide for continued DMV services for the residents of Boulder City.

· Staff is recommending approval of Interlocal Agreement No. 09- 1295.

Background Information: Senator Jon Porter supported Senate Bill 408 in the 2001 Legislative Session authorizing the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles to enter into an agreement with the City of Boulder City to provide limited motor vehicle services. The City of Boulder City entered into an Interlocal Agreement in 2003, authorizing the Police Department to provide DMV services. A subsequent Interlocal Agreement, No. 07-1158, expired in 2009. The City Council approved Resolution No. 5487 on November 24, 2009, which approved and accepted Interlocal Agreement 09-1286. The DMV made a change to the Interlocal Agreement before it was executed but after it was approved by the City Council, which now requires a repeal of Resolution No. 5487 and the approval of Resolution No. 5520. The change to the Interlocal Agreement is under Section 7, titled “Consideration,” and it establishes annual and “life of contract” limits on the amount of income the City can receive from the DMV for its transactions.

Agenda item 7. City Manager's Report

A.   Claims Paid List, December 2009

Overview:

· Checks written 12/1/09 – 12/31/09, page 1-30 Total $2,798,782.37

A.   · All checks were written on Bank of America.

B. Financial Report, December 2009

PUBLIC COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS*

REGULAR AGENDA

Agenda item 8. Presentations:

A. Presentation of checks to St. Jude's Ranch for Children and to Police Explorers Program from the fundraising proceeds of the Boulder City Police Protection Association vs. KLAS-TV softball competition and Home Run Derby*

B. Presentation by Jason Gray of Strategic Solutions regarding the 2010 US Census*

Agenda item 9. Presentation of the December 2009 Monthly Monitoring Reports for Boulder City golf courses*

Overview:

· Boulder Creek revenue is $149,513 lower than last year at this time and expense is $179,802 lower.

· Boulder City Municipal golf course revenue is $41,482 lower than last year at this time and expense is $24,986 lower.

Background Information: Attached are Monitoring reports for Boulder Creek and Boulder City golf courses for December 2009. A fund balance report for the General and Utility funds is included that reflects any impact of golf operations on these funds.

December Playing Conditions: December was a slower month for golf with mostly cool mornings followed by some windy afternoons. Actual golf course conditions were good.

Boulder Creek Golf Club total rounds played for the month (50% of FY complete) were 2,086 rounds, 341 more than the same month last year. Year to date receipts of $1,085,910 were at 40.4% of budget and down budget and $179,802 lower than last year at this time.

December revenue/round comparison:

2007               2008                           2009

Revenue per round $53.90            $50.48                        $45.70

Rounds                      2,565             1,745                          2,086

Total golf revenuee 159,477          95,832                        108,717

Utility Payments: The total utility expense paid since the course opened is $4,203,709. The City's delivery charge for the cost of this water is $2,338,982, so the golf course has contributed $1,864,727 in added income to the Utility Fund. During the current month, $16,405 in current charges were paid, leaving the unpaid current charges at $0 and the unpaid prior years utility charges at $1,710,549.

Boulder Creek cash and cash equivalents at 12/31/09 was $(252,768), a $20,087 decrease from the previous month and a $197,041 decrease from the same month last year.

Boulder City Golf Course total rounds played for the month (50% of FY complete) were 2,627 rounds, 55 more than the same month last year. Year to date receipts of $523,434 were at 39.7% of budget and down $41,482 (7%) from last year at this time. Year to date expenses of $723,425 were 51.1% of budget and $24,986 lower than last year at this time.

December revenue/rounds comparison:

2007               2008              2009

Revenue per round              $27.72            $23.32            $23.21

Rounds                                  2,900             2,572              2,627

Total golf revenue                $80,377         $59,976         $60,962

Agenda item 10. Matters pertaining to the Boulder City Municipal Airport:

A. Update on Airport Activities and Projects

B. Consideration of Bill No. 1597, an Ordinance of the City of Boulder City, Nevada, Amending Title 9, Chapter 4, Municipal Airport, Section 5-2, Regulation of Vehicles, creating a new subsection "H", Airport Ground Operations

10 A Overview:

· Currently have several active airport construction and design projects

· The Annual Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) was submitted to the FAA

· 2008 Calendar Enplanements

· Runway Safety Action Plan was recently updated (12/24/2009)

Background Information: The airport has several large impact projects under construction or design.

Runway ‘9R/27L’ Enhancement Construction Project

This construction project entailed safety improvements to the main runway (east/west), including resurfacing and grooving of the runway, grading the safety areas on either side and the construction of two run-up blocks on both ends. The project is funded from FAA entitlement funds and $1.4 million in ARRA (“stimulus”) funds. Construction of the safety areas and run-ups has been completed, with the runway paving still to be done. Meeting the FAA specification for the airport grade (P-401) asphalt has been a challenge for the contractor using the local aggregate of the contractor’s batch plant. P- 401 is a thoroughly tested airport specification used throughout the country and more importantly, the FAA will only reimburse the City for airport asphalt projects that meets this exact specification. The contractor poured numerous test strips, which are required by the FAA to ensure the mix design proposed meets the criteria set forth in the contract documents, and the last test strip produced favorable results. Paving of the runway is expected to move forward with a completion including grooving (cannot be done until 30 days after paving) expected in late March.

Perimeter Fence

The airport was able to secure FAA funding to replace 4,300 linear feet of cattle-grade field fence with security fencing around the airport perimeter. The project was completed well within the 58 day time frame allotted. The airport perimeter is approximately 80% fenced with 6 foot fence with 1 foot barbed wire.

Projects Currently in Design Phase;

Replacement of taxiway lights on Taxiways B and D

Currently the airport uses solar lighting for Taxiways “B” and “D”. The solar lights, although an improvement from reflectors, have not been as reliable as expected and many are not functioning. The project entails replacing the solar lights with permanent (hard wired) FAA approved energy efficient LED taxiway lights.

Reconstruct Hangar Taxilanes

The location where the concrete slabs the private hangars were constructed on and the taxilane asphalt meets is breaking apart causing FOD (foreign object debris) on the taxiway and an uneven surface. Repair or rehabilitation of the taxilanes is in the early design phase.

Airport Layout Pan (ALP) Narrative Report

The ALP Narrative Report will consist of an updated inventory and as-built information, an airfield signage plan, a rates and charges study, minimum standards, an alternative analysis of Runway 9L/27R (as recommended in the Runway Safety Action Plan) and an Air Traffic Control Tower analysis. This becomes an addendum to the Airport Master Plan when completed.

Airport Capital Improvement Program Project List

Annually the airport submits a list of projected projects for the upcoming five year period. The FAA uses this list as the primary planning tool for identifying and prioritizing critical airport development and associated capital planning needs for the National Airspace System. It also serves as the basis for the distribution of grant funds. The Airport uses this tool to better allocate limited resources to maximize benefit to the airport. The Airport Advisory Committee reviewed the list at the regular November meeting. The FAA Program Manager for the Region met with City Staff and the Aviation programmed $3 million to fund Runway 15/33 Enhancement Project that includes the runway safety area grading and runway resurfacing (a high safety ranking item listed in the Runway Safety Action Plan). Confirmation of funds is expected in early spring with construction mid summer.

Passenger Enplanement Increase

The enplanement count (departing passengers on revenue generating flights) for calendar year 2008 increased 146% to 300,083 ranking Boulder City Municipal Airport the 149th busiest out of over 2000 airports that process passengers. The ranking of the Airport will be beneficial as the airport competes with other airports in the National Airspace System for FAA grant funding. The increase in passenger enplanements is also reflected in the employment count at the Boulder City Airport. There are approximately 600 persons employed at the airport and the positions range from custodial work to aircraft mechanics and pilots. The Airport is open 24/7/365 and at any given time there are people hard at work. Many of the employees live in Boulder City and provide a much needed boost to the local economy.

Runway Safety Action Plan (RSAP)

The Runway Safety Action Team (“RSAT”) for the Western-Pacific Region of the Federal Aviation Administration performed a site visit to evaluate the current conditions of the Boulder city Municipal Airport in late 2007 and again in early 2008. The RSAT has a goal visit each airport within their district so that overall aviation safety can be improved. Their recommendations are a useful tool for both the local airport planning efforts as well as for the various FAA divisions that approve grants for safety and other airport improvements.

The RSAT team includes representatives from the Air Traffic Organization, Airport Safety, and Flight Standards. During their visits, they met with Airport management and several of the commercial operators who provide services at the airport. They also observed operations throughout the entire day at the airport, as well as performed an inspection of the Airport Operations Area (AOA). Measurements were taken, as well as photographs to document the inspection.

The RSAT report provided 9 separate recommended improvements to the airport. Each item had a detailed observation, a recommended action, and a compliance date. The Airport was tasked by the report to provide feedback to the RSAT team as to the current status or change in completion date as warranted. The report was updated in late December 2009. Two of the nine original items have been completed and many of the remaining items are awaiting grant funding or are near completion.

10 B Overview:

· There is not a designated vehicle service road nor is there adequate space to incorporate a service road in the current layout.

· The FAA Runway Safety Action Team (RSAT) noted the high mix of vehicle and pedestrian traffic on the airfield.

· The City’s insurance providers made several recommendations regarding ground vehicle operations in the Airport Liability Risk Control Survey.

· There are currently no limitations for private vehicles operating on the Airport Movement Area (AMA)

· The Airport Ground Vehicle Operations Program was reviewed by the Airport Advisory Committee at their regular meeting held in December 2009 and forwarded with a positive recommendation for adoption

Background Information: Five years ago, the Boulder City Municipal Airport (BVU) was a sleepy general aviation airport that averaged thirty (30) operations (landings and takeoffs) per day. Vehicles operating on the Airport Movement Area at that time did not pose a threat to aircraft operations. Today, the Airport averages 275 operations per day becoming the 149th busiest airport in the country. However, even though our aircraft traffic has gone up considerably, there has not been a modification to ground vehicle access requirements, minimum vehicle equipment or operator requirements for movement throughout the airport. Daily, private vehicles are traversing from one side of the airport to the other creating hazards to passenger carrying aircraft because it is more convenient to use a taxiway than the landside parallel road (Airport Road). This activity puts people’s lives at risk and exposes the City to a great liability risk. The FAA recommends vehicles that operate in the Airport Operations Area (AOA) Movement Area be identified by a yellow flashing light mounted on the uppermost part of the vehicle structure and use two-way [aircraft] radios. Although the FAA’s recommendation is for Air Traffic Control Towered airports, the extremely high level of activity at BVU and the responsibility of vehicles to give way to aircraft warrant the application of the Advisory Circular to BVU. This was stated by the FAA Runway Safety Action Team on their inspections of BVU and BVU is also busier than some towered airports.

In the past ten months, a total of six (6) complaints regarding ground vehicle operations have been reported to Airport Management. Below is a radio transmission from September 9, 2009:

Pilot: “Ground vehicle on the ramp, are you on frequency?”

Pilot: “Boulder City Unicom, Papillon 32”

Unicom: “This is Unicom, go ahead”

Pilot: “Yeah, you got a guy with a white truck pulling a silver plane across the Papillon ramp behind running helicopters, very dangerous.”

Unicom: “Copy, we’re on it.”

The towing vehicle did not announce any movement within the movement area and could not respond to a pilot requesting his intentions

See City web site agenda packet for more details.

Agenda item 11. Consideration of Bill No. 1598, an ordinance of the City of Boulder City,

Nevada, approving Amendment 09-1260A, amending Exhibit “D” of Lease Agreement No. 09-1260, between the City of Boulder City and Boulder City Solar, LLC, to provide a joint use utility corridor and transmission line easement within the Eldorado Valley Energy Zone for the use of Boulder City Solar, LLC and other solar energy companies in the Energy Zone

Overview:

· Boulder City Solar, LLC (Next Light) entered Lease No. 09-1260 with the City to develop property in the Energy Zone for photovoltaic solar power development.

· Part of the City’s duty under the lease was to provide a transmission line access corridor from the Boulder City Solar leased land to several points of connection with the power grid passing through Eldorado Valley.

· The proposed access corridor was shown in Exhibit “D” of Lease No. 09-1260.

· Although almost identical, the actual access corridor approved by the City is not exactly like the access corridor shown In the Lease.

· All Amendment No 09-1260 proposes to do is amend Exhibit “D” of the lease to have it comport with the joint use corridor the City has approved.

· This bill was introduced at the January 12, 2010 City Council meeting.

Agenda item 12. Presentation and biannual review of the FY '10 budget

Overview:

· The City Council has requested a biannual update on the annual budget.

· The last biannual update was presented in August.

· The City Manager will provide revised revenue projections and update the City Council on the “Save A Million” expense reduction program.

· This presentation will set the stage for upcoming FY ’11 budget discussions.

Background Information: When operating budgets are prepared, revenue projections for the upcoming year are done about six months in advance of the new budget year. The economy has impacted revenue streams, and during the past two budget cycles, expenses have been adjusted to offset new (lower) revenues.

During this fiscal year, revenues have continued to decline in many areas, i.e. property taxes, consolidated taxes, charges for services (mainly recreation revenues) and gravel pit royalties. In addition, the Hang Time Sports lease was not completed ($273,600) and in this year as projected. Revenue declines in these areas totaled approximately $1.9M, but were offset partially by unbudgeted lease revenue (Sol Bio) of $800,000 and increased fines and fees revenue (courts) of $100,000.

The current budget anticipates $21,995,665 in General Fund revenue. With the adjustments discussed above, the revised General Fund revenue projection is $21,062,065.

On the expense side of the General Fund, the current budget anticipates $22,572,319 in expenditures and drawing down fund balance by $776,654. I reported at the last biannual budget review that I was not comfortable drawing down fund balance by this amount, and I planned to reduce expenses by holding about 11 vacant positions open.

In October, I implemented the “Save A Million” expense reduction program which eliminated another $250,000 in operating expenses from the General Fund. These expense reductions, combined with approximately $680,000 in savings from holding positions open and Teamster’s insurance savings of ($220,000), identified total expense reductions of approximately $1.15M. These savings are partially offset by potential shortfalls in golf course revenue ($375,000), which will increase golf course expenses beyond budget projections.

The current budget anticipates $22,572,319 in General Fund expense. With the adjustments discussed in the previous paragraph, the revised General Fund expense projection is $21,492,538 or more than $1M less than anticipated.

The adopted budget anticipates a General Fund balance of $1.7M. It was my goal to protect fund balance at $2M - $2.4M. If the revenues and expenses occur as revised, the General Fund balance will be approximately $2M at the end of this fiscal year. Given the volatility of General Fund revenues and the fluctuations in fund balance during the year, I believe the City should make every effort to maintain a minimum of $2M in the General Fund ending balance. This is becoming increasingly more difficult because the General Fund operating accounts have been reduced to the point that there aren’t any significant reductions left to implement.

Of the ten positions that were left open at the start of this year, nine remain open. These positions include: Deputy Fire Chief, Deputy City Clerk, Department Secretary, Building Inspector, part-time Department Secretary, three Police Officer positions, and Dispatcher. A Personnel Administrator was hired in December, and it is anticipated that the Public Works Superintendent position which became vacant on January 15 will not be filled. This is in addition to the ten positions that were eliminated in the budget at the start of this fiscal year (BCTV, 7 Golf Course Workers, Account Clerk and Administrative Supervisor). The Deputy Fire Chief, Deputy City Clerk and the vacant clerical positions have had an impact on the departments’ work flow and office coverage.

Additional solar revenues in FY ’11 will help stabilize the General Fund revenues next year; however, these revenues are likely to fall short of what is needed to fund expenses and preserve the fund balance at $2M. Outside variables, such as the bridge opening and its impact on public safety services and/or whether a special legislative session could impact existing revenues, are still unknowns. The City can anticipate many difficult decisions during the next budget cycle, and it is imperative that the City Council provide some direction regarding minimum fund balances, service levels in the Police/Fire Departments and identifying and prioritizing essential services.

The City Council has taken steps to stabilize the Utility Fund by adopting the electric rate increase. The City is very close to having a funding agreement with SNWA regarding the third intake. During the upcoming budget cycle, I believe a plan should be put into place to address a rate stabilization reserve and capital reserve for electric and to stabilize operating funds through all divisions, and the long-term plan to provide debt service for the 3rd intake. The electric rate increase of January 2010 was enacted to address the increased operating expenses associated with the new NV Energy contract and may provide some additional revenues to the utility fund. However, the fund's continued health will be dependent on the prudent management of scheduling purchased power costs over the next 9 months. Until the City has completed scheduling throughout the summer months, we will not be able to adequately evaluate the full impact of the rate increase.

Agenda item 13. Matters pertaining to the City's Debt Management Plan (as requested by Mayor Tobler):

A. Presentation regarding the City's Debt Management Plan

B. Discussion and possible staff directive regarding the City's Debt

Management Plan

Overview:

· NRS 350.013 requires municipalities to submit a Debt Management Plan to the Department of Taxation by August 1 of each year

· Mayor Tobler has requested that the City’s Debt Management Plan be reviewed by the City and possible staff direction be provided Background Information: The City Finance Department has been submitting an annual Debt Management Plan for the City to the Department of Taxation each year at the conclusion of the annual independent audit. NRS 350.013 proscribes the form and content of the report to be submitted. The City’s most recent plan is provided for your review at attachment A. I have also provided a spreadsheet at attachment B detailing the City’s debt service requirements including the debt service information related to the City’s share of the SNWA third intake.

Agenda item 14. Discussion and possible staff directive regarding the City's Energy

Assistance Program (as requested by Council member McCoy)

Overview:

· Councilmember McCoy has requested that the City Council consider increasing the discount from 10% to 35% for the BCEAP

Background Information: Councilmember McCoy has provided information at Attachment A related to the BCEAP and his proposed increase. I have reviewed the information and find that the facts and figures presented accurately reflect information contained in the utility billing department. In addition to the information provided, the following items should be included for your consideration and discussion:

1. The current policy requires that proof of income be provided. This general standard

 provides the City with no uniform standard of income verification. This is problematic because of the wide range of acceptable documentation currently provided. The lack of uniformity makes it difficult for the City to verify an applicant’s approval. A uniform standard such as a current federal income tax return which provides the number of eligible dependents along with adjusted gross income would simplify the income verification process. However, there are additional issues such as the retention of the individual income tax records of the applicant or at least the verification and inclusion of the data on the application on file with the City.

If the intent of the program is to provide assistance to the “indigent” population in Boulder City should individuals who have substantial assets such as a large home, multiple vehicles, and significant investments or cash in the bank, be excluded from approval.

2. The City currently has no penalty for applicants who have fraudulently filed for assistance. There must be consequences for these situations.

3. While the current program is providing assistance to 100 customers, any increase in the percentage discount offered will lead to many additional applications. The City has 8,000 utility customers. If only 10% of our customer base were to apply under the revised guidelines there would be enormous additional demands on the staff in the utility billing department to accommodate the demand. The costs associated with only 300 additional approvals at a 35% rate would rise from approximately $13,000 to more than $175,000.

4. While the City Council has complete discretion in establishing the parameters of program eligibility, the establishment of a cap on the number of participants could potentially deny otherwise eligible applicants benefit that similarly situation individuals are receiving.

Agenda item 15. Discussion and possible staff directive regarding electric demand charges

Overview:

· BC vs. NVE electric rates: BC energy rates are less expensive for residents, about the same for small businesses, and more expensive for larger businesses. BC demand rates are generally less expensive than NVE demand rates.

· Average energy charges: In contrast to NVE, high-usage commercial customers in Boulder City pay higher per kWh energy rates. BC demand charges on businesses, though low, increase the disparity in per-unit electric power costs between residential and business customers.

· Energy usage during high demand periods: Measurements are not yet available to asses the time-of-day variation among the various rate classes, but the time-of-year variations indicate that high-energy users tend to have a more uniform demand profile than do lowenergy users.

· Demand meter installations: Demand meters have been installed at all customers that meet the currently established criteria for demand metering.

Background Information: This report provides information concerning:

 1. current Boulder City vs. NV Energy rates and charges for various electric rate classes

2. average energy charges for various rate classes

3. energy usage during high demand periods for various rate classes

4. status of demand meter installations

Comparison of Boulder City and NV Energy Electric Rates: Tables 1 and 2 list energy, demand, and monthly service charges for the various rate classes for Boulder City and NV Energy, respectively. Direct comparison is hampered by the fact that the rate classes are defined somewhat differently by each utility

 However, the following observations can be made:

1. The average RS (residential) account consumes 1,268 kWh of energy in the average month, and 2,102 kWh in the peak summer month (2009 data). Thus, almost all of the average RS energy usage occurs in the lowest BC energy tier (7.43 ¢/kWh for usage less than 2,000 kWh / month), resulting in the average BC resident paying about 61% of what a NVE customer would pay for the same consumption.

2. Of approximately 860 GS (small business) accounts, approximately 490 accounts do not meet the requirements for installation of a demand meter. These small GS accounts compare almost directly to NVE’s GS rate class, which has no demand charge. Assuming 2009 usage with 2010 rates, a small business pays roughly identical energy rates in Boulder City, compared with NVE.

3. Larger GS customers in Boulder City compare would fall under NVE’s LGS-1 rate class. These businesses pay about 26% more for energy than LGS-1 customers, but only about one-third of the NVE demand charge.

4. The BC LGS rate class (seven customers) is roughly equivalent to NVE’s LGS-2 rate class. However, direct comparison is difficult because LGS energy and demand rates are flat, whereas LGS-2 rates are time-of-use. Energy rates for this class are 14% - 85% more expensive in Boulder City. Demand charges during winter and summer off-peak periods are slightly higher for NVE customers.

However, during summer on-peak periods, NVE demand charges are substantially higher (680%).

5. Boulder City’s two largest customers are on a time-of-use rate (TOU-GS) that is similar to NVE’s LGS-2 rate. Energy rates for this class are 40% - 83% more expensive in Boulder City. BC demand rates range from 70% to 150% of the NVE rate for the same time period.

Average energy charges for various rate classes: Figure 1 illustrates what the “average customer” in each rate class will pay under the recently adopted rate resolution, assuming 2009 energy usage. This chart shows that, unlike NVE, energy charges in Boulder City increase for the higher-usage classes. The chart does not take demand charges into account. Thus, since demand charges only apply to business accounts, the effective rate differential between business and residential customers is higher than indicated

Energy usage during high demand periods for various rate classes: The Boulder City and NVE demand rate schedules reflect the fact that wholesale electric demand costs increase during the summer months, and are highest during summer afternoon/evening periods. Due to metering limitations (which are being addressed),

the City does not have sufficient measurement data to asses how demand varies with time-of-day for the various rate classes.

However, data is available to assess how demand varies during peak-demand months vs. the off-peak months. This variation is illustrated in Figure 2, which graphs the average monthly energy consumption for each rate class as a percentage of the average annual energy consumption for that class. Figure 2 indicates that residential customers have the least uniform demand profiles, larger businesses have the most uniform profiles, and smaller businesses fall somewhere in-between.

Status of demand meter installations: After reviewing customer energy usage over 2009, the Utility Office determined that 21 GS accounts that currently were not demand metered consumed over 4,000 kWh in at least three months over a twelve month period. The Electric Department has now installed demand meters at all 21 customers.

Summary: Boulder City’s energy charges are generally higher than NV Energy for business customers, while its demand charges are generally lower. However, Staff is not aware of any other utility in Nevada that assesses a demand charge on a General Service class, while at the same time, assessing a higher energy charge on that class than assessed on residential customers. After careful review, Staff is not recommending any change to the approved electric rate schedule at this time.

The relationship between energy and demand cost is very complex and requires more data before any change is made to the current rate structure. If it is the desire of the City Council to adjust the demand rate, the City should commission a formal rate study to determine the optimum allocation of energy and demand charges among the various rate classes.

Another approach may be to simply collect more data on demand charges at this time. This would involve lowering the threshold for installing demand meters (which is established by Council policy) from the current value of 4,000 kWh. If this is the desire of the Council, Staff requests that a minimum value be established now, so that demand meters can be installed before demand rates are possibly changed.

Agenda item 16. Receive update on status of the Strategic Plan Update Project and draft Request For Proposal document and implementation options

Overview:

· Funding Source for this project is $40,000 from RDA fund, $40,000 from General Fund

· This project was funded in both FY08-09 and 09-10 as a multiyear project

· Staff has researched best practices to derive the Strategic Planning Framework document to guide the consultant in the Process to update the City’s Strategic Plan

· Sample page of what our Plan could entail is provided

 · Draft Request For Proposal Document included for comment

Background Information: The City developed a Strategic Plan in 1999-2000 after many months of local participation. The Plan preparation included meetings with stakeholders and Council members, as well as a core group of citizens who helped the consultant prepare the final document.

Nine years have since passed by, and it is necessary to update our Strategic Plan to better reflect the current desires and needs of our citizens. The Strategic Plan Update process will be more comprehensive that prior efforts, with a focus on involving more members of our community and producing a better document that has measurable outcomes.

Further, the Update will also focus on a new component – a Financial Element with goals, policies and strategies. The purpose of this element is to help stabilize the City’s finances, and have all be on the same page for future revenue generation, prioritization of resources and programs, and a plan for future expenditure priorities.

To prepare for the Strategic Plan Update, City Staff carefully researched other recent strategic planning efforts from across the country to find examples of best practices. This included the reading of several texts on the modern strategic plan process, the review of RFP’s prepared by other cities, process documents (including citizen questionnaires and survey methods used to improve participation), and the final product. To ensure that our Process would utilize the best practices identified, Staff prepared the attached document entitled “Strategic Planning Framework for Boulder City”. This is the Playbook to be used by the successful consultant when developing the Update for Boulder City.

To help the City Council better visualize what the end result may look like, a sample page has been drafted to show how perhaps a Policy, Goal, and Strategies may look like on a single sheet. The sample is purely speculative – its purpose is to demonstrate the usefulness of better wording of policies, goals – and most importantly – the strategies. Where many Plans fail is in the measurability of the outcomes – that is, most Plans have outcomes that cannot be accurately measured or quantified. For example – it is common (and indeed, is found in our current Strategic Plan) to have a strategy that may read as:

“Reduce Crime”

How do you measure success? One additional arrest the next calendar year? One fewer assaults or robberies? A better way to state the same thing, but to be measurable would be:

“Reduce the number of simple assaults by 10% by July 1, 2010”

The strategy is articulated (reduce simple assaults), provides a measurement (by 10%), and gives a performance deadline (by July 1, 2010). Strategies written in this manner provide a means by which City Staff can accurately provide an update to the Community on the progress towards implementing the Strategic Plan – and also can be used for budget preparation, funding prioritization, and overall goal setting for internal performance standards.

What’s Happened Since September?

The City Council last discussed this item at their regular meeting held on September 22, 2009. Staff was directed to prepare the Request for Proposal (“RFP”) document and return to the City Council to discuss the elements. As part of the staff directive, staff was asked to write it such a way as to permit an “ala carte” approach when selecting a consultant, choosing those elements that the City could afford to undertake. The attached draft RFP document takes that approach.

City Staff has also been talking with the University of Nevada – Las Vegas to gauge interest to see if they would be willing to undertake the study at a vastly reduced (or free) cost. While there is interest in the project, it is not feasible for the University to take this project on due to internal budget cuts and involuntarily reductions in part-time teaching staff. As such, the University option is no longer available.

What’s Next?

City Staff is requesting comments on the final draft of the Request for Proposal and to be directed to publish the document to solicit responses. It is anticipated that the RFP would hit the street within approximately 3-4 weeks of receiving the Staff Directive, with possible Council award in April. Of course, other factors may delay or move the process along faster, but that is the intended time frame.