Agenda is about 300 pages.   Below is an overview.  See 2010-07-13 AgendaPacket.pdf   for details on the City web site.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Tuesday, July 13, 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 - 21)

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

1. Approval of City Council minutes:

A. June 22, 2010, regular City Council meeting

B. June 29, 2010, special City Council meeting

2. Resolution No. 5600, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City,

approving Interlocal Agreement No. 10-1322, between the City of Boulder City and the Clark County Regional Flood Control District (CCRFCD) for the FY 2010 - 2011 Annual Maintenance Work Program (B.C. Project No. 10- 0797-DR)

Overview:

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

• Requesting approval of Agreement No. 10-1322 in amount of $300,000 for maintenance costs of flood control facilities.

Background Information: For the past twenty-one (21) years, the City has participated with the Clark County Regional Flood Control District (CCRFCD) for the maintenance of flood control facilities shown in Boulder City’s Flood Control Master Plan.

For the fiscal year 2010-2011, the City has requested $300,000 from the Clark County Flood Control District and is the amount provided in Agreement No. 10-1322 which is attached.

This funding reimburses Public Works Street Division and Landscape Division for labor, equipment and materials used to maintain the City’s primary flood control structures.

3. Resolution No. 5601, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, approving Interlocal Agreement No. 10-1323 for shared funding of regional homeless coordination and inclement weather shelter for Fiscal Year 2010- 2011

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 $7,718.02 for Fiscal Year 2010- 2011.

4. Resolution No. 5602, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, approving the purchase of one new and unused Toro Groundsmaster 4300-D for the Public Works Department, Landscape Division

Overview:

• The Toro Groundsmaster 4300-D mower will replace the Landscape Division’s existing broken down mower.

• Funding source for this mower was approved in the City’s Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Landscape Budget.

Background Information: Nevada Revised Statutes NRS 332.195 gives municipalities the ability to use contracts of other local governments located within or outside the State of Nevada with the authorization of the contracting vendor. The Boulder City Public Works Department would like to purchase one new and unused Toro Groundsmaster 4300-D mower from Simpson Norton.

The Toro Goundsmaster 4300-D mower will replace the Landscape Division’s mower which is broken down and will cost more to repair than it is worth. The existing mower was purchased in 1998 and has 3,636 hours of use.

Total cost for the Toro Groundsmaster 4300-D mower is $33,708.05. Financial: Funding for this equipment will come from the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year Budget.

5. Resolution No. 5603, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada approving the purchase of one new and unused 2011 Ford F350 truck for the Public Works Department, Streets Division in accordance with Nevada State Purchasing Division Pricing Agreement No. 7089

Overview:

• Funding Source for this project is $100,000 from the RDA Capital Project/Special Project Program.

• This purchase is for $32,212.95 and the paint sprayer is $38,142.67 for a total cost of $70,355.62.

• In addition to the cost listed above, Public Works will spend approximately $10,000 for the flat bed, lights, and other items necessary to completely equip the vehicle for service.

Background Information: Nevada Revised Statutes NRS 332.195 gives municipalities the ability to use existing municipalities’ contracts in the State of Nevada. The Boulder City Public Works Department would like to purchase one new and unused 2011 Ford F350 truck from Ford Country. As part of the Boulder City Department of Public Works program for “City Street and Trail Striping and Safety Enhancement” project, the Redevelopment Agency approved funding at the February 4, 2010 Redevelopment Agency meeting.

Financial: Funding for this project is from the RDA Capital Project/Special Project Program. The total price quoted from Ford Country is $409.00 less than the total achieved by adding up the state’s contract

6. Resolution No. 5604, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, approving the purchase of one new and unused Graco Roadlazer Striping System, Three Pump Model 231378

Overview:

• Public Works researched various striping systems being used in the State of Nevada.

• Public Works obtained two bids for the Graco Roadlazer Striping System

• Funding Source for this project is $100,000 from the RDA Capital Project/Special Project Program.

• This purchase is $38,142.67 and the truck to mount the sprayer is $32,212.95 for a total cost of $70,355.62.

Background Information: The Boulder City Public Works Department would like to purchase one new and unused Graco Roadlazer Striping System, Three Pump Model 231378.

As part of the Boulder City Department of Public Works program for “City Street and Trail Striping and Safety Enhancement” project, the Redevelopment Agency approved funding at the February 4, 2010 Redevelopment Agency meeting.

Financial: Funding for this project is from the RDA Capital Project/Special Project Program.

7. City Manager's Report

A. Claims Paid List, May 2010 • Checks written 5/1/10-5/31/10, page 1-36 Total $2,679,152.96    Every check for the month is listed in agenda item 7b on the City web site – if you are interested.

PUBLIC COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS*

REGULAR AGENDA

8. City Council presentations:

A. Presentation of certificate and scholarship awards to Richard Vince, 1st Place Winner in the 2010 High School category and Whitney Barlow, 1st Place Winner in the 2010 Junior High Rural Category of the Nevada League of Cities & Municipalities Youth Award Program*

B. Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to the Boulder City High School Robotics Team (as requested by Mayor Tobler)*

9. Consideration of Bill No. 1608, an ordinance of the City of Boulder City, approving Lease Agreement No. 10-1321 between the City and Taihen Techren for the development of a solar facility in the Eldorado Valley

Overview:

• Staff began negotiating with Taihan Techren in February, 2010.

• Taihan Techren has agreed to lease the entire site (approximately 2,100 acres) at $1,500 per acre per year.

• The City Council approved the basic deal points of the agreement on April 13, 2010.

• It was the directive of the City Council to incorporate a provision that required the construction of a 2 mgwt solar field for the City

as an offset to the ¾ of a percent annual escalator (occurring every five years throughout the agreement).

• The final agreement was introduced on June 27th and is now scheduled for final consideration.

Background Information: The City entered into negotiations with Taihan Techren, a Korean company in early 2010 for the development of up to a 300 MW Photovoltaic Solar Power Generation Facility near the Dry Lake Bed West in the Eldorado Valley. The agreement requires that $200,000 be paid to the City by December of this year, with annual payments of $1,646,250 due in FY ’12 and ’13. Full rent payments of approximately $3,292,500 will begin in FY ’14 and continue for the 50 year term of the agreement.

The annual escalator is ¾ of one percent, accumulated for five year periods (3.75%). Taihan Techren is required to construct and turn over to the City a 2 MW PV Solar Plant, as well as provide technical training and support for the operation of the facility. The City will reimburse Taihan Techren for the actual costs of construction. It is anticipated that Taihan Techren can construct this facility at a much lower cost than the City because it is a manufacturer of the PV panels, and it will be constructing a large project that is not subject to the same regulations that the City must follow. I understand that this is a different approach than the City has taken in other agreements; however, I think the construction of a 2 MW solar plant is a good business decision for the City for a variety of reasons that I try to explain in a little more detail in the following paragraphs.

It is likely that Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) will be imposed on City power utilities in the future:

This is something that has been on my mind for a long time. Nevada’s investor owned utilities are required to incorporate certain amounts of renewable energy into their portfolios; however, public-owned utilities, such as ours, have not been subject to RPS (20% by 2015, 25% by 2025). Although, many of us might consider hydro as a renewable energy source, power received from hydro cannot be utilized to meet RPS.

The Nevada Rural Electric Association watches the direction of the legislature very carefully on this issue and keeps public utilities, such as ours, informed on potential changes in legislation.

Although, I was hopeful that other matters would take precedence in the 2011 session, Electrical Superintendent Dwyer has been notified that Assemblyman David Bobzien has submitted a bill draft request to impose RPS on publicly-owned utilities. Because this is simply a bill draft request, no one knows what standards will be proposed, but the NREA rates the chances of the BDR becoming law as high. There is a strong support for renewable energy in the governor’s office, as well as the legislature. Both the Republican and Democratic delegates and candidates have expressed their support of renewable energy.

Of course, the NREA will be lobbying for a less severe RPS than has been imposed on Nevada’s investor owned utilities; however, it is very likely that some RPS will be imposed on public utilities. All indications, so far, are that the RPS bill will not allow public utilities to count any energy savings programs or wholesale hydro purchases towards meeting the RPS.

If Boulder City were required to meet a 15% RPS, 7.5 – 8 MW of renewable energy capacity must be acquired. At $5 per Watt (midrange installed cost), this could cost the City $40M. So, being able to obtain a 2 MW facility at the manufacturer’s cost is suddenly much more attractive.  

The agreement allows the offset of rent to pay for the project, so the project could be paid for over a period of a few years. Although the capital cost for this project could be $6M, there would be no capital expense to the Utility Fund, and once in operation, this project would provide low cost peaking power. RPS’s are likely to face ratepayer backlash which can ultimately impact Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) escalators. I understand that the .075% escalator may be conceived as low, especially when it is compared to other agreements that the City has negotiated. However, there may be a difference between the PPA’s that were negotiated a few years ago compared to PPA’s that will be negotiated into the future.

 Although this is very difficult to confirm because solar agreements that NVE has submitted to the Commission are under seal, the backlash from ratepayers as this very expensive power is incorporated into the rate structure and these costs are passed on to them should not be overlooked.

Electrical Distribution Superintendent Dwyer confirms my opinion and points to some recent articles that have been written regarding escalation rates on PPA’s. He noted that in a recent article written by a solar installation/consulting company indicates that escalators for PPA’s that are being written in 2010 are down when compared to those written only a couple of years ago, and are in some cases going negative. If PPA escalators are decreasing, then it follows that solar producers will be less accepting of high rent escalators.

Many speculate that when it comes time to renegotiate PPA’s in the 2015+ timeframe, the large power distributors will be faced with so much ratepayer backlash as they pass on the costs of purchasing huge amounts of expensive solar energy that they will have to negotiate lower renewal energy expenses.

So, it stands to reason that solar producers entering the market in the future, such as Taihan Techren, must know that there will be tremendous pressure from the utilities to reduce energy rates as (future) PPA contracts are renegotiated.

A 2 MW solar facility will provide peaking power for the City when it is needed most. I know that there has been considerable emphasis placed on the City needing to acquire inexpensive base load power and this is very true. It should not be overlooked, however, that the City’s energy needs vary greatly from season to season and that peaking power is needed in addition to a base power supply. Solar projects have large capital expenses at start up, but low operating and maintenance expenses during the life of the project.

If the City decides to pay for this project through reduced rent, the Utility Fund will benefit because 2 MW of inexpensive energy will be available.

The overall financial benefit of this project for the City should not be overlooked. The annual lease payment will be over $3.2M which is more than 40% of annual consolidated tax revenue. This lease, combined with Sol Bio and Boulder City Solar, would generate more than $9M, so the City wouldn’t be at the mercy of consolidated tax lows and highs long into the future.

It is for all of these reasons that I am recommending that the City Council approve this new lease agreement with Taihan Techren. Recommendation: The City Manager respectfully requests that the City Council consider Bill No. 1608 and approve the lease with Taihan Techren.

10. Resolution No. 5605, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, supporting a County advisory ballot question regarding the authority of the State Legislature to take certain actions that impact local governments without the consent of the affected local governing bodies (as requested by Council member McCoy)

Overview:

• Support of County advisory ballot question regarding the authority of the State Legislature to take certain actions that impact local governments without the consent of the affected local governing bodies

• Advisory ballot question advocated by the Nevada Association of Counties

Background Information: Nevada counties are being asked to approve a “local revenue” advisory ballot question advocated by the Nevada Association of Counties regarding whether local government consent should be required before the State Legislature can act to decrease revenues or reserves collected by, distributed to, or held by the local government, or impose fees on or mandate new or different services be performed by the local government. The request originated with Clark and Washoe counties.

This resolution supports Clark County in its efforts to propose to local voters an advisory ballot question regarding the authority of the State Legislature to take certain actions that impact local governments without the consent of the affected local governing bodies. The City Council's support for such a ballot question is general in nature and is not limited to any particular scope or language that the ballot question might ultimately take.

11. Resolution No. 5606, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, providing for the transfer of the City's 2010 Private Activity Bond Cap to the Nevada Rural Housing Authority and other matters related Thereto

Overview:

• The proposed resolution allows the City Council to transfer the City’s allocation of $832,262.39 in volume cap to the Nevada Rural Housing Authority

Background Information: Under the provisions of Chapter 348A of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) and 348A of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC), Boulder City is allocated private activity bond volume cap based on the population of the city. For the calendar year 2010, the City’s allocation is $832,262.39.

Under the provisions of the NAC, if the City does not allocate its volume cap to a specific project before September 1, that volume cap reverts to the State of Nevada (the Department of Business and Industry) for the State to use on private activity bond projects on which the State is working. The proposed resolution allows the City Council to transfer the City’s allocation of $832,262.39 in volume cap to the Nevada Rural Housing Authority to provide low interest mortgages and down payment/closing cost assistance in rural portions of Clark County including Boulder City. In 2006, NRHA introduced the first tax-exempt bond program for first time homebuyers and the “transfer/matching funds” concept. The first bond program was for $10 million, helped 50 families and took a year to distribute the funds.

Since then, NRHA has had four bond programs and a Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. These programs total $130 million in economic activity for the rural parts of the state, and have helped over 600 families. The transfer/matching funds concept has secured $115 million in transfers from cities and counties since 2006, and $140 million of matching funds from the state. This means that the partnership between the cities, the counties and NRHA has resulted in over $250 million dollars of potential economic activity retained for the rural cities and counties.

12. Resolution No. 5607, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, approving Agreement No. 10-1324 between the City of Boulder City and H2 Outreach for the Boulder City Strategic Plan Update Facilitation

Overview:

• City Council has approved split funding through the General Fund and Redevelopment Agency Funding for a total of $80,000.

• The RFP for Strategic Plan Update Facilitation Services was awarded to H2 Outreach at the June 8, 2010 City Council Meeting

• The approval of the professional services agreement finalizes the RFP award

Background Information: The City Council selected H2 Outreach as the consultant to assist the City with the update of the City’s Strategic Plan at their regular meeting held on June 8, 2010. To complete the RFP selection and award process, it is necessary to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with the selected vendor for the project to move forth. Agreement No. 10-1324 formalizes the scope of work and fixed price for the work to be performed by the consultant. The contract price is set as a “not to exceed” amount of $79,615.

13. Receive update on progress of the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition workgroup on preparation of the Regional Consolidation Study (as required by AB 494, 2009 Legislative Session)

Overview:

• The 2009 Legislature pass AB 494 – a Bill to require certain counties to study options for consolidation of services

• The Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition [“SNRPC”]has taken on the task to coordinate the efforts and submit the required report to the Legislative Counsel Bureau

• Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas, Mesquite, North Las Vegas and Clark County have been meeting to coordinate the report efforts

• The SNRPC will submit the final draft report in August 2010

Background Information: During the 2009 Nevada Legislative Session, Assembly Bill No. 494 was approved which requires the two largest counties (Clark and Washoe) and the cities in those counties to submit reports to the Legislative Counsel Bureau concerning the consolidation or reorganization of certain functions performed by those local governments.

The Bill requires that the report address the functions of public safety, public works and general government and provide the following information:

1. Identifies the aspects of those functions that are currently consolidated in whole or in part.

2. Identifies the aspects of those functions that have been or are being considered for consolidation or reorganization.

3. Identifies the aspects of those functions that are not consolidated and whether those aspects may be appropriate for consolidation or reorganization in the future.

4. Analyzes and makes recommendations regarding the consolidation or reorganization of one or more aspects of those functions.

5. Provides estimates of the costs of consolidation or reorganization of one or more aspects of those functions and a projection of any long-term cost savings, to the extent feasible.

6. Analyzes the benefits of creation of a permanent committee of affected entities that would meet periodically to discuss and coordinate future efforts at consolidation or reorganization of those functions.

Due to the vast scope and level of required interaction and coordination involved in the preparation of this report, the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (“SNRPC”) has taken the lead position in preparing and submitting the required report to the Legislative Counsel Bureau. The City of Mesquite is participating in this effort and has acknowledged the SNRPC lead role.

Each member jurisdiction on Clark County has designated a senior staff member to participate on the committee to prepare the required report. Brok Armantrout, the City’s Community Development Director and liaison to the SNRPC has been designated to participate on behalf of Boulder City.

Staff will provide a Powerpoint presentation that provides updated information on the content of the report and the status.

14. Discussion and possible staff directive regarding an initiative petition received by the City Clerk, pertaining to the election of the City Attorney, to determine if the initiative may have any anticipated financial effect if approved by the Boulder City voters

Overview:

• Voters approved limited commercial development of a motocross park in the Eldorado Valley Transfer Area..

• A lease was entered in March of 2007 between the City and BCMX, LLC.

• The lease was amended May of 2008 to allow an additional option area to be developed.

• BCMX’s rental payment history has been sporadic at best, but they have always brought any outstanding rent current when pressured to do so.

• At last report on June 22nd BCMX had once again gotten severely past due in rent payments.

• The City Attorney met with BCMX principal, Nichole Davis, and got her commitment to bring the rent current and to arrange to address other aspects of the lease in which the City deems BCMX to be in default (certificates of insurance on file with the City, helipad construction and maintenance)

• Davis has subsequently paid all back rent, penalties and interest and BCMX is now current on its rent through the month of July, 2010.

• BCMX, LLC is now in the process of working to resolve the other issues of default.

.

Background Information: See overview above

15. Update by the City Attorney regarding the alleged default of the lease agreement between the City of Boulder City and BCMX, LLC (motocross park), and possible staff directive regarding administration of the said lease agreement

Overview:

• In May 2010, the City Council directed staff to provide information regarding the potential financial impact of the position of City Attorney becoming an elected position

• Discussion at the meeting generally conceded that financial impact would be largely speculative based on the lack of specifics contained in the ballot petition

• Operating costs for the City Attorney’s office in the FY 2011 budget are approximately $400,000

• Salary and benefits for the City Attorney and Paralegal position are $275,000 or 70% of operating expenses

Background Information: The City Clerk has received and approved a petition for the voters’ in the November elections to consider changing the position of City Attorney from an appointed position of the City Council to election of a City Attorney by the Citizens’ of Boulder City. As a part of the petition process, the City Council is required to consider the potential financial impact of the petition. During the May 2010, City Council meeting discussing regarding this issue involved the following:

• The salary for the position would be established by the City Council

 • City Council could be required to retain outside counsel should they find

themselves in a disagreement with the City Attorney

• The elected City Attorney’s experience could require additional costs for hiring more experienced outside counsel

The current operating costs for the City Attorney’s office are $400,000, of which $275,000 comprises salary expenses for the Attorney and paralegal positions. The current City Attorney’s salary and benefits are $172,500. Of the remaining expenses there is $45,000 for the Assistant City Prosecutor and $65,000 for outside legal counsel services. These operating costs should establish the framework for any future operating costs of the office.

 In essence, the only item that could potentially reduce the costs of the position would be to establish a salary amount below $172,500. The paralegal position and other expenses of the office would still be required under the supervision of an elected attorney. While speculation is involved, let’s say that the salary for position is reduced to $125,000, thereby saving $47,500. If the elected City Attorney did not have the same experience level as the current City Attorney, all or most of those savings could be offset by having to retain outside legal counsel to protect the City’s interests. Under this scenario, operating costs would be about the same.

The current City Council appointment approach leaves no uncertainty that the City Attorney works at the City Council’s direction. This relationship could potentially change with an elected attorney requiring the City Council to hire counsel at additional costs over current operations.

In conclusion, I feel it would be fair to estimate that the operating costs of the City Attorney’s office would remain approximately the same under an elected attorney. I also believe that there would be no potential for significant savings in operations either.

16. Matters pertaining to an initiative petition regarding a proposed Code amendment which would state it shall be the policy of the City to own no more than one 18 hole golf course:

A. Presentation of Certificate of Sufficiency

B. Discussion and possible staff directive regarding if the initiative may have any anticipated financial effect if approved by the Boulder City voters

C. Introduction of Bill No. 1609, an ordinance of the City of Boulder City, to amend Title 9 of the Boulder City Code by adding the provision that it is the policy of the City to own no more than one golf course, which shall not exceed 18 holes

Action Requested: That the City Council consider the initiative petition and 1) receive the presentation on the Certificate of Sufficiency; 2) discuss and provide a staff directive regarding the anticipated financial effect of the initiative petition if approved by the voters, and; 3) either Introduce Bill No. 1609, or take no action on Bill No. 1609 and direct the City Clerk to place the initiative on the November 2, 2010, General Election ballot.

Overview:

• Three Initiative Petitions were filed on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 in the City Clerk’s office.

• Upon receipt of the petition, State law requires the City Clerk to consult with the City Council to determine if the initiative may have any anticipated financial effect on the local government if approved by the voters • NRS 295.210 requires the City Clerk to promptly present the Certificate of Sufficiency of petition to the City Council for its review.

• The Certificate is a final determination as to the sufficiency of the petition.

• The initiative proposes a Code amendment that added the provision that it is the policy of the City to own no more than one golf course.

Background Information:

A. Presentation of Certificate of Sufficiency

On June 23, 2010, an initiative petition that proposed an amendment to the City Code that added a provision it is the policy of the City to own no more than one golf course was filed in the City Clerk’s office. Upon receipt of the initiative petition, the City Clerk has 20 days to determine the sufficiency of the petition. NRS requires the City Council consider any initiative ordinance within thirty days after it is considered sufficient. In order to meet the NRS requirements and allow the City Council to consider the initiative, the certification process was scheduled for July 12, 2010.

This was the only day that allowed the City Clerk to meet the deadlines pertaining to the determination of sufficiency, as well as provide the council the opportunity to consider the proposed initiative. (Bill introduction on July 13 and if introduced, bill consideration on August 10, within the 30 day timeframe). Therefore, the results of the determination of sufficiency will be presented to the City Council at the meeting on July 13, 2010.

B. Discussion and possible staff directive regarding if the initiative may have any anticipated financial effect if approved by the Boulder City voters Per NRS 295.205(4), the City Clerk is required to consult with the City Council to determine if the initiative may have any anticipated financial effect on the local government if the initiative is approved by the voters. If the council determines that the initiative may have an anticipated financial effect on the local government if approved, the council must prepare a description of the anticipated financial effect and the City Clerk must post a copy of the information on the City’s website.

NOTE: The following anticipated financial effect was prepared by Finance Director Inch: The expected financial impact of this question is uncertain. The petition provides that the City Council shall give effect to this policy through ordinance and staff direction. The uncertainty arises from the fact that the City currently owns two golf courses, the 18 hole municipal course and the 27 hole Boulder Creek Golf Course. Since the petition does not specifically provide for the closure of any of the City golf courses, the financial obligations of current golf course operations will remain in place unless a decision is made to close one of the courses in the future.

C. Introduction of Bill No. 1609, an ordinance of the City of Boulder City, to amend Title 9 of the Boulder City Code by adding the provision that it is the policy of the City to own no more than one golf course, which shall not exceed 18 holes

As mentioned above, once an initiative petition is deemed sufficient, the council shall

consider the proposed initiative ordinance in the manner provided by law. If the council

fails to adopt the proposed initiative ordinance, the council shall submit the proposed or

referred ordinance to the registered voters of the city. (NRS 295.215)

Note: If the initiative petition is seemed insufficient, this sub-item would be

removed from the agenda.

Recommendation: The City Clerk respectfully requests that the City Council consider the initiative petition and 1) receive the presentation on the Certificate of Sufficiency; 2) discuss and provide a staff directive regarding the anticipated financial effect of the initiative petition if approved by the voters, and; 3) either Introduce Bill No. 1609, or take no action on Bill No. 1609 and direct the City Clerk to place the initiative on the November 2, 2010, General Election ballot.

17. Matters pertaining to an initiative petition regarding a proposed Code amendment which would subject the City to receive voter approval for any new debt obligations of $1,000,000 or more:

A. Presentation of Certificate of Sufficiency

B. Discussion and possible staff directive regarding if the initiative may

have any anticipated financial effect if approved by the Boulder City voters

C. Introduction of Bill No. 1610, an ordinance of the City of Boulder City, to amend Title 2 of the Boulder City Code by adding a provision that the City shall not incur any new debt obligations of $1,000,000 or more, as defined under NRS 350.0045 inclusive, without the approval of the electors of Boulder City in a general or special election

Action Requested: That the City Council consider the initiative petition and 1) receive the presentation on the Certificate of Sufficiency; 2) discuss and provide a staff directive regarding the anticipated financial effect of the initiative petition if approved by the voters, and; 3) either Introduce Bill No. 1610, or take no action on Bill No. 1610 and direct the City Clerk to place the initiative on the November 2, 2010, General Election ballot.

Overview:

• Three Initiative Petitions were filed on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 in the City Clerk’s office.

• Upon receipt of the petition, State law requires the City Clerk to consult with the City Council to determine if the initiative may have any anticipated financial effect on the local government if approved by the voters

• NRS 295.210 requires the City Clerk to promptly present the Certificate of Sufficiency of petition to the City Council for its review.

• The Certificate is a final determination as to the sufficiency of the petition.

• The initiative proposes a Code amendment to Title 2 to add a provision that requires voter approval for new debt obligations of $1,000,000 as defined under NRS 350.0045 inclusive

Background Information:

A. Presentation of Certificate of Sufficiency

On June 23, 2010, an initiative petition that proposed an amendment to Title 2 of the City Code that would add a provision that requires voter approval for new debt obligations of $1,000,000 as defined under NRS 350.0045 was filed in the City Clerk’s office. Upon receipt of the initiative petition, the City Clerk has 20 days to determine the sufficiency of the petition. NRS requires the City Council consider any initiative ordinance within thirty days after it is considered sufficient. In order to meet the NRS requirements and allow the City Council to consider the initiative, the certification process was scheduled for July 12, 2010.

This was the only day that allowed the City Clerk to meet the deadlines pertaining to the determination of sufficiency, as well as provide the council the opportunity to consider the proposed initiative. (Bill introduction on July 13 and if introduced, bill consideration on August 10, within the 30 day timeframe). Therefore, the results of the determination of sufficiency will be presented to the City Council at the meeting on July 13, 2010.

B. Discussion and possible staff directive regarding if the initiative may have any anticipated financial effect if approved by the Boulder City voters

Per NRS 295.205(4), the City Clerk is required to consult with the City Council to determine if the initiative may have any anticipated financial effect on the local government if the initiative is approved by the voters. If the council determines that the initiative may have an anticipated financial effect on the local government if approved, the council must prepare a description of the anticipated financial effect and the City Clerk must post a copy of the information on the City’s website.

NOTE: The following anticipated financial effect was prepared by Finance Director Inch:

The financial impact of this question extends beyond the actual costs associated with the issuance of debt by the City. If a special election were required to consider debt issuance the costs of such election would be in excess of $20,000. However, under current law, it takes between 6 and 9 months for the City to issue debt. Requiring an election to approve the issuance of debt would extend the length of time for the approval process during which economic conditions and market factors affecting the interest rate estimated at the time the election was held could vary significantly by the time the City was able to complete the transaction.

C. Introduction of Bill No. 1610, an ordinance of the City of Boulder City, to amend Title 2 of the Boulder City Code by adding a provision that the City shall not incur any new debt obligations of $1,000,000 or more, as defined under NRS 350.0045 inclusive, without the approval of the electors of Boulder City in a general or special election

As mentioned above, once an initiative petition is deemed sufficient, the council shall consider the proposed initiative ordinance in the manner provided by law. If the council fails to adopt the proposed initiative ordinance, the council shall submit the proposed or referred ordinance to the registered voters of the city. (NRS 295.215)

Note: If the initiative petition is seemed insufficient, this sub-item would be removed from the agenda.

Recommendation: The City Clerk respectfully requests that the City Council consider the initiative petition and 1) receive the presentation on the Certificate of Sufficiency; 2) discuss and provide a staff directive regarding the anticipated financial effect of the initiative petition if approved by the voters, and; 3) either Introduce Bill No. 1610, or take no action on Bill No. 1610 and direct the City Clerk to place the initiative on the November 2, 2010, General Election ballot.

18. Matters pertaining to an initiative petition regarding a proposed Code amendment which would impose a term limit of 12 years on committee/commission members:

A. Presentation of Certificate of Sufficiency

B. Discussion and possible staff directive regarding if the initiative may have any anticipated financial effect if approved by the Boulder City voters

C. Introduction of Bill No. 1611, an ordinance of the City of Boulder City, to amend Title 3, Chapter 6 of the Boulder City Code to add language that limits the amount of service that any person serves on a Boulder City committee, board or commission to 12 years

Action Requested: That the City Council consider the initiative petition

and 1) receive the presentation on the Certificate of Sufficiency; 2) discuss and provide a staff directive regarding the anticipated financial effect of the initiative petition if approved by the voters, and; 3) either Introduce Bill No. 1611, or take no action on Bill No. 1611 and direct the City Clerk to place the initiative on the November 2, 2010, General Election ballot.

Overview:

• Three Initiative Petitions were filed on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 in the City Clerk’s office.

• Upon receipt of the petition, State law requires the City Clerk to consult with the City Council to determine if the initiative may have any anticipated financial effect on the local government if approved by the voters

• NRS 295.210 requires the City Clerk to promptly present the Certificate of Sufficiency of petition to the City Council for its review.

• The Certificate is a final determination as to the sufficiency of the petition.

 • The initiative proposes a Code amendment to Title 3, Chapter 6 to place term limits on Boulder City committee/commission members

Background Information:

A. Presentation of Certificate of Sufficiency

On June 23, 2010, an initiative petition that proposed an amendment to Title 3, Chapter 6 of the City Code that imposes term limits of 12 years on Boulder City committee/commission members was filed in the City Clerk’s office. Upon receipt of the initiative petition, the City Clerk has 20 days to determine the sufficiency of the petition. NRS requires the City Council consider any initiative ordinance within thirty days after it is considered sufficient. In order to meet the NRS requirements and allow the City Council to consider the initiative, the certification process was scheduled for July 12, 2010. This was the only day that allowed the City Clerk to meet the deadlines pertaining to the determination of sufficiency, as well as provide the council the opportunity to consider the proposed initiative. (Bill introduction on July 13 and if introduced, bill consideration on August 10, within the 30 day timeframe). Therefore, the results of the determination of sufficiency will be presented to the City Council at the meeting on July 13, 2010.

B. Discussion and possible staff directive regarding if the initiative may have any anticipated financial effect if approved by the Boulder City voters

Per NRS 295.205(4), the City Clerk is required to consult with the City Council to determine if the initiative may have any anticipated financial effect on the local government if the initiative is approved by the voters. If the council determines that the initiative may have an anticipated financial effect on the local government if approved, the council must prepare a description of the anticipated financial effect and the City Clerk must post a copy of the information on the City’s website.

NOTE: The following anticipated financial effect was prepared by Finance Director Inch:

There is no anticipated financial impact if the initiative were to be approved by the voters. C. Introduction of Bill No. 1611, an ordinance of the City of Boulder City, to amend Title 3, Chapter 6 of the Boulder City Code to add language that limits the amount of service that any person serves on a Boulder City committee, board or commission to 12 years

As mentioned above, once an initiative petition is deemed sufficient, the council shall consider the proposed initiative ordinance in the manner provided by law. If the council fails to adopt the proposed initiative ordinance, the council shall submit the proposed or referred ordinance to the registered voters of the city. (NRS 295.215)

Note: If the initiative petition is seemed insufficient, this sub-item would be removed from the agenda.

Recommendation: The City Clerk respectfully requests that the City Council consider the initiative petition and 1) receive the presentation on the Certificate of Sufficiency; 2) discuss and provide a staff directive regarding the anticipated financial effect of the initiative petition if approved by the voters, and; 3) either Introduce Bill No. 1611, or take no action on Bill No. 1611 and direct the City Clerk to place the initiative on the November 2, 2010, General Election ballot.

19. Appointments to Ballot Question Committees:

A. Advocating Code amendment that provides the City shall not incur any new debt obligations of $1,000,000 or more without the approval of the electors of Boulder City

B. Opposing Code amendment that provides the City shall not incur any new debt obligations of $1,000,000 or more without the approval of the electors of Boulder City

C. Advocating Code amendment that imposes term limits of 12 years to committee/commission members

D. Opposing Code amendment that imposes term limits of 12 years to committee/commission members

E. Advocating Code amendment that proposes policy City own no more than one 18 hole golf course

F. Opposing Code amendment that proposes that City own no more than one 18 hole golf course

on the respective committees as presented.

Overview:

· Appointment of members to serve on 6 Ballot Question Committees

Background Information: During the 2003 Legislative Session, the Nevada State law was amended to require cities to appoint ballot question committees to draft arguments advocating and opposing the passage of ballot questions. NRS 295.217 was further amended during the 2005 and 2007 Legislative Sessions, and the City Council amended the rules and regulations governing the establishment and function of these committees at its February 26, 2008, regular meeting.

State law calls for the appointment of three members to each committee. Item 6 of the Rules and Regulations states if it is unable to appoint three persons, the City Council shall appoint at least one person to each Committee. State law states a member may serve on more than one committee, but may not serve simultaneously on the committee that favors approval and the committee that opposes approval of the same question.

If the City Council fails to appoint a committee as required pursuant to section 295.217, the City Clerk shall, in consultation with the City Attorney, prepare arguments advocating and opposing approval by the voters.

In the event the City Council adopts any of the three questions as Code amendments, no action will be taken to appoint Ballot Question Committees. If, however, the questions are not adopted and the petitions are deemed sufficient, a recommendation will be made to place the three ballot questions before the electors at the November 2010 General Election.

Each ballot question will then require one argument in favor of the question being approved and one opposed to approval of the question, with rebuttals to each argument. Therefore, six (6) Ballot Question Committees should be established to prepare the appropriate argument for the following questions:

Ballot Question: Shall the Boulder City Code be amended to provide that the City and its agencies and enterprises shall not incur any new debt obligations of $1,000,000 (one million dollars) or more, as defined under NRS 350.0045 to NRS 350.0075 inclusive, without the approval of the electors of Boulder City in a general or special election?

Ballot Question: Shall the Boulder City Code be amended so that the maximum amount of service of any person appointed to any particular city committee, board or commission shall be 12 years for that committee, board, or commission?

Ballot Question: Shall the Boulder City Code be amended to provide that it shall be the policy of the City to own no more than one golf course which shall not exceed 18 holes?

Recommendation: The City Clerk Department Staff respectfully requests that the City Council appoint members to serve on the Ballot Question Committees (6).   

Note: There have been no volunteer applications submitted as of the writing date of this report. An e-mail has been sent to members of the Petitioner’s Committee, as well as volunteers who have previously written arguments; however, there has been no response.

20. Public Comments *

21. City Council’s Report *

I didn't get a notice about the URL on this item so you'll have to go to the City web page to see the detail.  I found it at http://www.bcnv.org/Agendapackets/CityCouncil/2010-06-08%20AgendaPacket.pdf   I didn't get a notice about the RDA meeting agenda packet, either.   I couldn't find it on the City's web page.   I wrote the City Clerk for an URL on that today.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

Tuesday, June 08, 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. 4 - 17)

APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA (Item Nos. 1- 3) AS FOLLOWS:

Agenda item 1. Approval of minutes:

A. Approval of the minutes of the May 18, 2010 Special Budget Meeting

B. Approval of the minutes of the May 25, 2010, regular City Council Meeting

Agenda item 2. Resolution No. 5576, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, approving Agreement No. 10-1317 between the City of Boulder City and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) to fund improvements to bus shelters in Boulder City through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Federal Transit Administration (BC Project No. 09-0776-BS)

Overview:

· Grant application submitted to NDOT for transit funding in rural areas

· Funding in the amount is $250,000 has been approved under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009

· Unlike other federal funding, ARRA funds do not require a local match

· The PublicWorks Department identified 15 locations in Boulder City where improvements could be made to existing bus stops

Background Information:

In April of 2009, the PublicWorks Staff learned of a grant opportunity for transit funding in rural areas. An application was submitted to the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). Since that time, Public Works Staff has worked with NDOT to submit all of the required documentation to support the attached funding agreement. The total project funding amount is $250,000. The federal funding has been approved under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 as allocated to the Federal Transit Administration. Unlike normal federal funding, the ARRA funds do not require a local match.

Highlights of the agreement are as follows:

1. The City is responsible for administration of all aspects of the projects, including environmental clearances, proof of right-of-way ownership, design, and construction.

2. The City must include specific language in the contract to make sure Disadvantage Business Enterprises have an equal opportunity to compete for and perform contracts.

3. The City must submit draft contract documents to NDOT at the 60%, 90%, and 100% stages.

4. All Federally required procurement clauses must be in the City’s contract documents.

5. Both the contactor(s) and City staff will be required to submit monthly employee reports similar to the other ARRA funded projects managed by the PublicWorks Department.

6. The project must be advertised by July 30, 2010.

7. All work must be completed by September 30, 2011.

The PublicWorks Department identified 15 locations in Boulder City where improvements could be made to existing bus stops. These locations are included in Attachment “A” of the agreement. City staff plans to utilize a design-build project delivery method. The City will establish the total contract cost and basic parameters for the project. Designers and builders work together as a team to submit concept plans. The City will select one or more contractors to enter into contracts to complete construction of the new shelters.

Agenda item 3. Resolution No. 5577, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, approving a two-year lease, to purchase and equip five (5) new and unused 2010 Ford Crown Victorias and four (4) new and unused 2010 Chevrolet Tahoes for the Police Department in accordance with the Nevada Department of Public Safety State and Local Law Enforcement Equipment Procurement Program 1122

Overview:

· The funding source for this project is the General Fund ($100,000 had been approved for the current FY, and $200,000 was approved in the FY ’11 Final Budget.

· The vehicles are being obtained through the State of Nevada Department of Public Safety’s competitive bidding process for the lease/purchase of new police vehicles.

· Nine of the vehicles in the police fleet currently have mileage over 100,000 miles on their odometers. Excessive idle time that our police vehicles accumulate makes them in dire need of replacement.

Background Information: The police department’s patrol vehicles are subjected daily to high-speed operation, long-term idling and round-theclock operation. Safe and reliable patrol vehicles are an essential requirement for officer safety and to ensure that officers arrive to their calls for service without fear of mechanical failures of their vehicles. Nine vehicles in the police fleet have well over 100,000 miles on them and they are no longer suitable for the higher speeds and hard driving that is required of police officers. The safety of our residents is jeopardized by inferior, outdated and unreliable equipment, and these vehicles will ensure that officers arrive quickly and safely to their calls.

The Nevada Department of Public Safety’s State and Local Law Enforcement Equipment Procurement Program 1122 provides municipalities with the best pricing on police equipment without having to go through a competitive bidding process. The 1122 Program saves the time and expense of the bidding process, and the powerful bargaining position of the state results in pricing that individual municipalities would not be able to obtain.

The city negotiated a lease/purchase agreement with Auto Leasing Specialists for financing the lease/purchase of the nine vehicles. Auto Leasing Specialists provides financing options for government entities as part of the Nevada Department of Public Safety’s State and Local Law Enforcement Equipment Procurement Program 1122. The first payment of $100,000 is due when the agreement is executed, a second payment of $200,000 is due on 9/10/2010 and the third and final payment of $201,051.75 is due on 9/20/2011. An end-of-lease purchase payment of one dollar per vehicle will result in the city owning the vehicles.

PUBLIC COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS*

REGULAR AGENDA

Agenda item 4. This item is being moved to the July 13, 2010, City Council meeting. Both award recipients will be out of town in June.

Agenda item 5. Presentation by Jim Holland of the National Park Service regarding the designation of the River Mountain Loop Trail as a national recreation trail*

Overview:

· Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced the designation of 31 trails in 15 states as national recreation trails

· Jim Holland of the National Park Service will provide a presentation regarding the designation of the River Mountain Loop Trail as a national recreation trail

Background Information: Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced the designation of 31 trails in 15 states as national recreation trails, adding more than 716 miles of trails to the National Trails System. The national recreation trail designation recognizes existing trails and trail systems that link communities to recreational opportunities on public lands and in local parks across the nation. The first ones were established in 1971.

Each of the trails will receive a certificate of designation, a letter of congratulations from Secretary Salazar, and national recreation trail markers. The trails join a network of more than 1,000 previously designated trails that total more than 12, 500 miles. The River Mountain Loop Trail has is a 35-mile paved multi-use, multi-jurisdictional trail surrounding the River Mountains. It connects Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Hoover Dam, Boulder City, and Henderson to the rest of the Las Vegas Valley. The trail’s success is due to collaboration and community involvement among an active coalition of public agencies, community groups, businesses and individuals. The trail is completely separated from highway traffic. Vistas along the trail are outstanding, and interpretive wayside exhibits provide educational opportunities.

Agenda item 6. Update by Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) on the US 93/Buchanan Boulevard Intersection Improvements

Overview:

· Funding Source for this project is from NDOT.

· In 2004 and 2009 NDOT performed Road Safety Audits of US93 from Lake Shore Drive to Veterans Memorial Drive.

· City staff participated in the Road Safety Audits with NDOT and Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) staff.

· Staff has been meeting with and been in regular communication with NDOT regarding the intersection improvements.

· NDOT is scheduled to advertise for bids in June 2010.

Background Information: In April 2004 and again in September 2009 NDOT performed Road Safety Audits (RSA) of US93 through Boulder City to identify needed roadway improvements. The 2009 RSA prioritized the improvements identified into three categories for when they would be implemented. The three categories are Priority 1A, 1B and Priority 2. The Priority 1A improvements are items that can be, or have been, performed by NDOT Maintenance Division staff. Priority 1B improvements are items included in the US93/Buchanan Boulevard improvements project. Priority 2 improvements are items that are long term improvements that will be accomplished as funding becomes available. The RSA’s took into account existing and proposed traffic once the new Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge opens to traffic. City staff also requested NDOT to consider additional improvements staff has identified to be included with the US93/Buchanan Improvements. Some of these improvements NDOT agreed to while others they did not. NDOT’s schedule is to advertise the US93/Buchanan Intersection improvements project in June 2010 with construction beginning in August 2010 and an anticipated completion date in September 2010 just before the new bridge is scheduled to open. NDOT is here to give the City Council an update on the status of the design and bidding of the US93/Buchanan Intersection improvements and answer questions. Financial: Funding for the project is from NDOT.

Agenda item 7. Resolution No. 5578, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, authorizing Redevelopment Agency Capital Improvement/Special Project Program funding for certain eligible improvement costs related to the Boulder City Museum and Historical Association, 1305 Arizona Street

Overview:

· Funding Source for this project is through the Redevelopment Agency Capital Project/Special Project Program funded through RDA Resolution No. 106.

· The Boulder City/Hoover Dam Museum is owned and operated by the Boulder City Museum and Historical Association, a nonprofit organization

· Requested funds are to make improvements to the Museum historical displays and programs

· Request for funding is $47,700.

Background Information: The Boulder City Museum and Historical Association (Association) owns and operates the Boulder City/Hoover Dam Museum as a 501 3(c) non-profit organization. The museum houses archives and research facilities, a special exhibit area, and a small theater. The mission of the Association’s Board of Directors is to connect Boulder City’s past with the present by educating the community and engaging it to continue to tell the story of the creation of both the Hoover Dam and the City of Boulder City. To date, the Board of Directors and the management team have set forth guidelines for accomplishment of the following:

· An annual program of events to include special exhibits, community events, museum-centered events, and hotel-centered events.

· A funds development campaign to support the care and preservation of the permanent exhibit and collections, sponsorship of the Museum’s event program, and care for the historic components of the Boulder Dam Hotel.

· An economic development plan that integrates the revenue-generating portions of the organization to maximize their ability to support the needs and objectives of the Museum.

The Boulder City/Hoover Dam Museum and the historic Boulder Dam Hotel pride themselves on playing a fundamental role in preserving the history of the Hoover Dam and Boulder City while providing an authentic cultural, social, and educational experience to thousands of visitors and guests each year. An in-depth description of the Association’s goals and accomplishments is included in the attached Strategic Plan.

As a non-profit organization, the Association seeks funding from several sources to further its mission. Donors, Program Sponsors, and Benefactors all provide assurance of the long-term sustainability of the organization.

Other: The continued efforts of the Association will further the goals and purposes of the Redevelopment Agency Plan by:

· Sustaining existing businesses through continued tourist traffic;

· Supporting existing facilities used by local residents; and

· Giving a variety of choices to local residents.

The Museum Board is seeking funding in the amount of $47,700 to offset the costs of improving museum exhibits. Project information and details about the Museum activities (including business plan) have been included.

Agenda item 8. Resolution No. 5579, awarding the Request for Proposal for the Strategic Plan Update Consultant (3 proposals received)

Overview:

· Funding Source for this project is split 50/50 between the

General Fund and RDA Funds. Funds in the amount of $80,000 have been appropriated for the FY09/10 fiscal year.

· RFP for the Strategic Plan Update Consultant was open for 4 weeks, 3 responses were received

· The recommended consultant is a Boulder City resident

· Total Bid Price not to exceed $79,615

Background Information: Upon receipt of approval by the City Council to proceed with the RFP for a consultant to assist in the update of the City’s Strategic Plan, the RFP document was prepared and released on March 31st. The closing date for responses was April 29th. Three [3] responses were received and considered. For reference, a copy of the RFP document is included with this staff report.

The City received responses from the following groups:

Lucchesi/Galati Group $155,905 (fixed price)

H2Outreach $79,615 (not to exceed price)

WorldSource One $76,960 (fixed price with add-on costs over and above

fixed price)

The City’s Project Review Team (consisting of the Department Heads for Public Works, Fire, Police, Community Development and Human Resources, as well as the City Engineer, City Conservation Specialist, Airport Manager, and Chief Building Official) reviewed each of the applications in 5 areas:

 · Approach

· Timeliness of Project Completion

· Project Experience

· Survey Approach

· Boulder City Firm or Employees

Each respondent was rated based upon their submittal. The highest rated firm was Lucchesi/Galati – however, because the bid price far exceeds the budgeted amount, they are not being recommended for award.

Recommended Firm

The Project Review Team is recommending H2Outreach as the most responsive bid and recommending award of the RFP. While costing slightly more than WorldSource One, the price was set as a not to exceed price and is owned and operated by a Boulder City resident. Because of the unknown issues that may arise through the process, it was felt that a fixed not to exceed price outweighed the slightly lower bid price by the firm that had additional charges should things not go as planned (i.e., additional charge for additional survey responses, for website support, etc)

Other: The prepared resolution awards the RFP to H2Outreach and directs City Staff to prepare a professional services agreement between the City and H2Outreach to be considered by the City Council at a future date.

Agenda item 9. Resolution No. 5580, establishing a moratorium on group homes for not more than 120 days so that regulations can be drafted and adopted in accordance with State law

Overview:

· State law requires that various types of group homes be allowed in single-family residential homes. State law also allows cities to establish zoning regulations for such uses in single-family homes.

· Boulder City’s zoning code does not currently address group homes as per NRS requirements.

· An inquiry has been made regarding Boulder City’s regulations for group homes, so staff conducted research on State law requirements and other cities’ codes on the topic.

· In order to comply with NRS, Boulder City will need to adopt regulations for group homes. The moratorium will apply during the code amendment process.

Information: An inquiry has been made by a person interested in operating a halfway house for recovering alcoholics in Boulder City. NRS sections 278.02386.1 and 2 state: family residence” must include a:

(a) Residential facility for groups in which 10 or fewer unrelated persons with disabilities reside with:

(1) House parents or guardians who need not be related to any of the persons with disabilities; and

(2) If applicable, additional persons who are related to the house parents or guardians within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity.

(b) Home for individual residential care.

(c) Halfway house for recovering alcohol and drug abusers.

2. The provisions of subsection 1 do not prohibit a definition of “singlefamily residence” which permits more persons to reside in a residential facility for groups, nor does it prohibit regulation of homes which are operated on a commercial basis. For the purposes of this subsection, a residential facility for groups, a halfway house for recovering alcohol and drug abusers or a home for individual residential care shall not be deemed to be a home that is operated on a commercial basis for any purposes relating to building codes or zoning.”

State law also allows local communities to adopt zoning regulations for these uses, including the allowance of these facilities by means of a special use permit. (In Boulder City the process is referred to as a conditional use permit, and the city’s proposed regulations will likely require this under circumstances similar to those of other cities.) Staff has researched the current code requirements for Carson City, Clark County, Henderson, Las Vegas, Mesquite, North Las Vegas and Reno, and will be drafting zoning code regulations and conditions based on State law and these other codes. Staff expects to present the first draft amendment to the Planning Commission for its June 16 meeting. Even if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation at this meeting, staff would not be able to schedule the matter for Council until August, as code amendments require two Council meetings and the Council has only one meeting in July. Therefore, it is possible that the Planning Commission will review this matter at both its June and July meetings.

A moratorium on proposed group homes is requested during the code amendment process. (In checking the website for the Nevada State Health Division, there are no existing facilities licensed in Boulder City at this time.) Staff believes that 120 days is more than sufficient time for the moratorium, even if the Council chooses to continue discussion on the amendment from its August meetings until September (should the Council wish further revisions to the code).

Agenda item 10. Matters pertaining to the amendments to the negotiated Collective Bargaining Agreements to accept requested concessions and extend agreement durations:

A. Report regarding the Police Protective Association's and Teamster's

responses to the City's counterproposal for concessions

B. Public hearing on the extension and modification of the collective

bargaining agreements pursuant to NRS 288.153

C. Resolution No. 5581, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, repealing Resolution No. 5388 in its entirety and adopting Resolution No. 5581 in lieu thereof, approving Agreement No. 07-1188B, Second Amendment to Collective Bargaining Agreement No. 07-1188, between the City of Boulder City and Teamsters Local No. 14 for the Blue Collar Bargaining Unit

D. Resolution No. 5582, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, repealing Resolution No. 5389 in its entirety and adopting Resolution No. 5582 in lieu thereof, approving Agreement No. 07-1189B, Second Amendment to Collective Bargaining Agreement No. 07-1189, between the City of Boulder City and Teamsters Local No. 14 for the Clerical Bargaining Unit

E. Resolution No. 5583, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, repealing Resolution No. 5391 in its entirety and adopting Resolution No. 5583 in lieu thereof, approving Agreement No. 07-1191B, Second Amendment to Collective Bargaining Agreement No. 07-1191, between the City of Boulder City and Teamsters Local No. 14 for the Supervisory Bargaining Unit

F. Resolution No. 5584, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, repealing Resolution No. 5392 in its entirety and adopting Resolution No. 5584 in lieu thereof, approving Agreement No. 07-1192C and Agreement 07-1192D, the Third and Fourth Amendments to Collective Bargaining Agreement No. 07-1192, between the City of Boulder City and Teamsters Local No. 14 for the Firefighter, Engineer, and Firefighter/Paramedic Bargaining Unit

G. Resolution No. 5585, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, repealing Resolution No. 5393 in its entirety and adopting Resolution No. 5585 in lieu thereof, approving Agreement No 07-1193C and Agreement No. 07-1193D, the Third and Fourth Amendments to Collective Bargaining Agreement No. 07-1193, between the City of Boulder City and Teamsters Local No. 14 for the Fire Captain Bargaining Unit

10 a Background Information: The City Council had requested that employees consider foregoing their cost-of-living increases, increases in the health insurance stipend, and suspend the vacation buy-back program as an alternative to reductions in workforce. As of May 18th, no agreement between the City and the collective bargaining groups City Manager to present a final counterproposal to Teamster’s Local No. 14 and the Police Protective Association. The counterproposal included the City’s request to suspend cost-of-living increases, cap the health insurance stipend at $887.36, and to suspend the vacation buyback program. The City also expanded its initial proposal by agreeing to extend all of the existing terms of the contract, along with these concessions, through June 30, 2012, and it agreed to no reductions in workforce unless the General Fund balance dropped below $1M or the Sol Bio contract payments were not made.

All of the employees represented through collective bargaining voted this counterproposal, and all but two groups, the PPA and Teamster’s Electrical Unit, have agreed to the concessions. The Blue Collar, Supervisor’s, Fire Captains, Clerical and Firefighter, Engineer, Paramedics all voted to accept the concessions.

The City’s request for concessions from the PPA would have reduced salary and benefit expenses in the Police Department by approximately $144,000. These savings would be accomplished by keeping Police Officers’ and Sergeants’ wage scales the same as they are now during the next fiscal year, instead of providing a 2.75% cost-of-living increase to these scales. The current health insurance stipend paid by the City would be reduced from $1009.28 to $887.36 to be consistent with all other employee groups, and the vacation buy-back program would be suspended.

The formal response of the PPA rejecting the City’s counterproposal is attached for your review. Representatives from the PPA told City representatives that this offer was final and no further counterproposals would be accepted by the PPA. The City’s request for concessions from the Teamster’s Electricians would have reduced salary and benefit expenses in the division by approximately $33,000. These savings would be accomplished by eliminating a 2.25% cost-of-living increase from the wage scales, maintaining the current health insurance stipend of $887.36, and suspending the vacation buy back program. I do not have a written response from Teamster’s Local No. 14 at this point to include in the staff report.

Agenda items 10b-g

Background Information: Amendments have been prepared to reflect the concessions that have been agreed to by the Teamster’s bargaining units. A 2009 change in State law requires that a public hearing must be held before any new, extended or modified collective bargaining agreement or similar agreement between a local government employer and an employee organization is approved. The law also requires that the chief executive officer of the local government must report the fiscal impact of the agreement, and as I’ve mentioned above the savings from the modification of the collective bargaining agreements is approximately $230,000.

In addition to the City’s request for contract amendments, Teamster’s Local No. 14 agreed to the City’s request to extend health insurance coverage for all administrative employees (not Teamster’s employees) to June 30, 2012. In addition to the memorandum of understandings which eliminate the COLA’s, cap health insurance at $887.36 and suspend the vacation buy-back program, I have included a MOU in which the City agrees to an alternate shift for Firefighters, Engineers, Firefighter/Paramedics and Fire Captains. Under this MOU the Fire Department will change to a 48 hours on, 96 hours off, shift on July 1, 2010. This is a pilot program that the City has agreed to implement for at least six months. The City does have the ability to return to the former shift arrangement after six months, upon 30 days notice to the Union or earlier, in the event of an emergency.

Each MOU is approved by formal amendments and approved by formal resolutions of the City Council, which have been prepared for the City Council’s consideration.

Agenda item 11. Matters pertaining to amendments to Uniform Pay Plan adjustments for classified employees to reflect the eliminated COLA increases:

A. Resolution No. 5586, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, approving the Uniform Pay Plan and Classification Titles for Blue Collar Bargaining Unit City Employees, repealing Resolution No. 5395 in its entirety and adopting Resolution No. 5586 in lieu thereof

B. Resolution No. 5587, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, approving the Uniform Pay Plan and Classification Titles for Clerical Bargaining Unit City Employees, repealing Resolution No. 5396 in its entirety and adopting Resolution No. 5587 in lieu thereof

C. Resolution No. 5588, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, approving the Uniform Pay Plan and Classification Titles for Supervisory Bargaining Unit City Employees, repealing Resolution No. 5398 in its entirety and adopting Resolution No. 5588 in lieu thereof

D. Resolution No. 5589, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, approving the Uniform Pay Plan and Classification Titles for the Firefighter, Engineer, and Firefighter/Paramedic Bargaining Unit City Employees, repealing Resolution No. 5399 in its entirety and adopting Resolution No. 5589 in lieu thereof

E. Resolution No. 5590, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, approving the Uniform Pay Plan and Classification Title for the Fire Captain Bargaining Unit City Employees, repealing Resolution 5399 in its entirety and adopting Resolution No. 5590 in lieu thereof

Background Information: The five abovementioned collective bargaining units have agreed to a number of concessions to include no wage increase for two fiscal years. This necessitates a change to the City’s Uniform Pay Plan omitting salary increases.

Agenda item 12. Matters pertaining to the reclassification of the Deputy City Clerk position:

A. Resolution No. 5591, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, repealing the non-bargaining unit pay classification schedule and adopting a new schedule in lieu thereof which eliminates the Deputy City Clerk position

B. Resolution No. 5592, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, repealing the Department Head, Division Head and Deputies pay classification schedule and adopting a new schedule in lieu thereof which incorporates the Deputy City Clerk position

Overview:

· The City Council discussed the Deputy City Clerk’s position and this action on May 18, 2010 and gave direction to change the pay plan and overtime status for the Deputy City Clerk position.

 Background Information: The Deputy City Clerk position requires a flexible work schedule for elections and for taking meeting minutes which could lead to overtime under the existing classification and pay plan. This position has more characteristics of a Deputy or Division Head and these positions traditionally fall under a classification and pay plan that does not include overtime.

The entry level salary for the Deputy City Clerk position would follow the Council’s previous direction and resolutions and would be 10% lower then the experienced level. The bi-weekly entry level salary would be $2,107 and after a year of satisfactory work experience, the bi-weekly salary would be $2,341.

This change will have minimum savings of $6,136 this year and these savings will increase to $12,000 over time because the top three steps have been eliminated. The actual savings is far more, however, because this employee would no longer receive overtime or compensated time off which could add considerable expense depending upon whether or not the City was in an election cycle or whether staff shortages required the City Clerk’s office to provide minutes taking services for additional boards or commissions. This alternative will increase the General Fund balance by approximately $6,000 for next year, but this will increase to $12,000 over the next four years because steps have been eliminated. In addition, overtime and compensated absence expense has been eliminated entirely which adds to long-term savings.  Agenda item 13. Discussion and consideration of an amendment to the FY '11 Final Operating and Capital Budget for the City and authorizing submission of the amendment to the State

Overview:

· The City Council approved the Final Budget for FY ’11 on May 18, 2010, as required by law.

· At that meeting, the City Council provided its last and final offer to Teamster’s Local No. 14 and the Police Protective Association.

· Clerical, fire captains, fire engineers and paramedics, blue collar and supervisor’s groups have agreed to the City’s request for concessions.

· The Police Protective Association and Teamster’s Local No. 14 Electrical Unit have not agreed to the City’s request for concessions.

· Budget amendments have been prepared to restore positions, eliminate cost-of-living increases and vacation buy-back, and cap insurance for employees in those divisions that have agreed to the concessions.

· Reductions in workforce remain in the Police Department and one electrical line worker position will remain unfunded in the Electric Division.

Background Information: The adopted Final Budget for FY ’11 included reductions in workforce to reduce salary and benefit expenses so a minimum General Fund balance of $2M could be maintained. The City Council had requested that employees consider foregoing their cost-of-living increases, increases in the health insurance stipend and suspend the vacation buy-back program as an alternative to reductions in workforce. As of May 18th, no agreement between the City and the collective bargaining groups had been reached. During the Final Budget Meeting, the City Council approved a final counter proposal to Teamster’s Local No. 14 and the Police Protective Association which was presented to the groups later that day. All groups have voted on this counter proposal and all but two groups have agreed to the concessions in exchange for their contracts being extended under the same terms for an additional year (June 30, 2012).

The Final Budget included the elimination of several positions to offset the expenses associated with COLA’s, insurance increases and vacation buyback, namely, a Kennel Worker, Department Secretary, Water & Sewer Maintenance Worker, Divisional Secretary, Electrical Line Worker (vacant) and two Police Officer positions. The City Council concurred that should the alternatives presented in the counterproposal be approved by the collective bargaining groups, they would consider a budget amendment that would reflect the concessions in lieu of workforce reductions. The Police Protective Association did not agree to the concessions, nor did the Teamster Electrical Unit. A budget amendment has been prepared that reflects the concessions made by the various groups:

a) cost-of-living increases have been eliminated for all employees, except for those employees in the Electrical Division and for Police Officers and Sergeants in the Police Department;

b) insurance expense has been reduced from $1009.28 to $887.36 for all employees, except for those employees in the Electrical Division and for Police Officers and Sergeants in the Police Department;

c) vacation buy-back program will be suspended for all employees except for those employees in the Electrical Division and for Police Officers and Sergeants in the Police Department

d) expense of $80,000 for a compensation and classification study has been eliminated as most contracts have been extended to June 30, 2012

e) Part-time clerical and janitorial hours have been eliminated because full-time positions remain in the budget;

f) budget message has been updated to reflect changes;

g) budget highlights have been updated to reflect changes.

Under the adopted Final Budget, two Police Officer positions will be eliminated, so two Police officers will no longer have jobs. I am finalizing an alternative for the City Council’s consideration that would result in only one Police officer position being eliminated and reduces salary and benefit expenses by approximately $120,000. One electrical line worker position will remain vacant in the Electrical Division during the upcoming year.

Agenda item 14. Update by the City Attorney and regarding the default of the BCMx, LLC (motocross park) lease agreement with the City and possible staff directive regarding said lease agreement

Nothing available on the City Web site for this agenda item

Agenda item 15. Appointment to Ballot Question Committees

Overview:

· Initiative Petition filed in City Clerk’s Office on April 29, 2010 relating to the election of the City Attorney

· Ballot question committees needed to write arguments for and against the passage of the question.

Background Information:

At its regular meeting May 25, 2010, the City Council received a report of the Certificate of Sufficiency on an Initiative Petition that was filed in the City Clerk’s Office on April 29, 2010. The Initiative Petition proposes the following Charter amendment:

Ballot Question: Shall Sections 8.1 and 15 of the Boulder City Charter be amended to provide that the City Attorney shall be elected in the same manner as the Mayor and Council member, for a term of four years to begin on the first regular day of business day of July following the election?

The ballot question will require one argument in favor of the question being approved and one opposed to approval of the question, with rebuttals to each argument. Therefore, two (2) Ballot Question Committees should be established to prepare the appropriate arguments.

Due to the time frames required by State law, there was not sufficient time to advertise

and recruit for ballot question committee volunteers. However, an email had been sent to the Petitioner’s Committee asking if any of the members would be interested. At the time of the May 25, 2010 meeting, there had not been a response. City Council directed the City Clerk to continue to search for volunteers to write the arguments for the ballot questions, and bring the item back at the next regular City Council meeting. There have been two volunteers who have submitted Volunteer Data Sheets, and efforts continue to seek volunteers.

In the event the City Council fails to appoint a committee as required pursuant to section NRS 295.217, the City Clerk shall, in consultation with the City Attorney, prepare arguments advocating and opposing approval by the voters. NOTE: If the City Clerk is directed to prepare the arguments, City Attorney Olsen has recommended outside legal counsel be retained due to the potential conflict of interest.

Agenda item 16. Public Comments *

Agenda item17. City Council’s Report *

For details see 2010-03-23 AgendaPacket.pdf   It is 264 pages long.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, March 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. 9 - 15)

APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA (Item Nos. 1- 8) AS FOLLOWS:

Agenda item 1. Approval of City Council minutes:

A. February 24, 2010, special meeting

B. March 9, 2010, regular meeting

Agenda item 2. Resolution No. 5545, a resolution of the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, approving final acceptance and bond release for Desert Wind Homes of NV II, Inc. - 180 Ville Drive

Overview:

· September 29, 2008, DesertWind Homes of NV II, Inc. entered into a Development Off-Site Improvement Agreement

· February 11, 2010, City staff conducted a final inspection.

Background Information: The General Contractor, Desert Wind Homes of NV II, Inc., entered into a Development Off-Site Improvement Agreement dated September 29, 2008, for the Lakeview Assisted Living Facility.