87°F
weather icon Partly Cloudy

City seeks to reduce lawsuit fees

Boulder City is hoping to pay about $150,000 less than ordered for attorney fees for six residents who the Nevada Supreme Court ruled were wrongfully sued by the city after they circulated three ballot initiative petitions in 2010.

The hearing, scheduled for Monday, stems from an April 10 decision by Judge Steven Kosach, who ruled in favor of the residents, according to former Boulder City Councilwoman Linda Strickland.

Strickland and her husband, Tracy, represented Daniel Jensen, Walt Rapp, Frank Fisher, Cynthia Harris, Nancy Nolette and James Douglass in the case.

The city sued to challenge the legality of the three initiatives, which limited city debt, established term limits for volunteer committees and prevented the city from owning more than one golf course. City staff believed the initiatives overstepped the city’s administrative authority and that naming the petitioners in a lawsuit was the only way to have a court examine the initiatives.

The city, represented by the law firm Lionel Sawyer &Collins, successfully argued in District Court in Clark County that it had the right to sue the petitioners to challenge the initiatives.

The Supreme Court overturned the rulings of three District Court judges, ruling that the city’s lawsuits were strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, and the city could have challenged the initiatives by naming the secretary of state or another government entity as a defendant.

On June 5, Kosach ordered the city to pay the defendants’ attorney fees no later than July 5. But City Attorney Dave Olsen said the city thinks the amount of money exceeds what staff thinks is appropriate.

“The city is clearly going to have to pay something,” Olsen said. “We thought it was just not reasonable.”

Strickland said the city is just delaying the inevitable, and doesn’t see any reason why Monday’s hearing would go in the city’s favor.

“We don’t expect Judge Kosach to change his opinion because the city didn’t provide any new facts to make him change his opinion,” she said.

According to Strickland, city officials are looking to pay $30,000, a sixth of the $180,000 ordered. She said she thinks the $180,000 amount is appropriate.

“They want to pay us $30,000 for four years of work,” she said. “They know they have to pay us something, but unfortunately they want to pay us pennies on the dollar.”

The city has already paid approximately $200,000 for its own attorney fees throughout the case, according to Strickland, and that total will grow the longer the case drags on.

Olsen couldn’t confirm exactly how much the city paid for its attorney fees, but said $200,000 was “pretty close.”

If the city’s motion is denied, it then has 30 days to file an appeal with the Supreme Court. Strickland said she’s almost certain the city will file an appeal if its motion is denied.

Olsen said the city hasn’t contemplated that option yet.

“I’m not really at liberty to speculate,” he said. “We’ll consider our options, but we haven’t made any plans at this juncture.”

If the city chooses to file an appeal, a decision might not be made until the beginning of 2016, Strickland said. She also said she plans to seek any new lawyer fees accrued since the April 10 ruling.

“The city can continue to run the bill up as much as (it wants), but it will cost taxpayers more money,” she said.

Three new lawsuits were filed in June by the initiative sponsors against the city to seek damages from the SLAPP, Strickland said.

Under a SLAPP, a person who is wrongfully sued has the right to bring his or her separate action for compensatory actions stemming from the lawsuit, which include emotional distress and public humiliation.

Contact reporter Steven Slivka at sslivka@bouldercityreview.com or at 702-586-9401. Follow @StevenSlivka on Twitter.

MOST READ
THE LATEST
Council votes unanimously to remove fence

Getting a permit for something like a fence in your front yard may seem like a contrivance. Intrusive government and all that. But, here’s the deal, deciding to bypass that step may end up meaning you have to tear that fence out at your own expense.

Poll: Public strongly backs tougher leash law

When the Review decided to put a question about leash laws on social media and to solicit comments, the level of response was a bit overwhelming. The question elicited nearly 100 comments and the ratio was more than 10-1 in favor of enacting a stricter leash law.

Utilities director outlines state of compliance

In scheduling that some might call ironic, immediately after approving a plan that would see the Municipal Golf Course continue to use 20% more water than allowed by law, the city council heard a presentation from Utilities Director Joseph Stubitz in which he outlined just how serious the drought is and how the city is working to comply with state law by removing turf from city parks and from areas surrounding city buildings.

Can that guy park in front of my house all day?

So, you have a great little house in or near the historic district and, to your annoyance, between events and employees for various local businesses, there are cars parked in front of your house pretty much every day.

Council hires executive recruitment firm

Before they can actually start the job of recruiting a new city manager, the city council of Boulder City has to recruit a recruitment firm.

City Shops project making the grade

If you have walked or driven past the corner of Colorado and Birch streets recently, you may have noticed some heavy equipment grading the land and a sign identifying the project as being for the Boulder City Shops.

Planning Commission denies church housing project

Despite agreeing that there is a need in town for affordable senior housing, the majority of those on the Boulder City Planning Commission did not feel the location of a proposed multi-family complex was appropriate based upon current zoning and a previous agreement.

Report made on strategic plan

Strategic plans are not anything new for Boulder City. A document developed in conjunction with an outside consultant outlining goals for the next five years has been around for at least a decade.

City, court extend personnel agreement

One could be excused for assuming that an item on the city council’s agenda for the June 25 meeting was somehow related to the concept of free speech if one had only read the agenda and none of the attachments. It was, after all, referred to as First Amendment.

Council adopts fancier permit

It started innocuously with a public comment about an issue not on the city council agenda at the end of a meeting more than a year ago as an aspiring dog-breeder addressed the council about the lack of a mechanism for her to get a city license.