Third extension for portico funding

About once a month, before the start of the city council meeting, the members of the council meet wearing their hats as the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and dole out money to reimburse businesses and homeowners in the historic district for qualifying work done to their properties.

It is usually a pretty smooth process, but in their meeting on July 8, the agency denied a third extension for work slated for a building at the corner of Nevada Way and Avenue B. Sort of.

Here is what the whole redevelopment thing is all about. Back in 1999, the RDA was created to encourage rehabbing of buildings in a specific zone in Boulder City, basically what most know as the historic district. The tax base for building in that zone, as well as vacant land owned by the city, was frozen at 1999 levels with all increases in property values from that point forward being pooled together for the benefit of the district.

So what does that mean? As the value of those properties has increased and the properties have changed hands, the amount paid in property taxes for those properties has gone up. But the amount that goes into the city’s general fund from said properties has not gone up in more than a quarter of a century. The difference between the frozen 1999 rate and what is currently collected goes into the RDA fund.

Again, back in 1999, the downtown district qualified under the state guidelines as being ‘blighted’ or under-utilized, which made it qualifying for the creation of an RDA zone which seeks to “reduce blight” (not a term most would use to describe the area in 2025) and also to boost property values (which adds more money to the RDA pot, and not to the general fund) and to incentivize private investment.

Back in late 2022, BC First, LLC, the owners of 521 Nevada Way applied for more than $34,000 in RDA funds for the construction of a portico to cover the sidewalk in front of the building and the RDA voted to approve the funds in February of 2023 as a reimbursement once the project was completed and gave the owners of BC First, Ed Cave and Brett Runion, a year to get it done.

(Note that RDA funding can’t — by law — cover the entire cost of the new portico. While the owners have applied for and received authorization for more than $34,000 in reimbursement once the work is done, RDA funds for work done to the outside of a building is limited to 30% of the total cost. This means that the cost of the project is at least $113,000.)

With the project delayed, “due to a series of setbacks and complications,” per a city report, Cave and Runion were granted a six-month extension by staff (without having to go in front of the agency). That extension expired in August of 2024. With the deadline again looming and work still not begun last summer, a second extension of one year was requested, which the agency (i.e., the members of the city council) approved.

Now, in mid-July of 2025 with the third deadline approaching, work has begun but may not be completed by August and so BC First has requested a third extension for an additional year. Per the rules of the game, staff can grant a single six-month extension but any other extensions must be approved by the agency members in a public meeting. There is no legal limit to the number of extensions a property can receive.

On July 8, the agency did approve another extension, but not for a full year. Cave and Runion were given an additional three months, which would largely coincide with the expected completion of the Nevada Way reconfiguration project, which is currently in the beginning stages.

After a motion to grant the full extension had been moved and seconded, Councilman Steve Walton, piped in.

“I’d like to suggest that we don’t give a full year of an extension,” he said, advocating for, “Something less that ensures that the construction — since it’s already underway and the plans are approved and they have everything kind of moving forward — that we offer the extension from August for three months. We don’t have an extended construction time on Nevada Way and that should allow plenty of time.”

After Mayor Joe Hardy asked the maker of the motion, Councilwoman Sherri Jorgensen, and the person who seconded, Councilwoman Denise Ashurst, if they objected to Walton’s proposed time amendment and was told they had no objections, they voted unanimously for the third extension.