Council nixes development idea

Call it fiscal creativity, although some developers prefer harsher terms.

The subject is “development agreements,” which were the subject of an extended discussion in last week’s city council meeting.

The idea of a development agreement is pretty simple. A developer has reached agreement with a landowner to purchase property for a specific purpose but still needs city approval. And the city has a need for something tangible. It could be a new fire engine. Or an aquatic center. Or pretty much anything the city can come up with. The city negotiates a deal saying that the developer will provide X and city will then approve the project.

The idea for the discussion came from Councilwoman Cokie Booth and was presented by North Las Vegas attorney Jeff Barr.

“The example that I’d like to give you is I’ve negotiated and enforced dozens of development agreements in my time as city attorney,” Barr said. “One of the things that the municipality I worked for did was in this negotiation with the developer, we asked for the developer to pay for a fire engine.”

Barr noted that nothing in Nevada law through the standard development code allows a city to ask a developer to pay for a fire engine. But if the city is allowed under its own laws to enter into development agreements, then it’s fair game.

Barr also noted that he represented a client that might eventually benefit from the ability to do a development agreement.

Current law in Boulder City, when it applies to development on private property, allows for development agreements only in three categories — special recreation zones, R&D (research and development) zones and senior housing.

But that is not the whole story because Boulder City is unique in that the vast majority of the land within city boundaries is city-owned. And the city can make any kind of deal it wants to with developers of city land because they negotiate as the landowner.

Reached after the meetings, Booth said that the proposal was all about a second fire station. In the summer of 2023 when plans for a fire station at Nevada Way and Quartzsite near the old Nevada Welcome Center which now houses the Chamber of Commerce were scuttled, then-fire chief Will Gray reported that the reason was greatly increased costs from what was budgeted. Over the course of a few months, the projected costs rose from about $1.6 million to $1.9 million and then ballooned to $3.6 million. Of the total, it was estimated that as much as $1 million would be needed just to run utilities to the site.

Booth said that just across the road from the site of the proposed substation there is a privately-owned, 33-acre lot that could be developed. She said that she hoped the land could be used for homes on smaller lots that might be more affordable than the current norm.

“I hate that only rich people can buy homes in Boulder City,” she said.

It was unclear if Barr was representing the owner of the property or a party interested in developing it. But Booth said that adding the ability for the city to cut development deals for projects on private land would give the city leverage to demand that any development on that property include running utilities to the site of the proposed fire substation. She noted that having the utilities in place would make the project much more attainable at some point in the future.

But, as so often happens, the whole issue came up against the Third Rail of Boulder City politics: The growth ordinance passed in 1979.

“We have a growth ordinance here,” said Councilwoman Sherri Jorgensen. “So no developer can take more than 30 allotments in any given time. I’m just wondering how we’re going to get a fire truck out of someone who is going to come in and get 30 lots. I mean, I understand if you’re Henderson you take out your entire golf course and you put in an entire new community there, you could probably negotiate some really remarkable things. So my question is, with as small as we really are, how is this beneficial for us?”

Barr said that the beauty of the development agreement is that both sides can give give and get things.

“So, while it may not be an entire fire truck, it may not be an aquatic center,” he said. “It may be a contribution to an aquatic center or it may be a monetary contribution to an electrical upgrade somewhere.” He said that the possibilities are really only limited by the imagination.

But then he touched the third rail.

“As I read Nevada law and the growth ordinance, I don’t think that is something that can be circumscribed by a development agreement. Well, I take that back. In theory, it’s possible,” Barr said.

And at that point, it was over. Some further questions were asked but any observer could see that it was over, a fact that Booth conceded in a phone call this week.

When she made a motion to have city staff draw up a text amendment to city code based on wording provided by Barr, the motion could not even get a second. It died without a vote.