General Election Ballot Questions 2019 – Complete Information

Ballot Questions 2019 Boulder City, Nevada

The General Election for 2019 begins early voting soon, with the General Election set for June 11th. There are four important questions that we’ll be voting on, and we wanted to share the full questions, in addition to their full and complete arguments for, and rebuttals against each of them. (Note, the final community OHV Meeting on Question 4 is tonight, details on that HERE.) This same information can all be found also on the City’s web site. But we thought it would be good to have an additional online resource as well. Here are each of these, in turn.

Question 1: Capital Improvement Fund Expenditure for the Aquatic Facility

Shall the City of Boulder City expend funds from the Capital Improvement Fund, as they become available, not to exceed Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) towards the design and construction of a new aquatics facility in order to reduce the bond obligation?

EXPLANATION

Section 143 of the Boulder City Charter requires that “all expenditures from the Capital Improvement Fund must be approved by a simple majority of the votes cast by the registered voters of the City on a proposition placed before them in a special election or general Municipal election or general State election.”

A “YES” vote would allow the City to use funds from the Capital Improvement Fund, as they become available, in the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) towards the design and construction of a new aquatics facility in order to reduce the bond obligation.

A “NO” vote would not allow the City to expend funds from the Capital Improvement Fund towards the design and construction of a new aquatics facility in order to reduce the bond obligation.

ARGUMENT FOR PASSAGE

The Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) is used to fund capital projects such as restoration, maintenance, and construction of city facilities, fire and police vehicles, etc. Using Capital Improvement Funds to help fund a new aquatic facility to replace the current pool, which is failing, would be an appropriate use of the Capital Improvement Fund. The City’s CIF is funded through the proceeds of leases (20% of lease revenues) and land sales (98% of proceeds). Currently, the CIF balance, with all planned expenditures accounted for, is $9.9 million. If approved, the use of up to $5 million from the CIF will help to bring down the bond obligation of a new aquatic facility, bringing the requested $40 million bond down to a $35 million bond. This will have a positive effect on the amount of interest paid and the amount of property taxes used to secure the bond for the project. The $5 million will be put toward design and construction, and will be deducted in 2020, leaving a remaining fund balance of over $6 million. Even with all planned CIF expenditures and the funding of a new aquatic facility, the CIF is projected to return to $9.8 million within one year. By 2024, the CIF balance is projected at $17.1 million assuming the construction of a new aquatic facility and all other planned expenditures. A new aquatic center would enhance the beauty and use of Broadbent Park, while providing health and fitness benefits across all generations of our community.

(Submitted by the Ballot Question Committee as provided for in NRS 295.217)

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT FOR PASSAGE

A new pool is a capital project, and the Capital Improvement Fund is an appropriate use for funding a capital project. However, if voters do not approve the issuance of general obligation bonds for constructing the aquatic facility, it is not appropriate to spend $5 million on design costs for a pool that may not ever be built. The City has an estimate of all potential costs of the new aquatic facility. Using Capital Improvement Fund money for design costs in order to determine the exact costs is not fiscally responsible. If the bond question fails, $5 million has been wasted, and the community is left without an aquatic center and with $5 million less in the Capital Improvement Fund. This question should only be passed when and if the citizens support the issuance of general obligation bonds to construct the facility.

(Submitted by the City Clerk as provided for in NRS 295.217) ARGUMENT AGAINST PASSAGE

Vote “NO” on Question No. 1. This question is a companion question to Question No. 3 which requests voter approval for the issuance of general obligation bonds for a new aquatic center. If the pool question fails and this question passes, the City has the authority to use up to $5 million towards the design of a pool which may never be built. Furthermore, using the Capital Improvement Fund for design costs only is not an appropriate use and is not a capital expense. Rather than use money from the Capital Improvement Fund for any design costs, it should first be determined if voters approve the bond issue for the aquatic center. Spending $5 million on a project prior to getting voter approval for that same project is not fiscally responsible.

(Submitted by the City Clerk as provided for in NRS 295.217) REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PASSAGE

A “Yes” vote would allow the City to apply $5 million from the Capital Improvement Fund, decreasing the interest bearing principle of the project. Should the $40 million bond fail, and Question No. 1 pass, the $5 million could be used by the City for design costs of a new facility which could save the City money in future inflation costs and expedite construction when approved. This would be a decision made by our City Council members. The $5 million could also remain designated in the Capital Improvement Fund for future application toward design and construction of a new aquatic facility. Should the $40 million bond issue fail, the condition of our current facility ensures a future bond proposal in 2020, as our current facility is failing. It is becoming increasingly difficult, both physically and financially, to maintain and is at risk of being permanently closed. Closing our current facility would be a tremendous loss to our community as generations of citizens depend upon it for both recreation and fitness. A closed facility at Broadbent Park, in the heart of our school zone, would not only be an eye sore, but a liability.

(Submitted by the Ballot Question Committee as provided for in NRS 295.217)

FISCAL NOTE

This will impact the Capital Improvement Fund in the amount of not more than $5,000,000 and then only if funds are available within the Capital Improvement Fund. This question does not require an expense that will require the levy or imposition of a new tax or fee of the increase of an existing tax or fee.

Question 2: Debt Refinance

Shall the Boulder City Code be amended to provide that Boulder City and its agencies and enterprises may refinance existing debt obligations, as determined by the City Council?

EXPLANATION

THE BOULDER CITY LIMITATION ON DEBT OBLIGATION ORDINANCE which was initiated by petition on November 9, 2010, provides in Section 2-7-2 of the Boulder City Code as follows:

LIMITATION ON CITY DEBT OBLIGATION:

The City and its agencies and enterprises shall not incur any new debt obligations of one million dollars ($1,000,000) or more, as defined under Nevada Revised Statutes 350.0045 to Nevada Revised Statues 350.0075 inclusive, without the approval of the electors of Boulder City in a general or special election. (Ord. 1423, 11-9-2010, eff. 11-9-2010).

Because of the limitations contained within Section 2-7-2 of the Boulder City Code, the City’s bond counsel is unable to render a validity opinion in connection with refunding obligations of one million dollars ($1,000,000) or more incurred by the City and its agencies and enterprises to refinance existing debt obligations without the approval of the electors of Boulder City.

The City Council of Boulder City is requesting, through this Ballot Question, approval from the electors of Boulder City of an amendment to the Boulder City Code to provide that Boulder City and its agencies and enterprises may refinance existing debt obligations without the approval of the electors of Boulder City for the purpose of reducing interest costs or effecting other economies or modifying or eliminating restrictive contractual limitations concerning the existing debt obligations, as determined by the City Council. Currently, approval from the electors of Boulder City of the refinancing of debt obligations is limited to a general or special election which limits the ability of the City and its agencies and enterprises to react to favorable market conditions in real time.

A “YES” vote would allow for the Boulder City Code to be amended to provide that Boulder City and its agencies and enterprises may refinance existing debt obligations, as determined by the City Council.

A “NO” vote would not allow the Boulder City Code to be amended to allow for the refinancing of existing debt obligations as determined by the City Council.

ARGUMENT FOR PASSAGE

If you had a chance to refinance your mortgage and save thousands of dollars in interest, you would do it in a heartbeat. Approving this ballot question will allow the City to do the same thing, except Boulder City residents could save millions of dollars, not thousands. That’s why the only logical vote on this measure is “yes.”

Nearly a decade ago, Boulder City residents passed a ballot question requiring voter approval before the City could incur debts of more than $1 million. It was a step taken consistent with residents’ desire to actively participate in managing their community. However, in this case, there were unintended consequences that are costly to residents. Bond interest rates go up and down, and borrowing terms change. Based upon their analysis of the 2010 code, the City’s bond attorneys have determined that debt refinancing is legally viewed the same as new borrowing, even though refinancing at a lower interest rate doesn’t add to the debt but actually reduces it. For that reason, the City needs voters to exempt debt reduction activities like bond refinancing from the code.

In the past, opponents of this common-sense measure proposed just asking a different attorney and hoping for a different answer; that’s an idea that won’t fix anything. The same holds true for opponents’ suggestion that the City create a ballot question every single time it wants to refinance a bond. Financial markets move too quickly, and cost-saving opportunities evaporate faster than a drop of water on the hood of a hot car. The only solution to this serious, costly problem is to clarify the law.

To be absolutely clear, voting “yes” on this measure will not erode residents’ ability to limit new spending, but rather could save Boulder City residents millions of dollars over the life of these bonds. With significant investments by the City in new electrical, water and sewer infrastructure during the past decade, voters can’t afford to pay banks millions of dollars in extra interest because of unclear language in municipal code. Vote “yes” to save money.

(Submitted by the Ballot Question Committee as provided for in NRS 295.217) REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT FOR PASSAGE

Voters made their voice clear when this question failed at the 2018 November Election. Yes, financial markets move quickly and cost savings evaporate, but voters have indicated they prefer to decide when refinancing is appropriate, even if it means losing out on interest savings. And although refinancing does not add to the principal debt, it is considered “new” debt.

Any change to the Code which was implemented by initiative petition should be initiated by those who voted in favor of this amendment. It should be changed or modified in the same manner it was implemented.

(Submitted by the City Clerk as provided for in NRS 295.217)

ARGUMENT AGAINST PASSAGE

This ballot question is based on the opinion of the City’s bond attorneys who state they are unable to render a validity opinion in order for the City to refinance existing debt due to limitations contained within Section 2-7-2 of the Boulder City Code. The City has the option to seek a validity opinion from a different bond counsel.

The Code which limits the City’s ability to incur debt of one million dollars ($1,000,000) without voter approval was implemented by initiative petition. Any changes or modifications to this portion of the Code should be implemented in the same manner.

(Submitted by the City Clerk as provided for in NRS 295.217) REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PASSAGE

Bond counselors are licensed attorneys with a high level of training and a very specific area of expertise. Their role is to represent a municipal bondholder’s interest—in this case, the City of Boulder City—to ensure that its actions are consistent with statutory requirements. Because bonds represent the “full faith and credit” of the issuer, these attorneys conduct rigorous due diligence to ensure that the bond issuance is correct, complete and properly structured. This level of investigation requires a thorough understanding of all related legal and financial issues, including Boulder City Code. To suggest that the City can simply seek another opinion, like you might do for a car repair, dramatically undervalues their level of expertise and is simply an attempt to hamper the City’s efforts to save you money.

As for the limitation on expenditures without voter approval, this measure would not diminish residents’ ability to oversee City spending, as was the intent, as refinancing bonds does not create new debt but rather reduces the cost of existing bonds. Rejecting this common-sense measure is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. The only reasonable vote is to approve this ballot question.

(Submitted by the Ballot Question Committee as provided for in NRS 295.217)

FISCAL NOTE

This Ballot Question does not propose (i) a new tax, fee or expense, or (ii) the increase of an existing tax, fee or expense. Depending on market conditions, a “yes” vote could result in interest rate savings without the approval of the electors of Boulder City should the City and its agencies and enterprises incur refunding debt obligations to refinance existing debt obligations as authorized by the Ballot Question; however, the anticipated financial effect of a “yes” vote cannot be determined at this time. The anticipated financial effect of a “no” vote would prohibit interest rate savings with respect to existing debt obligations of the City and its agencies and enterprises without the approval of the electors of Boulder City.

Question 3: General Obligation Bond for Aquatic Facility

Shall the City of Boulder City be authorized to issue up to $40,000,000 of general obligation bonds for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving and equipping recreational projects as defined in NRS 268.710, including an aquatic center? The bonds are expected to require a property tax levy for 30 years. The bonds are estimated to result in an increase in the property taxes that the owner of a new $100,000 home will pay, which will average $126.00 per year. If this question is approved by the voters, any property tax levied to pay the bonds will be outside of the caps on a taxpayer’s liability for property (ad valorem) taxes established by the legislators in the 2005 session.

EXPLANATION

A “yes” vote would permit the City Council of Boulder City, Nevada, to issue up to $40,000,000 of general obligation bonds. The proceeds of the bonds are to be used for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving and equipping recreational projects, including an aquatic center. The proposed question does not add to, change, or repeal any existing laws. If the question is approved by the voters, the question will create, generate and increase public revenue. The property tax rate to be levied to repay the bonds is expected to be $0.36 per $100 of assessed valuation during the 30 year term of the bonds. If this question is approved by the voters, any property tax levied as authorized by this question will be outside of the caps on a taxpayer’s liability for property (ad valorem) taxes established by the 2005 Nevada Legislature.

A “NO” vote would not allow the City to issue up to $40,000,000 of general obligation bonds for these purposes at this time.

ARGUMENT FOR PASSAGE

A new aquatic facility is important to our city as a quality of life enhancement, directly affecting the health and well-being of the citizens of our city. Our current very aged facility has reached the end of its life, with thousands of dollars being spent each year, above and beyond normal maintenance costs, to keep it functional. Additionally, it fails to meet Southern Nevada Health District and Nevada Administrative codes. Any bond for a project such as the proposed facility, must cover the entire expense. The City will only issue the bonds it needs to cover the final cost of the proposed facility. An increase in property taxes will be used as collateral to secure the bond, however, City Council has pledged, through Resolution No. 6907, to exhaust all available funding opportunities before considering raising property taxes. Any funding acquired would lower the needed amount of the bond to complete the project.

Any bonds purchased will be set to be paid off in 30 years, however, the City has an option to pay the bonds off early, saving interest costs and passing those savings on to tax payers. Keeping in mind that the Council is resolved to exhaust all outside funding that can be acquired, the worst case scenario would be the City uses 30 years to pay off $40 million in bonds (the life of the bond issue), it would cost $79 million ($40 million principle and $39 million interest assuming a 5% interest rate).

Proposals to renovate the current facility in lieu of building a new facility falls short of understanding the true scope and requirements to do so. A major renovation would require nearly, if not all, of the facility to be dug up in its entirety and rebuilt in order to meet required codes. Additionally, the air support structure currently used does not meet health and administrative codes. A building would be required to continue year round use. With the creation of a new aquatic facility, the current facility would be completely eliminated and that area turned into green park space keeping the beauty and aesthetics of the neighborhood.

The need for a new aquatic facility is paramount. It would serve citizens of all ages from infant to senior. The proposed design allows for a wide range of aquatic programing, BCHS and BCH Swim Teams use, a relocation of the Boulder City Fitness Center, and more.

(Submitted by the Ballot Question Committee as provided for in NRS 295.217)

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT FOR PASSAGE

The current pool is operational and can be repaired as needed when equipment fails. The Southern Nevada Health District requires that any major construction at the swimming pool complex would automatically require an update to meet current health district and building codes. However, replacement of like systems as they fail would not require the City to upgrade the facility to the current code standards as the current pool is grandfathered into the codes used when the pool was built.

Equipment to furnish offices and other rooms within the proposed facility could be purchased with General Fund revenues as opposed to using general obligation bonds.

The need for a new pool is not a new idea. Issuing $40 million of general obligation bonds to cover every possible expense rather than offering a mix of Capital Improvement Fund money, General Fund money, and other acquired funding sources is taking the risk these funding sources may not be utilized.

(Submitted by the City Clerk as provided for in NRS 295.217) ARGUMENT AGAINST PASSAGE

There is no question a new pool is needed. And the majority of citizens surveyed (73%) expressed support of a new aquatic facility. But when they were surveyed, they did not know the estimated cost would be $40 million. Although the City Council has formally expressed it would actively seek other funding sources prior to implementing a property tax increase, there is no guarantee property taxes would not be raised. Besides funding from the Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) proposed in Question No. 1 and if the question passes, what other sources have been identified? Some of the costs of the aquatic center should be paid from the City’s General Fund Capital budget rather than bonding for all expenses. Debt is expensive and should be used for needs that will outlive the debt itself.

In addition, the question states $40 million of general obligation bonds would be for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving and equipping recreational projects as defined in NRS 268.710. These recreational projects are defined in NRS as parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, golf courses, tennis courts, squash courts, other courts, ball fields, other athletic fields, tracks, racecourses, playgrounds, stadiums, fieldhouses, rinks, gymnasiums, appurtenant shower, locker and other bathhouse facilities, amusement halls, dance halls, auditoriums, arenas, theaters, concert halls, museums, exposition buildings, aviaries, aquariums, zoological gardens, biological gardens and vivariums, and structures, fixtures, furnishings and equipment therefor.

Citizens want to know exactly what they are voting for and how much it will cost. More work needs to be done in order to provide an accurate and detailed bond request that citizens can support.

(Submitted by the City Clerk as provided for in NRS 295.217) REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PASSAGE

NRS 268.710 clearly states what types of projects the bond funds can be used for and this project complies. We have been told exactly what the bond monies will be used for as shown in the architectural drawings and plans as published, including, swim pools, locker rooms, exercise rooms, staff and meeting rooms, locker/toilet/shower rooms, as well as two replacement tennis courts. The aquatic and fitness facility information as to content has been made available. The design is based on the survey results which state what was most desired.

Time, inflation, and unavoidable contingencies make it impossible to give an exact cost of any project such as this. Estimates to safely cover these issues are included in the $40 million cost.

A yes vote for the $40 million bond, should this issue pass, is a visible commitment of the City’s intent to plan and construct an aquatic facility. Once financially committed, the City can then seek and accept donations, grants, and other outside funding which are not available without this commitment to the project. These outside funding sources as well as internal financial management (possible solar energy revenue, Capital Improvement Fund, Capital Fund General budget) would reduce the amount of bonds needed and may have little, if any effect on property taxes.

(Submitted by the Ballot Question Committee as provided for in NRS 295.217)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The purpose of the proposed bonds is to acquire, construct, improve and equip recreational projects of the City, including an aquatic center.

FISCAL NOTE

If assessed value of property in the City decreases or if the growth of assessed value of property in the City does not increase as projected, approval of the question could require a property tax rate within the City greater than the property tax rate which has been projected by the City as needed to repay the bonds.

The maximum term of the bonds is 30 years, and the City Council expects that the bonds will have a 30 year term with an anticipated interest rate of 5.0%. The maximum aggregate principal amount of the bonds is $40,000,000 plus total interest costs in the anticipated amount of $39,254,630. The annual operation, maintenance and repair costs of the new facilities are estimated to be $650,000 which is greater than the current annual operation, maintenance and repair costs of the existing facility of $540,000. These operation, maintenance and repair costs are expected to be paid from the City’s general operating budget and are not expected to affect the tax rate. If this question is approved by the voters, any property tax levied as authorized by this question will be outside of the caps on a taxpayer’s liability for property (ad valorem) taxes established by the 2005 Nevada Legislature. There are no requirements relating to the bond proposal which are imposed pursuant to a court order or federal or state statute.

Advisory Question 4: Off Highway Vehicles

This question is advisory only: Do you support the operation of Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) on City Streets pursuant to NRS 490.100?

EXPLANATION

The City Council of Boulder City is asking, through this Advisory Ballot Question, if the voters would support the operation of Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) on City Streets pursuant to NRS 490.100.

This is an Advisory Question only and the result of the voting on this question does not place any legal requirement on the City of Boulder City, any member of the Boulder City Council, or any officer of the City of Boulder City.

A “YES” vote would indicate support for the operation of Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) on City Streets pursuant to NRS 490.100.

A “NO” vote would indicate no support for the operation of Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) on City Streets pursuant to NRS 490.100.

Because an advisory question does not place any legal requirement on the City of Boulder City, any member of the Boulder City Council, or any officer of the City of Boulder City, the success of an advisory question does not mandate action or automatically codify the question being asked. Additional formal steps must be taken by the City Council to codify the will of the electorate in the event that the Advisory Question is successful.

ARGUMENT FOR PASSAGE

Question No. 4 is strictly an advisory question asking voters if they support the use of Off Highway Vehicles (OHV’s) on city streets. Question No. 4 only pertains to the use of OHV’s on designated city streets, NOT to be confused with the use of OHV’s in the desert area throughout Nevada, which is already legal per Nevada Revised Statute.

Nevada has the highest percentage of public lands of any state (85%). It is estimated that for every mile of paved road, there are at least 10 miles of unpaved road or trail within Nevada. Surrounding states have seen a very positive economic impact from OHV recreation; $4.25 billion annually to Arizona’s economy, $1.8 billion annually to Colorado’s economy, and $58.5 million to Utah’s economy in 2017 directly through the Paiute Trails which is a single trail system within the state of Utah that is only open 4-6 months per year due to weather conditions.

OHV users make up 28.1% of the population in the Western U.S., 23.9% of the population of Nevada. Over half of OHV users are over age 43. Colorado experiences individuals taking an average of 17 OHV trips annually, typical spending between $446 (from Colorado residents) and $2,352 (non-Colorado residents) on each trip including food, fuel, and lodging.

Some of the benefits of allowing OHV’s on city streets would be the availability of grant money for maps, signage, education/enforcement of laws, improved family-friendly recreation and quality of life in Boulder City, access to Nevada’s existing trail system through designated access points, and a positive economic impact by making Boulder City a destination for tourism. Increased tourism generates greater business income and tax revenues which in turn helps reduce the potential need to increase taxes to the public. Any concerns regarding OHV use on City streets could be addressed with the implementation of a proactive ordinance.

OHV users would be required to comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to any potential future approved ordinances. Other Nevada communities have already adopted effective legislation regarding the use of OHV’s on city streets. Boulder City could simply adopt those same regulations preventing the need to re-invent the wheel. This also allows Boulder City to create its own legislation rather than the state legislators deciding for us.

Vote yes on Question No. 4. Help build a stronger economy! Potential for better controls and regulation! Increased family recreation!

(Submitted by the Ballot Question Committee as provided for in NRS 295.217) REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT FOR PASSAGE

The argument in favor of Question No. 4 provides statistics about OHV use, which apply to public lands in rural areas of western states. Boulder City is an urbanized community adjacent to a major metropolitan area, and should not be compared to rural Nevada. At 28%, OHV users comprise a minority of the population. Proponents of Question No. 4 openly advocate legalizing OHVs on all city streets, which seems unnecessary for their economic goals. Opponents of Question No. 4 believe that if the OHV initiative is truly about economic development, only one designated access route would be necessary between our business corridor and recreation areas. Question No. 4 was conceived by a minority group of residents who want the convenience of operating OHVs directly from their driveways, so they are not inconvenienced by having to trailer their OHVs to recreation areas.

Bordering neighborhoods along the desert are already being impacted by the noise and dust generated by OHVs. Allowing OHV operation on our city streets will not benefit anyone but OHV users, and there is no evidence this will bring better control or regulation of OHV recreation. Turning Boulder City into a destination for OHV tourism will not make our community better or safer.

(Submitted by the Ballot Question Committee as provided for in NRS 295.217)

ARGUMENT AGAINST PASSAGE

Question No. 4 asks voters if they support the use of off highway vehicles (OHVs) on city streets. NRS 490.060 defines an “Off-highway vehicle” as any motor vehicle that is designed primarily for off-highway and all-terrain use. NRS 490.100 allows a city or county to designate any portion of a highway within the city or county as permissible for the operation of off- highway vehicles for the purpose of allowing off-highway vehicles to reach a private or public area that is open for use by off-highway vehicles. The city or county may also allow for minors under the age of 16 to operate an OHV under the direct visual supervision of a person who is at least 18 years in age.

Recent revisions to NRS 490 were intended for lower-population rural communities, distant from urban areas, to allow OHV access via designated paved roads.

Proponents of Question No. 4 have proposed plans to attract hundreds of OHVs to Boulder City to access services (restaurants, gas stations, etc.) and then return to the desert areas for recreation via city streets. If OHV’s are allowed to operate on city streets, it will lead to increased traffic, noise, and dust in our neighborhoods. Opponents of Question No. 4 believe the negative impacts will destroy Boulder City’s charm.

OHV activity on the desert area trails around Boulder City already negatively impacts air quality, particularly when OHVs operate in areas known to contain asbestos in the soil.

The Boulder City Police Department has a history of not providing effective enforcement of existing OHV ordinances. OHVs will not be required to display a license plate that can be used to identify those disobeying traffic laws making enforcement more difficult. Persons under the age 16, without a driver’s license issued by the DMV, may also be allowed to operate an “off- highway” vehicles without a driver’s license so long as they can be seen by an adult, and that adult is not required to themselves have a driver’s license.

Our Boulder City neighborhoods are already beset by the noise and dust generated by OHVs, and discourteous OHV operators that drive OHVs in areas already prohibited from operation of such vehicles.

The presence of OHVs on our city streets will detract from the atmosphere and town character that attracts people to visit or reside in Boulder City.

(Submitted by the Ballot Question Committee as provided for in NRS 295.217) REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PASSAGE

By voting YES, you are supporting the use of OHVs on designated routes which could provide convenience and economic benefits for residents and businesses. Current concerns could be addressed through enforceable laws to keep our roads safe.

There is no statement of intent in current NRS 490. Discretion is given to cities and counties, allowing them to be more restrictive regarding the operation of OHVs including age, license requirements, and restricting OHV use to designated routes and roads.

Dust is not a factor because Question No. 4 only relates to operation of OHVs on paved city streets. Having minimal access leading to the trails via paved roads reduces dust around our homes. It opens the possibility for OHV operators to park trailers away from downtown while still allowing local shopping, eating, and fueling.

NRS 490.082 requires all OHVs be registered through the Department of Motor Vehicles and display a sticker as prescribed by the Commission on Off-Highway Vehicles.

The Boulder City Police Department was recently awarded grant money to promote responsible off-highway recreation including trail and facility studies, planning, mapping, signing, and enforcement.

Vote YES on 4! Passage allows discussion of OHV operation only on designated routes under controlled conditions minimizing impact, dust, noise, and bringing revenue to our local businesses.

(Submitted by the Ballot Question Committee as provided for in NRS 295.217)

FISCAL NOTE

This question may require an expense that will require the levy or imposition of a new tax or fee or the increase of an existing tax or fee.

DIGEST
NRS 295.230.2(a)(I)(II)

A.  Summary of Existing Laws Related to the Measure Proposed by the Question:

    1. Boulder City Code, Title 7, Chapter 5, Public Land Use

a. Section 7. Prohibited Conduct in Public Park

B. Summary of how the measure proposed by the question:

  1. Adds to Existing Laws – This ballot measure may add to existing laws, it will potentially amend existing laws by amending Prohibited Conduct in Public Parks found in Title 7, Chapter 5, Section 7 of the Boulder City Code.
  2. Changes Existing Laws – This ballot measure potentially changes existing laws by amending the Boulder City Code.
  3. Repeals Existing Laws – This ballot measure may repeal an existing law by removing Title 7, Chapter 5, Section 7 from the Boulder City Municipal Code.

FINANCIAL EFFECT

This question may require the proposal of a bond, tax, fee or other expense. The funding source for this possible code amendment is not currently identified.

The Current Week’s Happenings

Guard Against Extreme Heat

No doubt you’ve heard – or...[Read more...]

Unofficial Election 2021 Results

The unofficial election results...[Read more...]

Daughters of American Revolution Offers Flag Retirement

The Silver State Chapter,...[Read more...]

Podcast: Art Manteris

This week, our friend Roger Gros...[Read more...]

Come See Grease Next Weekend

The Boulder City Hospital...[Read more...]

World’s Largest Swimming Lesson Dives into Boulder City

On Thursday, June 17 from 12:00PM...[Read more...]

Fan Photo: Herb’s Tavern

Well now this memorabilia will...[Read more...]

Share The Road Boulder City, Nevada

Sharing the Road

It’s the time of the year...[Read more...]

Boulder City Library Prepares for Summer

The Boulder City Library has made...[Read more...]

Heather Mariana Beauty Kitchen Boulder City, Nevada

Heather Marianna Launches New Line + An IPO Soon!

Who is Heather Marianna, you may...[Read more...]

View Past Town Happenings