Bill could change the way the RDA operates

By Bill Erin

Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2009 | 2:44 p.m.

The future of the Boulder City Redevelopment Agency was once more under question at the recent meeting of the RDA board. The City Council sits as the board.

Boulder City is not alone. The Clark County Commission is investigating the possibility of putting its redevelopment agency on hold so money currently going into redevelopment can return to the schools, libraries, public safety and indigent health care.

In Las Vegas, the Culinary Union has turned in petition signatures for a ballot question to bring about significant changes in how the RDA there operates.

In the meantime, Assemblyman Dr. Joe Hardy is submitting a proposal in the state Legislature to modify the Boulder City RDA. It would allow the local agency to allot some of its funds to the local schools.

This would negate the major rap against the RDA: It is taking badly needed revenue from the schools. In the case of Clark County, the amount the RDA siphons from real estate taxes is over $10 million a year.

In Boulder City, however, the amount it is siphoning away from the School District is a drop in the bureaucratic school district bucket, and there is no way of knowing how much of it actually accrues to Boulder City schools.

That same amount, however, is significant to Boulder City as redevelopment money and has accounted for a great deal of redevelopment work here. It has gone up steadily each year as property valuations have increased. From $623,000 in its first year of 2005, it is projected to be as much as $1.2 million in 2009. However, not all of that would have gone into school funds.

If Hardy's proposal were to be passed by the Legislature, there could be more of that money going to local schools with an RDA than without it.

We would still have Boulder City's allotment from the School District, according to the head count of students, and we could additionally allocate RDA funds as might be needed and according to whatever regulations the Legislature might impose.

A surprising suggestion that also came out of the recent meeting was that if the city were to ever get voter approval to sell lots around Boulder Creek Golf Course, the area would have to be removed from the RDA. Members of the board, as well as residents, during public comment said its presence inside RDA boundaries was one of the main reasons it did not pass in previous attempts.

This arose out of a complete misunderstanding of the RDA. Many voters thought RDA funds would take money from the schools to subsidize some of the cost of houses built around the course. This was one of those misleading arguments that arise in most campaigns with no basis of fact.

In truth, the RDA and whether or not to develop around the golf course are two completely separate issues. But members of the board seemed to agree that if and when the question of selling those lots is once again put on the ballot, the area should be removed from the RDA in order to get voter approval.

This is fallacious thinking. The RDA boundaries should not be changed in order to sell lots. Nor should people vote against the sale of lots because of the RDA. Each should be judged on its own merits and value to Boulder City. To mix the two is nonsense.

You can be sure, however, that if the sale of those lots is put back on the ballot for voter approval, those opposed to the sale will once again drag out that argument along with other scare stories.

It is to be hoped common sense will prevail.

Bill Erin is a Boulder City News columnist.