Columnist Bryan A. Nix: New method for solving Local needs

The Following commentary is written by Bryan A. Nix, who is a Boulder City councilman. He is writing about the city's charter and growth control ordinance.

Your lengthy article in last Sunday's Sun aptly captured the interest of Boulder City citizens in issues concerning our city. But comments comparing the recent golf course proposals with the failed effort to build a regional landfill are unfortunate. The quoted comment implying such projects "circumvent the spirit of the law" reveals a misunderstanding of Boulder City's charter and growth control ordinance.

There is nothing in the proposals before the city that even remotely violates the provisions or spirit of the Boulder City charter or growth control ordinance as adopted by the voters.

A few envision our growth ordinance as a complete ban on everything the city may do involving growth-related issues. Fortunately our charter and growth ordinance were never written that way and the voters never adopted such a narrow view of the powers vested in its council/manager form of government.

Our charter and growth ordinance regulates residential and hotel/motel construction; it does not ban all growth of any kind. It should not be interpreted to ban quality economic development that does not add one new residential unit in the entire 200 square miles of Boulder City. Not one.

The Boulder City charter provided broad powers to the City Council to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of city-owned land. The charter did not limit growth per se, but did provide that monies collected from land sales had to be deposited in the capital improvement fund. This special fund could only be used to pay for capital improvements after the voters approved them in a general or special election.

In 1997, the voters adopted changes to the growth control ordinance. The new ordinance provides that the voters must approve any sale of land larger than an acre, just as the voters must approve expenditures from the capital improvement fund. Land leases and transfers to governmental or nonprofit entities were specifically not included in the new limitations. This initiative was developed by citizen volunteers and placed on the ballot by the City Council.

The 1997 changes to the growth control ordinance represent a major change in direction for funding the city's capital improvements. Without land sales revenues, Boulder City's capital improvement fund is due to zero out in the near future. The city has limited funding sources for capital improvements and has sought to identify and develop additional sources to supplant the lost revenues.

Land leases were encouraged over land sales because during and after the lease, the city still owns the land. Also, land leases are rarely used for residential development.

After significant community input, the city determined that the Eldorado Energy power plant and additional golf courses could replace and supplement lost revenue within the limitations imposed by the voters. The council found that the addition of golf courses and ambitious "re-beautification" plans funded by these projects would enhance Boulder City's quality of life. Also, this could be done without creating residential growth.

Future capital improvement needs must be funded somehow. Proper planning dictates that the City Council provides for its capital improvements without relying on land sales. When our citizens adopted the growth control ordinance, they were concerned with residential growth; they wanted to keep Boulder City small by limiting new housing and new hotel/motel rooms.

When the voters adopted the restrictions on land sales, long-term leases were specifically left out. These leases are permissible under our charter and our growth control ordinance, and our necessitated by our need to find revenue sources without resorting to land sales.

Is this a new and different approach to solving local needs? It is for Boulder City. After all, no other city has land it can sell (with voter approval) or lease (as the council determines) as a means to fund its capital improvement program.

Is this offensive to Boulder City's values or way of life? I can't comprehend why it might be. Quite frankly, I think this represents good planning and a solid vision for securing Boulder City's future and independence, while remaining a small town.

archive