IN ATTENDANCE:
Councilman Shari Buck, Chair, City of North Las Vegas
Councilman Joe Hardy, Vice Chair, City of Boulder City
Mayor Oscar Goodman, City of Las Vegas
Commissioner Myrna Williams, Clark County
Councilman Steve Kirk, City of Henderson
Councilman William Robinson, Alternate, City of North Las Vegas
Trustee Susan Brager-Wellman, Alternate, Clark County School District
The meeting of the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition was called to order by Councilman Shari Buck, Chair, at 3:37 p.m., Thursday, April 25, 2002, in Mead Conference Room #2, at the Las Vegas Valley Water District, 1001 South Valley View, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89153.
The Agenda for the April 25, 2002, meeting was duly posted in compliance with the Open Meeting Law.
A motion was made to approve the agenda for April 25, 2002. The motion was approved unanimously.
A motion was made to approve the March 28, 2002, meeting minutes. The motion was approved unanimously.
Kurt Fritsch, City of North Las Vegas, informed the members that all items discussed at the Technical Committee meeting is reflected on the Coalition's agenda today with the exception of an agenda item for the Joint Selection nominations for BLM Land Sales. This item was forwarded to the SNRPC Federal Lands Disposal Subcommittee and will be forwarded to the Coalition Board for their May 23, 2002, meeting.
Mary Kay Peck, City of Henderson, informed the members that the planning consultants were in town yesterday and were planning to attend today’s meeting; however, with the traveling schedule they have set in order to complete the review process, they determined the budget would be better served if they left as early as possible and Ms. Peck gave the report. The consultants have completed Conformity Assessment meetings with the Regional Transportation Commission, Nevada Power, the Water District, three of the five local government entities, and have reviewed all of the self-assessment form. In their review, they have found that everyone has made a very good-faith effort to conform. All of the entities that the consultants have met with thus far are making some changes to their conformity assessments. Three conformity agreements are being prepared. It is anticipated that everything will be done by the July 1, 2002, deadline. The consultants will be back in town twice in May to meet with the main two local government entities and continue with the follow-up meetings with the agencies they have only met with once.
No action was taken on this item.
Each member received a copy of the Self-Assessment Report (Exhibit A). Copies of the plans are on file with the Coalition Secretary. Jon Wardlaw, Clark County, stated that in accordance with state law, each local entity is required to afford the SNRPC the opportunity to review and make recommendations regarding any plan changes or amendments. Thus, the conformity review for the Bunkerville and Lone Mountain Secondary Trails Plans are being submitted for consideration; however the document should be tabled for Clark County’s plan for conformance by the planning consultants at a future date. Councilman Buck stated that comments from the SNRPC Technical Committee meeting will be forwarded to the consultant. Mr. Wardlaw informed the members that the comments would also be forwarded to the final public hearing with the Clark County Board of Commissioners.
A motion was made to approve the report. The motion was approved unanimously.
Each member received a copy of the Infill Development Report-Work Program Report (Exhibit B). Mr. Wardlaw stated that the consultant group, Design Workshop, along with other consultants is making good progress. A definition of what infill actually is has been determined, and a matrix on how to apply the definition has been prepared. Design Workshop will be in town to conduct site visits with staff members from each entity to review the situations that are unique to each entity before moving forward in the process. Mr. Wardlaw stated that an invitation letter from the SNRPC Chair would be mailed to the various development communities to attend an infill workshop May 23, 2002. He stated that the Coalition Board is also invited. This workshop is being held to get the development community’s perspective of what the challenges are and what can be done in respect to writing policies to help stimulate development. Exhibit B is a summary of tasks and dates of what the consultants have planned thru July 2002. Permission has been received from the EPA to extend the deadline. Councilman Buck stated that she has a concern with the aggressiveness of the schedule and the possibility of something being left out. She asked if it was possible to slow the schedule to ensure the members receive all of the information necessary. Mr. Wardlaw stated that originally the deadline was set for July 2002; however, the EPA has extended the deadline; therefore, the schedule could be modified.
A motion was made to approve the report. The motion was approved unanimously. The workshop is scheduled for May 23, 2002, 8:00 a.m., at the Regional Transportation Commission building located at 600 Grand Central Parkway.
Each member received a copy of the report entitled “Reducing Homelessness in Southern Nevada: Implementing the Five Best Ideas to Make It Happen” (Exhibit C), and a letter (Exhibit D) from Edward M. Atchison with the Community Based Outreach Clinic for Homeless Veterans, in regard to his withdrawal from the Homelessness Task Force work group. Bill Arent, City of Las Vegas, informed the members of the activities of the Task Force that occurred at the last Task Force meeting April 18, 2002. At that meeting, Exhibit C was presented for action by the Task Force. Mr. Arent stated that although the Task Force is still in the early stages of implementing new strategies, it is important to recognize the achievements of the Task Force to-date. Using an example of Sacramento County’s four year process, it has only taken the Task Force, under the direction of the Coalition Board, 10 months to reach the point of making decisions which will improve services and preventive measures to reduce homelessness in Southern Nevada. The goal throughout the process has been consensus based. However, the Task Force has moved forward on a majority decision-making process for items deemed administrative so that a point could be reached to look at the direction of funding and raising funds. Mr. Arent outlined the changes that are contemplated in Exhibit C, beginning with Strategy 1: Administer a Trust Fund for Homeless Services and Housing. In their March 2002, meeting the Task Force approved strategies for the trust fund: 1) the philosophy of service, 2) using a non-governmental model structure for the trust fund, 3) the suggested Board composition consisting of representation from each local jurisdiction and key community leaders, and 4) performance based outcomes, which would be achieved pending the attainment of money to begin the trust fund. Referring the members to page 11 of Exhibit C, Mr. Arent stated that the fifth and final recommendation considered for the trust fund was not approved, but was remanded to the working group for revisions. The work group recommended three phases of the start-up budget and ongoing recognition of the limited resources and staffing within local jurisdictions. The first phase consists of the Task Force, with the support of Coalition, working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to obtain additional technical assistance for putting a trust fund in place. The second phase consist of the Task Force hiring a private consultant to raise private funds for the trust fund. The third phase recommends that the work group explore possible funding streams to serve as a dedicated revenue source for operating the trust fund. The work group recognizes that Federal and State resources, under the control of local jurisdictions, are minimal and the only resource specifically “earmarked” for homeless services originating from the Federal government is the emergency shelter grant, which the City of Las Vegas and Clark County receives in the amount of $309,000 annually. This amount alone is insufficient to sustain the new trust fund entity. A new revenue source would need to be identified to provide any significant increase in homeless services. During the March Task Force meeting, concern was expressed regarding the feasibility of committing public expenditures to a new entity, which is not yet established and therefore, unproven. Because of the concern the work group proposed the above three recommendations which were presented to the Task Force at their April meeting and the item passed with a majority vote. However, there was concern from Clark County, North Las Vegas, and Henderson. Therefore, the work group is requesting additional direction from the Coalition. Mr. Arent stated that the trust fund could move forward with a small contribution in “seed” money not to exceed $25,000 to serve as a match for a technical assistance contract through HUD and a national technical assistance provider currently under contract with HUD. The other change to Exhibit C included Strategy 2: Enhance Employment and Related Supportive Service Programs. At the March 2002 Task Force meeting the report generated a lot of public comment and support for most of the strategies and strategy two was indicative of this support. A private provider, Phil Reed, who is the owner of Agape Telecom a telecommunication company, contacted the City of Las Vegas expressing an interest in providing the community voice mail system at no charge. The City welcomed the offer and invited him to make a presentation at the April 2002, Task Force meeting. Mr. Reed made a presentation at that meeting and was encouraged to follow up with local providers to put the system in place. The Task Force voted to disapprove the support of additional funds and approved the recommendation of exploring the use of Agape telecom as a private provider. Mr. Arent stated that it is important to note that this would allow the Task Force and the SNRPC to utilize a separate procurement process to secure a new provider if Agape Telecom is unable to put in the service as presented. The next change is related to Strategy 5: Develop Permanent Affordable and Permanent Supportive Housing. Although the strategy was approved, staff recognized the need to clarify the understanding of the strategy in order to move forward. Directing the members to page 20 of Exhibit C, Mr. Arent read the recommendation: “The work group recommends that the Homelessness Task Force encourage the local jurisdictions participating in the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition to achieve, as a regional goal, 5% of all multifamily housing units receiving public subsidy, to be affordable to households earning 50% of the area median income.” In presenting this recommendation the work group recognized that some existing entities might have a disproportionate share of affordable housing. Early in the text of the strategy, the document states “no single government entity would be mandated to attain the 5% goal, and entities which have a disproportionate share of the regions affordable housing would not be expected to absorb a disproportionate share of new affordable housing developments.” With these changes strategy five was approved at the April 2002, Task Force meeting. Therefore, all five strategies were approved with the exception of portions of strategy one. The work group would present back to the Coalition Board after contact from each local government to explore funding contributions for “seed” money for the consultant. Mr. Arent stated that because a consensus vote was not achieved, Doug Bell, Clark County, would explain the concerns of the minority opinions of the Task Force. First Mr. Arent received questions from the Coalition. Answering a question posed by Councilman Hardy, Mr. Arent stated that strategy five applies to Boulder City in respect that Boulder City is incorporated into the region for planning efforts for homeless services and housing in general. Mr. Bell stated that at the April 2002 meeting there was discussion regarding the formulation of the Board of Directors for the non-profit group. He informed the members that Commissioner Herrera could not attend today’s meeting because he is in Washington testifying on the Yucca Mountain issue. However, he expresses his support for the minority position expressed by Commissioner Kenny, relating to the issue of Board membership of the homeless trust fund (Exhibit E). In addition, Commissioner Kenny also sent a letter (Exhibit F) to the Coalition Board regarding the homeless trust fund Board membership. Mr. Bell stated that the issue raised by Commissioner Kenny and echoed by a number of the elected officials at the April 2002 Task Force meeting, was if public funds are expected to be one of the sources of the nonprofit trust fund, then local elected officials have a fiduciary responsibility for the fund entrusted to their care; and therefore, the Board membership should consist of strictly elected officials. He stated that Commissioner Kenny suggested that the various advocacy groups and large contributors to the trust fund be appointed to an advisory body who could in turn make recommendations to the Board of Directors for the nonprofit agency. Conversely, other members on the Task Force felt that it would be important to have public/private representation as the make up of the Board. Mr. Bell stated that the vote of the Task Force members was almost a split, where the homeless advocates and the nonprofit representatives supported the idea of a dual public/private Board, and three votes on the part of elected officials indicating that they want strictly elected officials to serve as the deciding Board. Mr. Bell stated that direction is needed from the Coalition as to which way to proceed.
After extensive discussion, the work group was directed to assure that the goal of the Homelessness Task Force is to prevent homelessness, and therefore will be the primary component of the Plan. In addition, it was suggested that the State’s perspective regarding the mental health component be included in the Plan. Comments were made in respect that the Plan is a “work in progress” and is not “written in blood, ” therefore, there is a need for the components of the Plan to be flexible to reflect that it is dealing with a human issue and would be revised several times. With that, a motion was made to accept the Plan and move on. Mr. Arent recommended that the issue of the Board representation of the trust fund be forwarded back to the Task Force to revisit the decisions that were made on the trust fund model and allow the Task Force the flexibility to move forward with using a HUD consultant to put the trust fund in place and assist in answering the question of “how” with the help of a professional consultant who has done this before for other communities.
The motion was approved unanimously.
The SNRPC Board meeting was scheduled for May 23, 2002, at 3:30 p.m., at the Las Vegas Valley Water District.
Tom McGowan's, Las Vegas resident, comments are attached.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.