John Sullard, Vice Chair, City of Boulder City
Thom Reilly, Clark County
Phil Speight, City of Henderson
Gregory Rose, Alternate, City of North Las Vegas
Doug Selby, Alternate, City of Las Vegas
The meeting of the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition Technical Committee was called to order by John Sullard, Vice Chair, at 4:00 p.m., on Thursday, June 13, 2002, in the Mead Conference Room #2, at the Las Vegas Valley Water District, 1001 South Valley View, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89153.
The Agenda for the June 13, 2002, meeting was duly posted in compliance with the Open Meeting Law.
A motion was made to approve the June 13, 2002, agenda. Agenda Items VIII, IX, and X were withdrawn from the agenda. The motion was approved unanimously with the noted changes.
A motion was made to approve the minutes of the May 9, 2002, meeting. The motion was approved unanimously.
Misty Haehn, City of North Las Vegas, stated that there were no items forwarded from the SNRPC Coalition.
Each member received a copy of a draft memorandum to the SNRPC from Clarion Associates (Exhibit A). Greg Dale, consultant, gave a status report on the conformity process. The consultants are approximately 10 months into the process of determining conformity of the various jurisdictions and agencies in the Valley. The conformity process was made to be user friendly. Instructions and a template were prepared, a workshop was held, meetings were held with the various agencies and jurisdictions for review of self assessments, and follow up meetings were held. The consultants are now in the process of receiving and reviewing revisions of the self assessments for the purpose of determining conformity. The process from this point is developing the conformity agreements. There has been a lot of discussion with the planning directors regarding the mechanics of the conformance agreement process. In the discussion the guiding principles used were 1) to provide clarity in terms of what the various agencies and jurisdictions are agreeing to do in an effort to further the Regional Policy Plan; 2) To establish good documentation so that in the future as the process is repeated there will be a gauge to learn from; 3) to highlight the positives. Most of the agencies are already doing things that are furthering the Regional Plan, therefore, it is important to "tell that story". 4) Provide flexibility so that as agencies are pursuing changes, flexibility exists; and 5) keeping the conformity process in a "collaborative spirit" was emphasized as being very important. Referring the members to Exhibit A, Mr. Dale stated that the consultants are requesting that the Technical Committee approve the mechanics of the plan conformance process and forward it to the Coalition Board's June 27, 2002, agenda. Mr. Dale stated that the School District has submitted their self assessment and will be added to the memo. The consultants did not receive a self assessment from the State Department of Transportation (NDOT) and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). Mr. Dale stated a number of discussions were held with the DCNR. The DCNR sent the consultants a letter stating, "The Regional Policy Plans are not inconsistent with State environmental protection and resource conservation laws administered by DCNR. The plans that state agencies developed to implement these laws will be consistent with and further the SNRPC's policies. There are many potential ways that state plans or programs may further the Regional Policy Plan's policies, but until more specific implementation strategies have been developed such opportunities remain to be defined." The State Department of Transportation indicated that their plans are submitted to and approved by the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC). Therefore, the NDOT believes that their plans should be considered in conformance. The planning directors agreed with NDOT's position.
After discussion, a motion was made to direct the Chairman of the SNRPC Technical Committee to send correspondence to the DCNR regarding the self assessment process and to carbon copy the Governor to inform him of the issues surrounding this item. The motion was approved unanimously.
Each member received a copy of the final report of the Homelessness Task Force (HTF) Work Group "Reducing Homelessness in Southern Nevada: Implementing the Five Best Ideas to Make it Happen" (Exhibit B), and the Continuum of Care 2002, Final Draft Gaps analysis (Exhibit C). Bill Arent, City of Las Vegas, gave the update stating that the final report (Exhibit B) list five recommendations that have been approved, with the exception of portions of the first recommendation. The first recommendation involves implementing a trust fund for housing and homeless services. Referring the members to page three of Exhibit B, Mr. Arent stated that two of the recommendations were revised. Recommendation 1.B. has been revised to read, "The work group recommends that the Task Force adopt the Non-Governmental Model. If the Governmental Model is preferred, then the work group recommends that the Task Force disapprove item 1.C. which is applicable only to the Governmental Model". Mr. Arent stated that the HTF and the Coalition has approved the Governmental Model in an effort to move forward. Therefore, recommendation 1.C. is not applicable. The second revision is recommendation 1.E., which reads, "The work group recommends that the Task Force approve Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III of the budget as stipulated above. If the Task Force prefers the Governmental Model, then the work group recommends that the Task Force approve Phase I of the budget as stipulated above, and to direct work group staff to negotiate with HUD for the procurement of a HUD-approved Technical Assistant (TA) provider to establish the Governmental Model trust fund". HUD requires a matching contribution not to exceed $25,000 for a Technical Assistant. Mr. Arent stated that there are three options for the Technical Committee and the Coalition to chose. They are: 1) accept the work group's recommendation and move forward to engage HUD into a contract to hire a TA to develop a trust fund, 2) task the work group with developing the trust fund without identified revenue sources or structure, or 3) disapprove the implementation of the trust fund. One of the first two options is preferable to the Task Force.
Referring to Exhibit C, Mr. Arent stated that the document was drafted with the consultation of local government, community advocates, and local service providers. Exhibit C informs of the service, estimated need, current inventory, and the unmet need or "gap".
After discussion, a motion was made to approve the $25,000 matching contribution. The motion was approved unanimously.
Each member received a copy of the proposed advisory question (Exhibit D), and a letter from Clark County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates to Mayor Oscar Goodman (Exhibit E). Doug Bell, Clark County, stated that in conjunction with the recommendation to establish a trust fund to provide services for the homeless population, Commissioner Gates' letter to Mayor Goodman suggests that an advisory question be presented to the Coalition and to the tax payers at large to support additional funding for homeless services and to provide funding for an affordable housing trust fund. As the effort continues to serve those who are at 30% or less of median family income, additional subsidies are required to assist this population. At the May 20, 2002, meeting of the Task Force, the members approved the motion to move forward the advisory question to the Technical Committee and the Coalition. Following the review of this item by the Technical Committee and the Coalition, the item will be presented to the Clark County Board of Commissioners with an actual advisory question resolution and, subject to it being approved, the item would be placed on the November 2002 election ballot as an advisory question only. If approved by the voters, the item would still require special legislation at the Nevada Legislature. The earliest the fund would become available would be July 2003.
A motion was made to forward the advisory question to the Coalition Board. The motion was approved unanimously.
This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
This item was withdrawn from the agenda.
Agenda items V, VI, and VII would be forwarded to the SNRPC Board for their June 27, 2002, meeting. In addition, the Conservation Element of the City of Las Vegas 2020 Master Plan for conformance with the SNRPC Regional Plan would also be placed on the agenda.
The meeting for the Technical Committee was confirmed for July 11, 2002, 4:00 p.m., at the Las Vegas Valley Water District.
There were no public comments.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:36 p.m.