Kurt Fritsch, Chair, City Of North Las Vegas
Phil Speight, City of Henderson
Doug Selby, City of Las Vegas
Phil Rosenquist, Alternate, Clark County
The meeting of the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition Technical Committee was called to order by Kurt Fritsch, Chair, at 4:10 p.m., on Thursday, July 11, 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 July 11, 2002, meeting was duly posted in compliance with the Open Meeting Law.
The members were informed that agenda item VIII would be heard after agenda item IV. A motion was made to approve the July 11, 2002, agenda. The motion was approved unanimously with the noted changes.
A motion was made to approve the minutes of the June 13, 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.
Jon Wardlaw, Clark County, informed the members that one of the seven primary work plan elements adopted by the Coalition Board at their March 2002 meeting was to further define the role and mission of the SNRPC. Since then staff ahs distributed a Request For Proposal (RFP) for professional facilitation services to aid in this task. Three proposals were received. The Planning Directors interviewed the three interested respondents on June 17, 2002. Based on the interviews and a review of the proposals, the Planning Directors are recommending that the SNRPC contract be awarded to Skip Swerdlow, of the Leadership Institute. Mr. Swerdlow informed the members on the facilitation process, activities involved, and the role he would serve assisting the SNRPC in developing a mission. Interviews will be conducted with the members of the SNRPC followed by a Visioning and Goals meeting. The Visioning and Goals meeting is scheduled for August 22, 2002, which will consist of an overview of the process, review of mission, also called visioning, statements with samples given, and discovery of the limits and/or lack of limits for the development of the mission. During the meeting the participants will be split into two groups and words and phrases concerning the mission and the words and phrases will be voted on. After the voting, each group will create a rough draft of the mission statement. The participants as a whole will take both rough draft statements and create a mission statement. The next step would be to develop a values list. A mission statement is general, whereas a values list is more specific. Mr. Swerdlow stated that he has allowed 2 hours for the process.
After discussion, a motion was made to accept the recommendation of Dr. Skip Swerdlow as the consultant to provide Facilitation Services for Mission Development, and to forward this recommendation to the Coalition Board for consideration. The motion was approved unanimously.
Mary Kay Peck, City of Henderson, stated that the consultants met with the Planning Directors on June 27, 2002, and talked about the format of the conformity agreements. The consultants will create a template and have it available at the Planning Director's August 5 meeting in which the consultants will participate by conference call. The consultants will contact the Regional Flood Control District (RFCD) to see if they would be willing one again serve as the test case for the Level II entities, and the city of Henderson will be the test case for the Level I entities. Answering a question regarding the two agencies that did not submit a self assessment, the Department of Transportation (NDOT) and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), Ms. Peck stated that NDOT's plans are submitted to and approved by the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC). Therefore, their plans are considered in conformance. Mr. Fritsch, as Chair of the Technical Committee, agreed to send a letter to the DCNR regarding their self assessment. Mr. Fritsch stated that he has spoken with Mike Turnupseed and the DCNR is more willing to work with the Coalition. Misty Heahn, City of North Las Vegas, has been directed to schedule a meeting to get the process moving forward. Mr. Fritsch stated that he did not deem it necessary to send a letter to the DCNR after speaking to Mr. Turnupseed.
After discussion, a motion was made to accept the planning consultant report. The motion was approved unanimously.
Ms. Peck stated that the Coalition received only one response back from the RFP that was mailed out for the Regional Growth Summit. The Planning Directors did not feel comfortable coming before the Coalition with only one respondent. Therefore, the Planning Directors recommend resending the RFPs and allow a two- week turn around time for a response. The consultants who did not respond were contacted, and two of the consultants, after receiving more information, indicated that they were interested. The interviews for the consultant are scheduled for August 8, 2002, the same day as the next Technical Committee meeting; therefore, the recommendation would be presented to the Technical Committee members at their meeting.
A motion was made to accept the report. The motion was approved unanimously.
Mr. Wardlaw stated that Design Workshop has provided the Planning Directors with a preliminary draft of the final draft of the Infill Development Report. The Planning Directors are scheduled to meet on July 17, 2002, to give the consultants feedback. It is the intent of the Planning Directors to have this item ready to be placed on the September 26 agenda of the Coalition Board. The project is on track and the goals are being met.
A motion was made to accept the report. The motion was approved unanimously.
Ms. Haehn informed the members that the SNRPC is entitled to one bill draft request for the 2003 Legislature session. The bill draft request must be submitted by September 1, 2002. Three items have been proposed: 1) A proposal to amend Chapter 489, Statutes of the State of Nevada – 1999, to allow the SNRPC to meet on a bi-monthly basis. Currently the SNRPC is required to meet each month. 2) A proposal to amend Chapter 481, Statutes of the State of Nevada- 1999, "Projects of Significant Impact". The defining criteria for SNRPC projects of regional significance and projects of significant impact are the same of subdivisions, tourist accommodations and nonresidential development. However, with respect to the average daily vehicle trip threshold, the criteria differs from 3000 average daily trips for Projects of Significant Impact, and 6,250 average daily vehicle trips for the Projects of Regional Significance. The proposal is to amend the State Statute to conform to the 6,250 average daily vehicle trips adopted by the local jurisdictions for projects of regional significance. The amendments to the number of SNRPC meetings and the change in the average daily vehicle trips may be placed in one bill draft request. 3) The possible proposal to submit legislation to address mental health issues as it relates to the homelessness in Clark County. Ms. Haehn stated that staff is requesting the Technical Committee to recommend one of the items to be presented to the Coalition Board. Staff would present a draft of the bill draft request for review and approval at the next Technical Committee meeting.
After discussion, a motion was made to accept the first proposal, to amend the Nevada Revised Statues to allow the SNRPC to meet at a minimum on a bi-monthly basis, and to provide the draft bill draft request at the August Technical Committee meeting, in addition to forwarding this recommendation to the Coalition Board for consideration. Mr. Speight suggested that upon amending Chapter 489 that the entire bill be reviewed for any other items that are in need of amendment or changed. The motion was approved with the suggestion.
Agenda items V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX would be forwarded to the SNRPC Board for their July 25, 2002, meeting.
The meeting for the Technical Committee was confirmed for August 8, 2002, 4:00 p.m., at the Las Vegas Valley Water District.
Jane Feldman, volunteer conservation worker with the Sierra Club, asked if there would be an opportunity for public involvement at the Growth Summit?
The meeting was adjourned at 4:51 p.m.