Proposal to authorize 'general development agreements' draws debate; motion dies for lack of second

Councilwoman Booth introduced an item to amend Title 11 of the Boulder City municipal code to authorize the city to enter into development agreements under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS 278). Jeff Bar, a private attorney who said he has represented developers and formerly served as a city attorney, described a development agreement as "a legally binding contract" that can provide flexibility for both government and developers and can secure public benefits such as infrastructure contributions.

Bar emphasized he was not asking for any specific concessions that night: "I'm not asking for a specific development agreement tonight," he said, and characterized the packet language as a sample to prompt discussion. He explained that Title 11 currently authorizes development agreements only for certain uses—special recreation, senior housing and research-and-development zones—and that the request was to create a general enabling ordinance to allow negotiations in other circumstances.

Council members questioned what the city would gain and whether the ordinance could be used to evade the growth ordinance or reduce public notice. Staff and counsel responded that the council controls the process and could require stronger notice provisions; they also noted that most vacant land in Boulder City is city-owned and that there are currently no privately owned parcels of the very large size (thousands of homes) where other cities typically use development agreements.

After extended discussion about notice, transparency, the "give and get" of negotiations, and long‑term consequences, Councilwoman Booth moved to direct staff to draft an enabling ordinance amending Title 11. The motion received no second and therefore failed.

Council members said they valued the discussion but emphasized caution about changing the code without a clear local need and with safeguards about public notice and growth controls.