North Las Vegas council finds master developer out of compliance; schedules 30‑day status check for Tule Springs park

The North Las Vegas City Council held a hearing under a development agreement provision after City staff reported that Phase 1 of Tule Springs Regional Park remained closed and showed significant deterioration.

Chief Deputy City Attorney Marissa Rodriguez told the council the hearing was pursuant to section 11.03 of the development agreement and described the city’s attempts to resolve the closure informally and formally. She said the agreement required the master developer to build and open a 10‑acre Phase 1 (triggered by permit milestones) and then finish Phase 2 before the city would accept dedication. Rodriguez said the city had sent a series of demand letters and opened the hearing because efforts to secure reopening had not succeeded.

Alfredo Molestio, director of land development, summarized code‑enforcement outreach after complaints beginning in September 2024 and said staff had cited the master developer and performed cleanup work (including an encampment cleanup that cost roughly $3,700). Molestio said the city had communicated repeatedly with the developer and residents to clarify who bears maintenance responsibility.

Doug Veil, director of parks and recreation, presented video and photographs documenting the park’s condition. ‘‘The turf throughout the park is no longer viable and will require replacement,’’ Veil said, and cited migrating sand, a vandalized backboard, closed restrooms showing visible staining, and other maintenance and safety concerns. He also noted that City‑branded signs on the property have created confusion for residents who reasonably assume the city is maintaining the park.

Assistant City Manager Sally Moore reviewed the city’s formal demands and meetings: the first demand letter was dated June 11, 2024; an attempted July meeting was canceled by the developer’s attorneys; city staff hosted an October 9 meeting that reported progress but produced no final agreement; a second demand letter was sent November 18; the developer requested a 60‑day extension, which the city denied on Dec. 3; and a final demand letter was delivered Dec. 17. Moore said the city offered a temporary pause on judicial action if the developer demonstrated retained repair contractors and a reasonable schedule for completion, but the park remained closed.

Counsel for the master developer, Bob Groenauer, acknowledged the circumstances, said the Village 3 HOA had declined to make required payments under its CC&Rs, and confirmed that his client filed a lawsuit against the HOA on the same day the hearing was held. Groenauer told the council the developer could begin cleanup soon and suggested portions of the park could be made usable within weeks, with full resodding taking about 30 days. ‘‘We’re gonna open it in 30 days,’’ Groenauer said and offered to report back with a status update.

Leonard Scott, the newly elected president of the Village 3 HOA, told the council the HOA will assume maintenance only after the park is restored to full operation. Scott said the HOA has paid about $430,000, that the developer offered $10,000 for cleanup, and that the HOA accepted a Gothic Landscaping bid of roughly $179,000 to resod and clean the site.

Council members debated whether to allow a phased reopening or wait until the park met city standards. Some members favored weekly progress checks; others opposed a piecemeal opening that might expose residents to hazards. The developer agreed to remove city‑branded park signs that had created confusion, and city staff said they would work with the developer on an acceptable punch list and inspections once repairs were complete.

On motion, the council approved a status‑check item roughly 30 days out; the council instructed staff to return with an item at the second meeting in February and retain the option to pursue legal enforcement if sufficient progress was not evident.