City Council wins round in City Hall battle

By Mark Hansel

Friday, Feb. 27, 2009 | 2 a.m.

There was plenty of excitement at the Feb. 18 Las Vegas City Council meeting.

Hundreds of Laborers Union Local 872 members filled the Council Chambers in support of a resolution to authorize a lease-purchase agreement for a new City Hall.

For the first time in recent memory, some people with business before the council had to wait outside until their agenda item was called because the chamber was filled to capacity.

Several union members spoke in support of the project, saying it would create much-needed construction jobs, boosting an industry that has been hit hard by the economic downturn.

When the council unanimously approved the resolution, the union members erupted in cheers and applause.

The City Hall, which is expected to cost $150 million to $267 million, is part of a larger development by Cleveland-based Forest City Enterprises.

Las Vegas Councilman Steve Ross, who heads the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, voted on the resolution despite what some consider a conflict of interest.

Ross sought an opinion from Las Vegas City Attorney Brad Jerbic on the matter before voting. Jerbic told Ross that while disclosure of his position with the trades council was appropriate, he could vote on the matter because none of the contracts for the new City Hall have been awarded yet.

“I don’t think there is a conflict of interest in your voting,” Jerbic said.

Although Ross could have abstained, his stance since he accepted the post with the trades council has been that his position there would not prevent him from voting on important issues.

Almost overlooked amid all the hoopla was a decision by the council to delay a vote on whether to place the initiative and referendum petitions submitted by Culinary Local 226 on the June ballot.

That union has said the city’s redevelopment plan should be repealed and voters should have more of a say in redevelopment decisions. It obtained enough signatures on two petitions to put the issues before the voters.

Jerbic said delaying a vote would give him time to prepare a summary that would give the council guidance on its options concerning the petitions.

City Hall insiders say the extra time would allow behind-the-scenes negotiations to continue regarding the petitions. The city hopes to keep the petitions off the ballot without facing a backlash from voters or the Culinary.

In a best-case scenario for the city, the council members would vote not to place the petitions on the ballot without facing a legal challenge from the Culinary or one of the petitioners. In a worst-case scenario, if the issues are placed on the ballot and approved by voters, future redevelopment plans would require voter approval, a new redeveopment plan would have to be developed and projects in the pipeline, including a new City Hall, could be in jeopardy.

In 1995 a similar petition was left off a ballot after a ruling by then-Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa. In an opinion sought by Jerbic on behalf of the city, the attorney general’s office said voters could not rescind the redevelopment plan because its adoption was administrative, not legislative, in nature.

That opinion was never challenged in court and set a precedent the city could use to justify leaving the issues off the ballot in June.

Laborers Union Local 872 has started a candlelight vigil at the site of the proposed City Hall, which it vows to continue until ground is broken. Despite the opposition to the ballot issues by the building trades, a unified vote and a large turnout among Culinary members who live in the city would be hard to overcome in an off-year election.

The City Council is scheduled to address the ballot questions March 4.