Las Vegas Sun

March 29, 2024

Boulder City Council votes to challenge golf course ballot initiative

Dave Olsen

Dave Olsen

Linda Strickland

Linda Strickland

Travis Chandler

Travis Chandler

After a nearly three-hour heated debate Tuesday night, a Boulder City Council vote allowed the city attorney to move forward with a lawsuit questioning the legality of one of three ballot initiatives.

The ballot initiative in question would limit the city to owning only one golf course.

The council members’ vote on the initiative, listed in the complaint filed by City Attorney Dave Olsen on July 23, ended in a tie, so Olsen said he will move forward with the litigation.

Council members opposed Olsen moving forward with litigation involving the other two ballot initiatives — one that would limit a committee member’s term to 12 years and another that would impose a citywide vote any time Boulder City considers going into a debt of at least $1 million.

Council members’ votes capped off a contentious debate among citizens — most of whom opposed the lawsuit filed by the city attorney — and a largely divided city council.

Council members Linda Strickland and Travis Chandler, both of whom helped circulate the petitions, strongly opposed the complaint.

“I have a hard time stopping any petition moving forward,” Mayor Roger Tobler said about his decision to vote in favor of the city moving forward with litigation involving the golf course initiative. “And yet I still want to do what’s best for the city.”

The complaint alleges that the three ballot initiatives violate state and local laws by containing insufficient “description of effects” and restricting the administrative responsibilities of the City Council.

At the beginning of the meeting, Olsen attempted to clear up misconceptions about the complaint, which listed eight defendants it says circulated the petitions in March and April.

Olsen said the city is not suing the defendants, one of whom already signed a stipulation stating the city is correct in its analysis of the ballot initiatives’ legality. Instead, he said, the city is questioning the legality of the initiatives and giving the petitioners a chance to respond.

“If you’re being led to believe that the city is somehow persecuting these individuals, that’s just not the case,” he said.

Some residents and council members Strickland and Chandler, however, argued the defendants will end up paying steep attorney fees to battle the lawsuit.

“This issue looks poorly on the city,” Strickland said, adding she hopes the defendants don’t back down and assume the litigation costs.

The lawyer hired to represent the city, Paul Larson from the Lionel, Sawyer & Collins firm in Las Vegas, said his hourly rate is $450, and his associate’s fee is significantly less.

Larson declined to give an exact figure for how much the case ultimately will cost the city, but he said it likely will be in the “tens of thousands” of dollars.

When questioned about why he didn’t review the initiatives’ legality in their early stages, Olsen said it appeared to be a conflict of interest and, by contract, he is not allowed to represent clients outside of the city and city employees.

Chandler countered Olsen’s claim, pointing to a section of the city charter.

“They didn’t do it wrong,” Chandler told Olsen. “You are completely misrepresenting the law.”

Community members, several defendants, and Strickland and Chandler argued against challenging the ballot initiatives in court before the November election.

James Douglass, a defendant listed in the complaint, said the three initiatives have long histories in Boulder City and should be put to a vote by the people.

“City Council has had opportunities to put these questions in their own language,” he said.

Strickland said the defendants should be able to respond to the complaint until Nov. 16, a week after the election.

But Olsen and Larson said allowing the public to vote on an initiative that might not be legal seems counter-intuitive, adding that a judge may decline hearing a case down the road because it has been delayed for too long.

“The court is going to see this meeting transcript and isn’t going to strike down the city for allowing people to vote,” Strickland said.

After the meeting, Olsen said for now, he only will move forward with the lawsuit involving the golf course limit. He will amend the complaint to reflect the council’s actions and proceed with the case.

Olsen said because the council didn’t dismiss all three initiatives, “it kind of leads you to believe we’re right on all three.”

Olsen said in his tenure, he has challenged seven ballot initiatives, including the three listed in the July 23 complaint. He has won the other four.

He said he will proceed with questioning the legality of the other two initiatives after the November election.

For now, the golf course initiative also remains on the ballot, unless the case goes before a judge prior to the election and is determined to be illegal.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy