Technical Review Meeting 10 E. Mesquite Blvd. 2nd Floor Training Room TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2017 - 1:30 PM Below is an agenda of all items scheduled to b e considered. Unless otherwise stated, items may b e taken out of the order presented on the agenda at the discretion of the Mayor and Council. Additionally, the Mayor and Council may comb ine two or more agenda items for consideration, and may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda at any time. Pub lic comment is limited to three minutes per person.
Public Comments During the Public Comment portion of the agenda, comments are to be limited to matters not appearing on the agenda. Public Comment will be provided on each agenda under each specific item of business. Any public comment shall be addressed to the Mayor, moderator, or chair of the public body and shall be direct so as to form a view point of an issue. All public comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes, unless specifically extended upon request to the Mayor, moderator, or chair of the public body. Derogatory comments of non-public individuals or another public commenter shall not be permitted. The Mayor, moderator, or chair of the public body may limit the individual's comment period if proper decorum is not observed. Items raised under this portion of the agenda cannot be deliberated or acted upon until the notice provisions of the Nevada Open Meeting Law have been met. If you wish to speak at this time, please step up to the podium, and clearly state your name. 1.
Public Comment
Consent Agenda Items on the Consent Agenda may not require discussion. These items may be a single motion unless removed at the request of the Mayor, City Council, or City Manager. 2.
Consideration for approval of the August 22, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda, the July 11, 2017 Regular City Council meeting minutes and the August 1, 2017 Technical Review Meeting minutes. - Public Comment 1 1
- Discussion and Possible Action Cover Sheet m07-11-17 RCC.docx m08-01-17 TRM.docx 3.
Consideration of approval of: a) Notification of Budget Transfers b) Notification of Budget Amendments c) Notification of Bills Paid d) Purchase Orders - Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Cover Sheet Check Register - City Council Agenda 07.24.17 to 08.06.17.pdf Combined Budget Trsfrs & POs for Council.pdf
4.
Consideration of Selection of a Consultant to prepare the 2017 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan update. - Public Comments - Discussion and Possible Action Cover Sheet RFQScoringSummary.pdf InterviewScoringSummary.pdf RecordofSubmittalLog.pdf RequestforQualifications_16Mar17.pdf AddendumNo1_14Apr17.pdf AtkinsNorthAmerica_SOQ.pdf HorrocksEnginners_SOQ.pdf
5.
Consideration of designating Vehicles and Equipment as City Surplus items 2 2
and direct Public Works to list these items on the Public Surplus website with the exception of the two Senior Center Vans recommending these to be donated to Silver Rider. - Public Comments - Discussion and Possible Action Cover Sheet VehiclePictures.pdf EquipmentPictures.pdf SNTC_501c3Letter.pdf SNTCAgreement_2005.pdf SNTCAgreement_2010.pdf
Resolutions & Proclamations 6.
Consideration of Approval of Resolution No. 932, adopting an Interlocal Contract (No. 934) between the City of Mesquite and the Regional Transportation Commission for maintenance and reconstruction of City of Mesquite Roads, 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – Phase I. - Public Comments - Discussion and Possible Action Cover Sheet ResNo932.pdf InterlocalContract_No934.pdf SitePlanExhibits_PhaseI.pdf
7.
Consideration of Approval of Resolution No. 933, adopting an Interlocal Contract (No. 952) between the City of Mesquite and the Regional Transportation Commission for maintenance and reconstruction of City of Mesquite Roads, 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – Phase 2. - Public Comments - Discussion and Possible Action 3 3
Cover Sheet ResNo933.pdf InterlocalContract_No952.pdf SitePlanExhibits_PhaseII.pdf 8.
Consideration of Approval of Resolution No. 934, adopting an Interlocal Contract (No. 953) between the City of Mesquite and the Regional Transportation Commission for maintenance and reconstruction of City of Mesquite Roads, 2018 Street Reconstruction Phase 2 (Senate Bill 5). - Public Comments - Discussion and Possible Action Cover Sheet ResNo934.pdf InterlocalContract_No953.pdf SitePlanExhibits_PhaseII.pdf
9.
Consideration of approval of Resolution 935 approving an Interlocal Agreement between the Southern Nevada Health District and the City of Mesquite for 2,000 square feet of office space, located at 830 West Hafen Lane and other matters properly related thereto. - Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Cover Sheet 2017 Interlocal Agreement between SNHD and COM for 830 Hafen Lane.docx Resolution Number 935 - Interlocal Agreement with SNHD.docx
10.
Consideration of approval of Resolution 936 directing City Staff to prepare an agenda item relating to the expenditure of all marijuana-related business licensing fees as part of FY18-19 budgeting process and other matters properly related thereto. Cover Sheet Resolution 936 - Marijuana Revenue.docx 4 4
Department Reports 11.
Mayor's Comments
12.
City Council and Staff Comments and Reports
Administrative Items 13.
Consideration of Introduction of Bill #521, an Ordinance amending Title 2 of the Mesquite Municipal Code entitled “Business License Regulations” by amending Chapter 12, Section 2-12-11 entitled “Duration of Special Event” and other matters properly related thereto. - Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Cover Sheet Special Event Code Amendment.pdf 521 ORD.pdf
14.
Consideration of alternative proposals for dealing with off-premise temporary directional signs in outlying areas. - Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Cover Sheet LogoSign_84%ofMotorists.JPG LogoSign_6.JPG
15.
Consideration of Approval of the Mesquite Airport Wildlife Deterrent Perimeter Fencing Construction FAA Grant. - Public Comments - Discussion and Possible Action Cover Sheet
16.
Consideration of the Introduction of Bill No. 526 as Ordinance No. 526, amending Title 2 of the Mesquite Municipal Code “Business License Regulations”; Chapter 2 “Taxes”; Creating Article C. “Supplementing Local Education through Marijuana Revenues” and other matters properly related thereto. 5
5
- Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Cover Sheet Bill 526_Marijuana_School_Funds.doc
Public Comments During the Public Comment portion of the agenda, comments are to be limited to matters not appearing on the agenda. Public Comment will be provided on each agenda under each specific item of business. Any public comment shall be addressed to the Mayor, moderator, or chair of the public body and shall be direct so as to form a view point of an issue. All public comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes, unless specifically extended upon request to the Mayor, moderator, or chair of the public body. Derogatory comments of non-public individuals or another public commenter shall not be permitted. The Mayor, moderator, or chair of the public body may limit the individual's comment period if proper decorum is not observed. Items raised under this portion of the agenda cannot be deliberated or acted upon until the notice provisions of the Nevada Open Meeting Law have been met. If you wish to speak at this time, please step up to the podium, and clearly state your name. 17.
Public Comment
Adjournment 18.
Adjournment
Note: Please b e advised that the Standing Rules of the City Council are attached for your information. The Standing Rules govern the conduct of City Council Meetings. These Standing Rules may b e acted upon and utilized b y the Mayor and City Council at any City Council Meeting. To ob tain any or all supporting materials for this Agenda, please contact the Clerk's Office at 702-346-5295. Memb ers of the pub lic who are disab led and require special assistance or accommodation at the meeting are requested to notify the City Clerk’s Office -City Hall in writing at 10 E. Mesquite Blvd., Mesquite, NV, 89027 or b y calling 346-5295 twenty-four hours in advance of the meeting.
THIS NOTICE AND AGENDA HAS BEEN POSTED ON OR BEFORE 9:00 AM ON THE THIRD WORKING DAY BEFORE THE MEETING AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:
6 6
1. 2. 3. 4.
Mesquite City Hall, 10 E. Mesquite Blvd., Mesquite, Nevada Mesquite Community & Senior Center, 102 W. Old Mill Road, Mesquite, Nevada Mesquite Post Office, 510 W. Mesquite Blvd., Mesquite, Nevada Mesquite Lib rary, 121 W. First North, Mesquite, Nevada
The agenda is also availab le on the Internet at http://www.mesquitenv.gov and http://nv.gov In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture policy, the City of Mesquite is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice), or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).
RULES OF PROCEDURE 1.
Authority
1.1 NRS 266.240 provides that the Council may determine its own rules of procedure for meetings. The following set of rules shall be in effect upon their adoption by the Council and until such time as they are amended or new rules are adopted in the manner provided by these rules. 2.
General Rules
2.1. Public Meetings: All meetings of the Council shall be open to the public, expect those provided in NRS 241 and 288. The agenda and backup material shall be open to public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office. 2.2 Quorum: A majority of the members of the Council shall constitute a quorum and be necessary for the transaction of business. If a quorum is not present, those in attendance will be named and they shall adjourn to a later time. 2.3
Compelling Attendance: The Council may adjourn from day to day to compel attendance of absent members.
2.4 Minutes: A written account of all proceedings of the Council shall be kept by the City Clerk and shall be entered into the official records of the Council. 2.5 Right to Floor: Any member desiring to speak shall be recognized by the chair, and shall confine his remarks to the item under consideration. 2.6 City Manager: The City M anager or his designee shall attend all meetings of the Council. The City M anager may make recommendations to the Council and shall have the right to take part in all discussions of the Council, but shall have no vote. 2.7. City Attorney: The City Attorney or Deputy City Attorney shall attend all meetings of the Council and shall, upon request, given an opinion, either written or verbal, on questions of the law. 2.8 City Clerk: The City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk shall attend all meetings of the Council and shall keep the official minutes and perform such other duties as required by the Council. 2.9 Officers and Staff: Department heads of the City, when there is pertinent business from their departments on the Council agenda, shall attend such Council meetings upon request of the City M anager. 2.10 Rules of Order: “Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised” 10th Edition shall govern the proceedings of the Council in all cases, provided they are not in conflict with these rules.
3.
Types of Meetings
7 7
3.1 Regular M eeting: The Council shall meet in the Council Chambers for all regular meetings. Regular Council meetings will be held on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. If the second or fourth Tuesday falls on or near a holiday or falls on any day wherein it is determined a quorum may not be available, the Council may provide for another meeting time. 3.2 Special M eetings: Special meetings may be called by the M ayor or by a majority of the City Council. The call for a special meeting shall be filed with the City Clerk in written form, expect that an announcement of a special meeting during any regular meeting at which all members are present shall be sufficient notice of such special meeting. The call for a special meeting shall specify the day, the hour, and the location of the special meeting and shall list the subject or subjects to be considered. 3.3 Adjourned Meeting: Any meeting of the Council may be adjourned to a later date and time, provided that no adjournment shall be for a longer period than until the next regular meeting. 3.4 Workshop and Study Sessions: The Council may meet in workshops or study sessions to review upcoming projects, receive progress reports on current projects, or receive other similar information from the City M anager, provided that all discussions thereon shall be informal and open to the public. 3.5
Executive Sessions: Closed meetings may be held in accordance with NRS 241 and 288.
4.
Duties of Presiding Officer
4.1 Presiding Officer: The M ayor, if present, shall preside at all meetings of the Council. In the M ayor’s absence, the M ayor Pro Tem shall preside. In the absence of both the M ayor and M ayor Pro Tem, the Council members present shall elect a Presiding Officer. 4.2 Preservation of Order: The Presiding Officer shall preserve order and decorum; prevent attacks of a personal nature or the impugning of members’ motives, and confine members in debate to the question under discussion. 4.3 Points of Order: The Presiding Officer shall determine all points of order, subject to the right of any member to appeal to the Council. If any appeal is taken, the question shall be: “Shall the decision of the Presiding Officer be sustained?”
5.
Order of Business and Agenda
5.1 Agenda: The order of business of each meeting shall be as contained in the agenda in accordance with NRS 241 prepared by the City Clerk and approved by the City M anager. The agenda shall be delivered to members of the Council at least three (3) working days preceding the meeting to which it pertains. 5.2 Special Interest/Presentation Items: Unless otherwise approved by the City M anager, and in order to provide for the effective administration of City Council business, a maximum of four (4) items of special interest or presentation shall be scheduled on one agenda. Special Interest/Presentation items must appear on the agenda and it is not appropriate for presentations to be made during the public comment portion of the meeting.
6.
Creation of Committees, Boards and Commissions
6.1 Resolution: The Council may by resolution create committees, boards, and commission to assist in the operation of the City government with such duties as the Council may specify, which shall not be inconsistent with law. 6.2 Membership and Selection: M embership and selection of members shall be as provided by the Council if not specified by law. Any committee, board, or commission so created shall cease to exist upon the accomplishment of the special purpose for which it was created, as provided in the initial resolution, or when abolished by a majority vote of the Council. No committee, board or commission shall have powers other than advisory to the Council or to the City M anager, except as otherwise provided by law.
8 8
6.3 Removal: The Council may remove any member which they have appointed to any board, committee or commission by a vote of at least a majority of the Council. Such appointed members will be removed automatically if they fail consistently (three or more unexcused absences) to attend meetings.
7.
Voting
7.1
All voting procedures shall be in accordance with Parliamentary Authority.
7.2 Point of Order: Any Council member may raise a Point of Order if s/he perceives a breach of the Council’s procedural rules and insists on the enforcement of the rule by the Presiding Officer. A Point of Order take precedence over any main motion, is not debatable, is not amendable, but may be superseded by a motion to table the item over which the Point of Order was raised, and is ruled on immediately by the Presiding Officer. 7.3 Point of Information: This is a request by a Council member, directed to the Presiding Officer or appropriate individual for information relevant to the pending item. A Point of Information takes precedence over a main motion, is not debatable, is not amendable, is not superseded by other motions, and is ruled on for appropriateness by the Presiding Officer. 7.4
Abstentions: A member may abstain from voting for any reason s/he deems appropriate.
7.5 Failure of Affirmative Motion: The failure of a motion calling for affirmative action is not the equivalent of the passage of a motion calling for the opposite negative action. The failure of such affirmative motion constitutes no action. 7.6 Failure of Negative Motion: The failure of a motion calling for a negative action is not the equivalent of the passage of a motion calling for the opposite affirmative action. The failure of such a negative motion constitutes no action. 7.7 Lack of Passage of a M otion: In some instances (maps in particular, per NRS) lack of passage of a motion may result in the item being “deemed approved.” In other instances no action may result in confusion and complication for the applicant. In all cases the City Council will strive to achieve a decision or action. 8.
Citizens’ Rights
8.1 Addressing the City Council: Any person desiring to address the Council by oral communication shall first secure the permission of the Presiding Officer. 8.2 Time Limit: Each person addressing the Council shall step to the microphone, shall give his/her name and residence address in an audible tone of voice for the record and, unless further time is granted by the Presiding Officer, shall limit the time of his/her comments to three (3) minutes. 8.3 Public Comment Content: The presiding officer or the majority of City Council may prohibit comment if the content of the comments is a topic that is not relevant to, or within the authority of, the public body, or if the content of the comments is willfully disruptive of the meeting by being irrelevant, repetitious, slanderous, offensive, inflammatory, irrational, or amounting to personal attacks or interfering with the rights of other speakers. 8.4 Disruptive Conduct: Any person who willfully disrupts a meeting to the extent that its orderly conduct is made impractical may be removed from the meeting by order of the Presiding Officer or majority of the City Council. A person willfully disrupts a meeting when s/he (1) uses physical violence, threatens the use of physical violence or provokes the use of physical violence, or (2) continues to use loud, boisterous, unruly, or provocative behavior after being asked to stop, which behavior is determined by the Presiding Officer or a majority of the City Council present to be disruptive to the orderly conduct of the meeting, or (3) fails to comply with any lawful decision or order of the Presiding Officer or of a majority of the City Council relating to the orderly conduct of the meeting. 8.5
Written Communications:
9 9
a. In General: Interested parties or their authorized representatives may address the Council by written communication in regard to any matter concerning the City’s business or over which the Council has control at any time by direct mail to Council members, email, or by addressing it to the City Clerk and copies will be distributed to the Council members. b. At City Council M eetings: Except as provided in subsection c, written communications will not be read at City Council meetings, but will be attached to the item as part of the record, tallied, and reported by the City Clerk as generally in favor of or against the proposition. c. Exceptions: A written communication to the City Council may be read by City staff at a City Council meeting when (1) the person making the written communication has asked it be read aloud, (2) the person is unavailable to be at the meeting due to emergency or illness, (3) the written communication can be read in an ordinary cadence within three minutes, and (4) the person’s name appears on the written communication and will be read into the record. 9.
S uspension and Amendment of These Rules
9.1 Suspension of these Rules: Any provision of these rules not governed by law may be temporarily suspended by a majority vote of the City Council. 9.2 Amendment of these Rules: These rules may be amended, or new rules adopted, by a majority vote of all members of the City Council, provided that the proposed amendments or new rules have been introduced into the records at a prior City Council meeting.
10 10
Technical Review Agenda Item Report Submitted by: Tracy Beck Submitting Department: City Manager Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Public Comment Recommendation: Petitioner: Andy Barton, City Manager Is this a budgeted item? No Fiscal Impact:
Background: Contract Bid Expires On: Attachments:
11
Technical Review Agenda Item 2 Submitted by: Tracy Beck Submitting Department: City Clerk Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Consideration for approval of the August 22, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda, the July 11, 2017 Regular City Council meeting minutes and the August 1, 2017 Technical Review Meeting minutes. - Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Recommendation: Approve the August 22, 2017 Regular City Council Agenda, the July 11, 2017 Regular City Council meeting minutes and the August 1, 2017 Technical Review Meeting minutes. Petitioner: Tracy E. Beck Is this a budgeted item? No Fiscal Impact:
Background:
Attachments: m07-11-17 RCC.docx m08-01-17 TRM.docx
12
Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Mesquite City Hall 10 E. Mesquite Blvd. Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Minutes of a scheduled meeting of the City Council held Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 5:00 PM at City Hall. In attendance were Mayor Allan S. Litman, Council members David Ballweg, Rich Green, George Rapson, W. Geno Withelder and Brian Wursten. Also in attendance were City Manager Andy Barton, City Attorney Robert Sweetin, Development Services Director Richard Secrist, Public Works Director Bill Tanner, City Clerk Tracy E. Beck, other City Staff and approximately 35 citizens. Mayor Litman called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM. (Note: This meeting was recorded and will remain on file in the office of the City Clerk for four (4) years for public examination). Below is an agenda of all items scheduled to be considered. Unless otherwise stated, items may be taken out of the order presented on the agenda at the discretion of the Mayor and Council. Additionally, the Mayor and Council may combine two or more agenda items for consideration, and may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda at any time. Public comment is limited to three minutes per person.
Ceremonial Matters Minutes: Mayor Litman: We do not have an invocation, but I would like to take a moment of silence for the very tragic loss of 12 Marines in a C-130 plane crash in Mississippi the other day. If you would just take a moment of silence.
Public Comments 1)
Public Comment
Minutes: Mayor Litman opened the meeting to Public Comments.
Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 1
13
Minutes: Mayo Vitela: Hello Council members. To continue our discussion on indoor clean air, My name is Mayo Vitela and I’m here tonight with the Mesquite Citizens for Clean Indoor Air. We’re continuing our discussion about the importance of providing clean indoor air for all. Most people know the phrase “secondhand smoke.” People don’t realize how serious it is. It’s more than an annoyance or a nuisance. It’s a serious health risk. According to the CDC, secondhand smoke exposure kills more than 41,000 people in the United States each year. Health risks from secondhand smoke include heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, asthma attacks and other respiratory problems. According the U.S. Surgeon General, there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Ventilation systems and designated smoking areas inside a building can’t protect people. The only way to protect people from exposure is to eliminate smoking from inside a building. We all have family and friends who have died due to cancer and heart disease. It’s hard to watch, especially when you know some of these cases could have been prevented by simply not smoking, or being protected from smoke. We have family and friends who work in these environments, where they are exposed every day to secondhand smoke. According to the CDC, secondhand smoke costs our national economy $5.6 billion each year due to reduced productivity. And that’s in addition to smoking related costs, which alone cost the state of Nevada over $1 billion a year in lost productivity and another $1 billion a year in health care costs. In 2004, an estimated $2.6 billion was spent on medical care for non-smokers with lung cancer and heart disease caused by secondhand smoke. Public leaders, such as yourselves, have the power to save lives and prevent death, simply by making our public, indoor areas safe from tobacco smoke. In fact, despite the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act passed in 2006, which both strengthened the existing smoking laws across the state and gave local jurisdictions more control, Nevada does not have a single city, county or town that has closed those statewide gaps. Mesquite has a chance to become a leader in the state, and to follow in the footsteps of over 915 other jurisdictions, which have protected their residents by enacting clean indoor air ordinances in all of their businesses and hospitality venues. Please see map. In 2015, the city of New Orleans passed a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance, protecting workers and visitors to all bars and casinos. Latoya Cantrell, New Orleans city councilwoman and policy champion, said following the unanimous 7-0 vote by the city council, “Today is a good day. We’re doing the right thing. We’re doing the right things and for the right reasons. We are walking the talk.” Mesquite citizens want clean indoor air. We encourage you to do the right thing for the right reasons and to walk the talk. You have our support to act. Please don’t wait any longer. Remember, secondhand smoke is a public health problem that has a solution and it is one that you have the ability and responsibility to solve. Minutes: Rudy Martell, Resident of Mesquite: Second hand smoke, tobacco smoke, hazardous, we all know that. What else is in the air these days? On the first of July, I was there looking at the retail sales of marijuana and noticed something interesting that there were mostly residents from Utah and Arizona where marijuana is illegal. In some places, depending on how much you Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 2
14
possess it’s a felony. So I ask some of the people that were purchasing, where are they going to smoke this product? They said well there is only one place where we can smoke it. I won’t say without incriminating or without pointing fingers at anyone, but do you realize that your police force is unable to do anything about it? They permit smoking. We don’t permit smoking in public of marijuana. By default we do because we can’t enforce it. Do you realize we can’t enforce it because you can’t smell it because marijuana is perfumed? You can smoke it in the casino and along with all the tobacco smoke you won’t be able to tell until someone becomes intoxicated. Another interesting fact, there are university studies that are valid that do indicate that you can get intoxicated from second hand smoke. It’s also a serious health risk just like tobacco smoke is. I urge you to really consider this again. I will remind you once a week, or every other week, or once a week if necessary that we have a problem. We continue to ignore it. We will continue to make you aware of it. Until one of you has the, I suppose the ability to say no to the money that is coming in, that’s really sweet, perhaps maybe not even affecting the money revenue streams. You can still sell it. You can set aside a place for smoking; they've done so in Arizona. They have clinics. They have what they call Kush Gardens where people can actually indulge in smoking marijuana. They have signs out there that say if you come in here and you don’t intend to smoke, you will be intoxicated so don’t come in here. We don’t have those signs. We should have those signs. But then again we are not aware of that anyone is smoking in the casinos because we don’t put the signs there but you can’t tell them they are smoking. Your police force can’t enforce it because they can’t tell that they are smoking. But you know they are not carrying it back to Utah. They are not carrying it to Arizona because it’s a felony. Please consider this serious hazard to our safety and to our health. Please look at the revenue side, and look at like Colorado and other states that have no smoking in their casinos. Revenue hasn’t been affected at all for the casinos. Thank you. Minutes: Darlene Tornis: I am here for two reasons, the first reason obviously it is for non-smoking because of the deaths that can be caused from it, and the other is for, and I’ve already talked to Mr. Secrist, but I want to go on record as – Chaparral and Marilyn Parkway. They built some new houses there, and in order to see what’s coming down Marilyn Parkway you have to pull almost halfway out into the intersection. Right now they don’t have the courtyard fence put in or wall, but when they get that totally enclosed, it’s going to be bad because you just can’t see what’s coming down Marilyn Parkway. As most of you probably already know, Marilyn Parkway is like a speed – speed demons run down through there. So I would like you to look at both things, the smoking and the deaths that can be caused by Chaparral and Marilyn Parkway. Thank you. Minutes: Mike Benham, CERT: I just want to say what a great job the fire department did on the initial attack on the fire at the river last week. It was 117 under my patio when I left, and the police department was out there directing traffic making sure people were safe did a tremendous job too. As CERT leader we went out and we got water and Gatorade. We got 100 bottles of Gatorade, the little ones. We went through between 10 and 15 cases of water to make sure that everybody was hydrated. You should be proud of both of you and the fire and the police. They did one hell of a job out there. They really did. Thank you.
Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 3
15
Consent Agenda 2)
Consideration of approval of the Tuesday, July 11, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting agenda; the May 18, 2017 Budget Session #2 Meeting minutes; the May 23, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting minutes; the June 13, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting minutes; and the June 20, 2017 Technical Review Meeting minutes.
- Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Minutes: Mayor Litman asked if there are any questions regarding Items 2 and 3 on the Consent Agenda and if not asked for a motion.
Council member Withelder moved to approve Items 2-3 of the Consent Agenda Council member Rapson seconded the motion. Passed For: 5; Against: 0; Abstain: 0; Absent: 0 3) a) b) c) d)
Consideration of approval of: Notification of Budget Transfers Notification of Budget Amendments Notification of Bills Paid Purchase Orders
- Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action
Department Reports 4)
Mayor's Comments
Minutes: Mayor Litman: I have nothing other than to reiterate that the Fire Department did an outstanding job along with the police department and the fire under the most adverse of conditions. I give them lot of credit for being out there and getting the job done. 5)
City Council and Staff Reports
Minutes: Council member Rapson: I want to thank the Eureka, Greg Lee and his family and the employees of the Eureka for the awesome 4th of July display. The Nevada Pops were great. The display was awesome, and they are a fantastic member of this community and I thank them for their participation.
Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 4
16
Minutes: Council member Withelder: That was my point exactly, thank you Mr. Rapson. The Lee Family and all the employees did an absolute fabulous outstanding job, and I want to thank them again. I think this is their seventh year in providing the fireworks, and Pops Orchestra. Great job. Thank you.
Administrative Items 6)
Consideration of a funding request from Mesquite Works and other matters properly related thereto.
- Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Minutes: Per Council member Greens request, Mayor Litman pulled this item from the agenda. 7)
Consideration of alternative proposals for dealing with off-premise temporary directional signs in outlying areas.
- Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Minutes: Mayor Litman read this item by its title and deferred to Richard Secrist. Minutes: Mr. Secrist: This issue is just a discussion item for tonight. We will make a brief presentation, discuss the issues and hopefully get some direction from City Council. We had recent complaints about some off premise temporary directional signs that popped up out on West Pioneer Blvd. We were asked to look at it, see if they were signs that were allowed under the code. It turns out that they are not. There were a number of signs for Deep Roots Harvest, Star Nursery, and Pioneer Storage. Our code enforcement staff contacted the businesses and asked them to take them down. Some of the business owners I guess contacted Mayor and City Manager, asked that this be reconsidered and so we were asked, directed to bring to Council some alternatives for looking at these signs and how possibly to deal with it. So that’s what we got before us tonight. The argument by some of the business owners is very similar to arguments that were made a couple of years back by developers and sub-dividers who have projects that are kind of on the outline areas of town off the beaten paths, off of what we are calling the main business loop between Pioneer Blvd and Mesquite Blvd, Falcon Ridge Parkway and Sandhill Blvd. In order to get traffic to their project or their business, they have resorted to putting up temporary off premise signs. So basically we have proposed 5 alternative actions. The first is maintaining the status quo. In other words, maintain the current prohibition. Prohibition is kind of a misnomer because we actually made a couple of exceptions to these types of off premise signs. One is the community directional ladder signs that you see through town. That’s really more of a way finding system more than it is advertising, but nonetheless they are off premise signs. Then the off premise temporary directional subdivision signs that you see at various locations through town advertising current real estate projects and so forth. Anyway that is option number 1. Option number 2 is to impose and enforce moratorium. Really Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 5
17
doesn’t solve the problem. It just kicks it down the road, but would allow the businesses to continue doing what they are doing. Option number 3 allows off premise temporary direction signs in industrial areas only. Obviously the businesses that are the subject of this complaint are an in the light industrial zone out in Mesquite Technology and Commerce Center. There are two main industrial areas in town. They are both kind of outlying areas. There’s not a lot of traffic that runs by some of these businesses. Some of them are set back off the streets so even if you drive down the street, you may not see them. Deep Roots follows into that category so and does Star Nursery. If we were to make a code amendment to allow it in industrial areas you could address some of the issues raised by these businesses without having to extend citywide. Fourth option would be to allow in all commercial zones. This could be more problematic in that other commercial areas they are more densely built up with many more businesses. You probably see a greater proliferation of off premise signs that could change the character of those areas and those on the main business loop have higher visibility already and have the right of course to use on site signage to get their message out. The fifth alternative isn’t really based on zoning, but basically it would do a code amendment and a sign ordinance to allow off site temporary directional signs if the business or institution is a certain distance from this principal business loop. Say a half mile for discussion purposes. So in the same way that you have some of these subdivisions that are up by the Lincoln County border and nobody generally drives by there so to get people up there they have to have signs. If the business were a half mile or more from Falcon Ridge Parkway – not pointing any particular developer out but these happen to have a slide for Legacy Homes. In any case, option 5 is to make an allowance to have these signs if the business is within a half mile of that business loop. It could be done the same way that we allow the temporary directional signs for subdivisions. There would be a set limit on the number probably. You’d have some size limitations, maybe some height limitations, spacing. Either keep them out of the right of way or you make some allowance where they could be in the right of way provided there is a certain distance from the pavement or curb and gutter, etc. As far as Staff’s recommendation, if we are going to down the road do allow it – and there are reasons why we may want to, I prefer option 5. Basing the allowance on the distance they are from that business loop and setting up similar kinds of standards as the temporary subdivision directional signs. With that I guess if you have any questions for me, I will try to answer them. Minutes: Mayor Litman: Before I turn it over to Council member Rapson who has a question, let me comment that for those that are out there and the Council, there are 36 separate businesses affected by temporary nonconforming signs in the City and one church which has to put up signs before they can even find the church. I do have the list for anybody that is interested in all businesses that are affected by this. Minutes: Council member Rapson: Well, first I think it is interesting that until Deep Roots put a sign up, this was never an issue. Stars had a million signs up along the highway there for years. So obviously this has come up for a specific purpose although it does need to be addressed. I am not suggesting it doesn’t. The Legacy Home sign as you see there, that’s who I sell homes for, full disclosure. We would have a hard time getting buyers to look at property if it didn’t have some sort of signage staggered so we could find things. I sympathize with retail that is located off the major thoroughfares that are not fronting a highly traveled highway. I honestly believe that if we say we are business friendly, we can’t turn around and deny somebody the right to Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 6
18
direct potential customers to their business. The perfect example is Deep Roots ACT although they don’t have any out there. I mean they are a retail business that is hard to find. Star Nursery of course, the Baptist Church by Primex. That’s one of the signs. Self-storage units, My End Storage are off the major Hardy Way there. There are a lot of businesses that are impacted by this and I honestly believe that – we don’t have a sign blight in this town. They are pretty clean. They are pretty organized. There are distance requirements. There are number requirements for the real estate directional at least and those can be similar. I agree with Mr. Secrist. I think option 5 is probably the most workable and certainly business friendly. I think a half mile – if the business is a half mile from the loop. I think that is probably pretty far. I think it should be something less than that. We have a lot of hills. We have streets that are not particularly level. We have curves in the roads. A half mile is a long way. You wouldn’t see the business necessarily in certain circumstances particularly up there by Primex. Those hills I don’t think they are at code anymore, the grades on those things. But anyway, bottom line is I personally agree with the necessity for something. To codify this, I agree that businesses should be able to advertise in an unobtrusive way and these signs are small. They are cheap. They are limited to the amount of verbiage clearly. I think it is a practical solution. I would go for number 5. I would say the distance off the major thoroughfare could be a quarter mile or I don’t know five hundred yards. Pick the number. That’s open for discussion. I do think this is a necessary solution. Thank you. Minutes: Council member Ballweg: For the record, I have also brought up the nonconformity of the signs going up in the Canyon Crest. I am on the board of directors at Canyon Crest HOA. It’s a continual complaint I get from the citizens up there. I believe that sign for Legacy Homes – those signs being that close together is noncompliant. I think there has to be a distance in between those that doesn’t comply, and we continually from a lot of different people get a berm shaped type of effect going down the road. There are a lot of them. We start adding more businesses – I mean there is a practical limit to how many businesses we can see on the loop, Pioneer, and Mesquite Blvd. Pioneer Blvd., here it arbitrarily says 120 to 122. I mean we have got 118 now. So are we saying Pioneer down past the Falcon Ridge Parkway is not a part of the business loop? I do sympathize with the businesses directing people there, but I don’t think it all started because of Deep Roots Medical. So with that said, I think we have set up in the past these community directional signs. I don’t know why we don’t – I mean you go up Oasis Blvd. and they are all empty. We have got all these directional signs for all these subdivisions and builders but the sign boards, the ladder boards are empty. There is absolutely nothing on them. I don’t know why we have them if we are going to allow people to randomly put up whatever sign they may want for wherever they want to put it. I think it is just going to start really detracting from the community. If we pass this and say okay we can do this, we already know there is going to be probably several dozen if not more businesses that are going to be putting up the signs, and so how do we start controlling permitting. The industrial park now does not have any of the ladder signs and I think that is something we should investigate putting in ladder signs out in the industrial park and or even maybe adding more of those signs within the general business areas of Mesquite. Right now I would like for conformity purposes and control consider adding at least minimal the directional signs, the community signs going out in the industrial park in those areas and also if necessary that can be brought to our attention by either businesses or the city staff where we have void areas within the City now to add additional ones, but it’s awful hard for me to say we are going to allow businesses and again I am a business man. I don’t do retail but I understand. I am business friendly but there is a limit to what we want the community to look like. At some with all these signs put up anywhere and everywhere it really detracts from the aesthetics. They are not put up for overnight or over the Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 7
19
weekend or anything like that. They are up there continually for weeks if not months and so what my suggestion would be is we start promoting the ladder signs and getting that into use. If somebody needs a directional let’s promote that and put more up if we need more up if we have the use. Thank you. Minutes: Council member Rapson: First of all, Legacy signs are in compliance which is 25 feet. They have to be x amount of feet from the curb. If they are not, they will be. The code enforcement has been out many times. The HOA’s personally, I am not sympathetic. They found the development and bought their house. Now they don’t want the signs once they got their house. That’s insane. This is a business friendly atmosphere. This is what we promoted all along, and for us to say because you chose or because of affordability or for whatever reason, you locate your business in a remote or nonvisible area you are going to be penalized and we are not going to do anything to help you. Those ladder signs are absolutely useless. They don’t have arrows on them. They don’t tell you where anything is. Maybe an arrow and it is here. Okay now you are driving down Oasis Blvd. You got one ladder sign, and it’s Legacy Homes, arrow up. It doesn’t tell you that it’s the second roundabout around St. Andrews. It doesn’t tell you anything. They are not informing, and they are expensive. I think they are worthless. I don’t even know when we have them. I don’t know why businesses use them. I don’t think anybody gets it but be that as it may, some few do. I think we need to allow these guys to advertise. I don’t think we have a sign blight, and with respect to exit 118, that’s an industrial area that has got nothing but land out there. It’s probably got what 50 cars a day. Unless they are going to a specific retail business which they can’t find if there is no signage. I’m not sure I get any of this. I don’t understand why we are even discussing this other than we need to be consistent and not just treat real estate developers or builders any differently that we do our other businesses. So I mean you all know how I feel about this. I am absolutely 100% for doing alternative 5; shorten that thing down to 1,500 feet or 5,000 feet or 3,000 feet, half mile. So I am all for that. The business loop doesn’t need them. If you are driving down the loop, you can see virtually every business and they have onsite signs because their business is on the highway so they don’t need this. I don’t get it. I’d like to hear from somebody else. Minutes: Mayor Litman: Before I give it to Councilman Withelder, let me make a comment because you commented about the distance between or from the business to the sign. There are two businesses that would fall much closer to that but are totally invisible and if we are business friendly we would be causing harm to the RV park by Smiths because that is very close but it can’t be seen. They use these signs. The other one that I noticed in driving around and has had a directional sign like that for years is the Canton Chinese Cuisine back of the Best Western. That would be totally unseen if that sign was removed and yet it is only a couple of hundred feet, but it’s totally hidden. They would have absolutely no way – no one would find this facility whatsoever. Then I have a list of about a half of dozen other. Minutes: Council member Withelder: Due to the fact that this is again new tonight, it’s not new to Council. It’s been before us several times in the past. However, I think before we make a decision tonight, it would be totally unfair if we didn’t hear from the business community and get some input from those people that it would be most closely affected by the removal or addition or subtractions of those specifically requisite signs. So I think maybe we can delay this decision
Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 8
20
for a meeting for two meetings or something, but I think we should absolute have some input from the business community before we make a decision. Thank you. Minutes: Council member Ballweg: I’m going to ask Richard a specific question. What is the distance in between signs, linear along the road, not distance from the road but linear between each other? Minutes: Mr. Secrist: Which signs are you referring to? Minutes: Council member Ballweg: The temporary. Minutes: Mr. Secrist: Subdivision signs? Minutes: Council member Ballweg: Yes subdivision signs. Minutes: Mr. Secrist: The code says that they have to be spaced at least 25 feet apart. Minutes: Council member Ballweg: Okay we got some that are definitely less than that as you make the entrance. As you turn up Oasis Blvd., there are at least 2 before you get to the first cul de sac. There are at least 2 sign boards there that are completely blank now that exist. Once you turn up Oasis there are sign boards available to put directional arrows on and there are signs with arrows on them. So to say there is nothing after you make the turn is not accurate. Again I am not sure why we have these signs if we are going to tell people don’t worry about it just put up whatever sign you want to put up. It’s going to be a very big control issue that I see and again I’m all for business. I have got a business. I am very pro-business but there is also a level of community appearance also that I think is important. The people that I have talked to in the HOA and I know they bought a place in a HOA, but I hear that they also expect that HOA to have some standards in protecting how it looks. Canyon Crest has put a lot of effort into improving those areas by adding a lot of park landscaping and things like that into those areas, and then we see these signs put up for directional. They seem like they get put up randomly. They kind of go away. We have new ones put up. I just like to see some consistency in the use of the signs that we have up there, now the ladder boards we have up there. So they are consistent. They are appealing to the community, and they still offer businesses a way to direct people. If you go down the road, and people know to look for these signs, then they are going to look for them. If they look at a few sign boards and they are empty, well they are not going to look at any other ones because they are going to expect all the other ones to be empty also. So I think if we concentrate that information, people get familiar with the information on the sign board right when they drive into town. I think they will be very effective and I think we would have to find some way to again get them on Pioneer Blvd. out to the industrial area and it’s something that needs to be done anyway. I mean at some point, are we going to exclude that area and get those sign boards up. They are everywhere else in town. I think to dismiss this is
Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 9
21
as something because ownership in the HOA’s shouldn’t have any credence and shame on them I think is quite a shock to me that that is even said. Minutes Council member Green: It’s obvious that we need to do a little bit more work on this. I agree that we should let businesses advertise as they so choose, but not to the extent that it impairs the vision of the overall. So I live alternative 5. I think we are on the right track there, but I am concerned about a couple of businesses that the Mayor mentioned that they would actually lose out on this because they are already too close yet their signs are meaningful to them right now. So I think we have to do a little more work, but I don’t think we intended to take action tonight. I think Richard was looking for input. I think 5 is pretty close, but I think it needs some work. I agree with Council member Withelder that we should seek some business input. Minutes: Council member Rapson: Well I am going to go out on a limb here and say that business input is say we want some signs. I am just going out on a limb. I am going to take a guess that Star Nursery is not going to come up here and say no. We absolutely encourage you to pass an ordinance where I cannot advertise the way we have been. I don’t know. It seems like the appetite here is to do nothing or penalize business so I mean I am all for going with number 5, tighten it up a little bit so it becomes a little looser so we don’t harm some of the businesses that his Honor mentioned that would be impacted by this negatively. I am not a big fan of the ladder boards. You’re going to have to spend thousands of dollars a month to get your name out on every one of those ladder boards with directional. A lot of these businesses can’t afford that. They advertise in the newspapers. They advertise on the cable channel. They advertise in the chamber. They do all kinds of stuff and we are just telling them you know what we want you to do it our way and spend a little bit more money. I totally disagree with that. Minutes: Council member Ballweg: Well I don’t think I was advocating any penalty in any business or drive any business out. I am trying to look at the overall community. I can’t believe if we open this up that we can’t expect more people to do up more signs, and more areas to regulate. They are going to be trying to find some area to get a clear view of their sign. When I ran for Council I mean I participated in putting a sign wherever you could put it, wherever you thought somebody could see it. I mean are we going to want to see that kind of proliferation of signs as we see during the campaigns? Richard do you have off the top of your head the price per panel board for putting a sign up? For some reason $30 or something like that per month was something to that extent. Minutes: Mr. Secrist: The production cost - first of all you would have to have the panel produced and that’s about $300 or $350. Then it’s a forty dollar a month rent per side or sign face. Minutes: Council member Ballweg: Is it possible – I mean the production cost is high for what they are. That’s pretty high. I imagine some of that production cost has to do with installation of the board and things like that I imagine. We still don’t have control of those signs do we? I mean those are not under our control at this time yet.
Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 10
22
Minutes: Mr. Secrist: Not totally. The City actually owns the signs now. That was part of the negotiation with Motivational Systems Inc. the last time we redid their contract. However, they are still maintaining them during the time of their contract and if somebody orders a new sign panel, they have to work with Motivational Systems to get it produced and get it installed, etc. Eventually the City will own them. Minutes: Council member Ballweg: What is eventually? Not to put you on the spot. Minutes: Mr. Secrist: I think their contract expires in 2 years. It was a 5 year contract and I think it expires in 2 years. Then at that point they are out of it altogether. The City will maintain them. The City will install them. Of course we own them right now but we can decide if we want to change the price on those signs. But right now it is kind of a mix between us and the sign company. Minutes: Council member Ballweg: Did they put those signs up originally? Is that what they are trying to recover - their capital costs on those boards? Minutes: Mr. Secrist: They put the signs originally and they won’t put up a new kiosk unless there are enough orders to justify it. I mean the City since we own them, I suppose we can flip the bill and put one up, but again if nobody is going to order Minutes: Council member Ballweg: There is a cost break consideration. If it’s too expensive – I understand some of the burden of that is per sign. What $40 a side? Is what you said? So you got $80 a sign per month. So I mean if you had 10 boards, $800 a month, I absolutely agree that that’s way too much consideration but for what they are, that’s a pretty steep price tag. Minutes: Mr. Secrist: That’s part of the problem. A lot of the people don’t use them – is the cost, the time. Minutes: Council member Ballweg: Is there a buyout on the contract by any chance? Minutes: Mr. Secrist: There is. I can’t remember now how much it would cost us. We talked about that when we renegotiated the contract. There was some discussion that we may want to just buy them out altogether but at least three years ago it was not done. Minutes: Council member Withelder: This is a question for Mr. Secrist. There has been some considerable conversation about Star Nursery. Some time back it was rumored pretty heavily Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 11
23
that Star Nursery was going to be moving downtown. Can you give us an update as to what the status is on that? Minutes: Mr. Secrist: The nursery was considering a move down to the old El Rancho Market. They had been talking to the owners. I had kind of a tentative agreement reached, but they hadn’t actually purchased the property. Star wanted to make sure they were going to be welcomed into the community or the neighborhood and they wanted to have a neighborhood meeting with surrounding homeowners. Let everybody know what they were going to do and how it was going to look and so forth. Well they had a neighborhood meeting up at the old campus, and the neighbors were just opposed to it. It was almost vicious. I was surprised. But they didn’t want it. Made it clear that they didn’t want them to locate there so Star decided not to. As it turns out, they think the facility they are in is bigger than El Rancho anyway, but it is a ways out there, a way from everything. I think they would have done better business on Mesquite Blvd. There was a group of homeowners that has fought them on it, and they decided they didn’t want to come in and make enemies, so they didn’t. Minutes: Mr. Tanner: I just want to bring up the issue on the ladder signs. The contract ran up on the ladder signs. We actually own those ladder signs. We have extended the agreement with a motivational sign company to manage the rental and the placement of signs on the ladder signs so as that agreement expires we can move forward with whatever option we wanted to do with those ladder signs. We would then be involved in managing the rental of that and taking care of changing them. So those are the discussions we can have on the ladder signs as that agreement comes up and I believe and discussing with Aaron that’s another year and a half, two years out before that agreement expires. The first time it expired we actually took ownership of the signs and entered an agreement with them to operate it. Minutes: Steve Clutterham, Mesquite Resident: My wife and I came here for one day 10 years ago. Because of the signs that Mathews Homes had that are now Legacy Homes, within 24 hours we had signed papers to have a brand new home built and moved here. Without those signs, we would not be here today. Legacy now has pretty much the same signs. We live beyond where you have to drive past all those signs. We have lots and lots of friends up there. I have never heard a complaint from one person about too many signs for home developments. Never. Not one. The signs going up to the hill up there to Star Nursery have been there a long time. Nobody said anything. Nobody had a problem. As soon as ones went up for Deep Roots, somebody had a problem. When my wife and I and my brother opened two restaurants here about six years ago, I wanted to put up the flags that you see all over town now. Our landlord told us no. The City won’t let you. I said well let the City tell me no, and I put them up at both businesses anyway. Nobody said anything. Drive around town now. I guarantee you will see one hundred of them. There is probably ten in front of Peggy Sue’s alone. Yes, they are against your rules. They are much closer than 25 feet. That’s for sure. You can call them temporary if you want, but they have been there for years now and nobody said a word. The ladder signs, great idea if they are affordable. Just imagine the thirty six businesses that you have right in front of you now. If every one of them wanted to buy ladder signs how many more signs you would have to put up? They would be everywhere. They would be consistent but they would be everywhere. You would have them all over the place. But at $80 a month per sign plus $300 worth of art works. It’s not going to happen. It just isn’t going to happen. It’s like Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 12
24
people advertising in the yellow book anymore. They don’t because people don’t look at it. It’s that simple. This is just one more attack on marijuana is all this is. One more attack on what can we do to not have them make it. When this fails I want to know what the next one is going to be because this is ridiculous. It is silly to keep bringing it up. It’s a dead horse, quit beating it. Thank you. Minutes: Council member Rapson: I don't know where we go from here. I mean we have somebody that doesn’t want them. Somebody that wants to put it off. We have somebody that wants to get it done tonight and whatever. But I am hopeful that we can come to some sort of a – I mean we do not have a sign blight here. I have been on the Council for six and a half years coming up on 7 whatever it was. I have never had one person complain about the signs. I will tell you if Legacy is not in compliance they will be tomorrow. We have a code enforcement officer, John Moratta who does one heck of a good job. I know he and I had personal discussions about it. I got the construction crew out there with a tape measure and moved them. That was a long time ago or a year ago because of the complaints from Canyon Crest and they seem to be the only ones. Mesquite Heights, nobody else seems to have any issues with this thing. As our guest speaker said he lives there and hasn’t heard a peep from anybody about it. I sit there every day for the last six years and I haven’t heard a peep about the signs from anybody. In fact we went so far as to hire the little human directional, the spinners and we got compliments on that and got some laughs but we didn’t get complaints. So I don’t know why we are even doing this but at the minimum we have to leave it alone until somebody comes up with something right. I mean we can’t start punishing businesses for being in business. We have allowed this for so long that it’s wrong to stop it and start enforcing it. We need to address this. We need to come to a conclusion. We need to come to a rational conclusion and we need to remember who pays the bills. It’s the businesses in this town. So I am hopeful. I am not even sure where we go from here. I like number 5. I think we shrink the distance requirements to where off the main circle path down to nothing because if you are driving down Star Nursery by example. If you are driving down Falcon Ridge Blvd. northbound and you don’t see a sign on the corner of Falcon Ridge and Pioneer that says Star Nursery, that way? You are not going to get to Star Nursery. And that’s wrong. So I don’t know where to go from here. I guess I am looking for guidance. We are not making a motion here. Are we or are we? Minutes: Mayor Litman: We don’t have to on this. It’s just a discussion item, but let me make a comment. Also I have been sitting up here in one position or another since 2011 and I get emails about every single thing you can ever imagine, barking dogs to whatever the case may be. I have never once had a complaint from anybody about the signage in Mesquite other than we wish we had more signage to find the businesses. We’ve got an awful lot of empty businesses with signs on them, and we don’t need any more empty businesses in this City if we can possible help it. Minutes: Council member Ballweg: I would like to address the comments. There are two issues. I am on the Board of Directors at the HOA. I get those calls. I get those comments to me. It was one actually when I ran for City Council. There was the smoke – the clean air issue in those but probably third on the list was the directional signs especially going up Oasis Blvd. I heard a lot of that. So if people want to call me a liar that it doesn’t happen well then I guess I will accept that, but it did happen so that is point. One comment I will make is I am not looking here to Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 13
25
penalize businesses but I also am looking at – well let me go back. Just because something is brought up on an issue of the signage and I think just came from several areas of signage attack or concern. Just because the marijuana industry is involved in this doesn’t mean we are targeting the marijuana industry. I mean if that is how we are going to view this every time, it’s like okay well you know here is this issue. With this time it is signs. Sometime it’s going to be something else. Hey, by the way the marijuana business is involved with this. That’s sacrosanct. We can't talk about that, because it is an attack on them. I don’t want to get to that point. This was not an attack on them. It’s an attack on general signage all over. I want the businesses to have the directional signs. I just want it controlled. I don’t want it to look trashy for lack of a better word and just because the industrial park is not done, I mean I want some resemblance of community or completion out there too, not all these random signs put all over. I mean we see signs put up that are not maintained very well. They are torn up. When the road crews come by and have to grade or something like that, they are tore up. So I mean it’s just a consistency. My point right now is I am willing to live with what we have now until we can gain ownership of these ladder signs, bring the cost down to something that is much more reasonable because I agree this is not reasonable at the certain level, and then revisit this to start trying to utilize those signs, but at this time I still think it is something that was well worth visiting, talking about, bringing it out in the community. It is not an attack on marijuana. So everything can’t be an attack on marijuana. Thank you. Minutes: Ernie Hoffman: I live in Mesquite. I have been here for ten years. I was involved with the business in town. When we first got we were on about a dozen of those signs. When I found out what the cost was, it was exorbitant and it was digging in to our pocket, into the profit pocket of keeping that place alive. The other biggest cost in this town is the way the HOA’s are set up in this town. I was a member of the one of the Red Hills Association, but when you turn around and look at that complex up there which has nothing but businesses in it and they pay to two HOA’s and on one of them they get nothing for it. Those signs that you are talking about are expensive. A majority of them you can’t even see the majority of time you are driving or you are past them before you even recognize that is what it is. You would definitely have to go out there and I can’t believe Rich you wouldn’t agree with me, you are going to have to go out there and relocate most of those signs and do a lot more installation of signage to be able to accommodate the businesses you are trying to bring to town. You want to be a business town. You want to bring people here to live, you are going to have to accommodate these businesses. Some way or another everything has to come together as a compromise. It can’t be all my way or your way. That’s the highway. Minutes; Sandra Ramaker, Mesquite citizen: The statement of how can this not be an attack on Deep Roots. If you look at the backup material, the main statement says that this was recently. The City received a complaint about the legality of the new off premises directional sign put up by Deep Roots. So how can you say this isn’t a complaint about Deep Roots when the complaint had to do with a directional sign for Deep Roots when these other signs have been up for the last couple of years at least for Star Nursery? So it is an attack on Deep Roots. We have had these directional signs, but nobody else has complained about for the last couple of years, and they are great signs. I mean if you go out Pioneer Blvd. how else are you going to find Star Nursery particularly or any other business that is out there? So the fact that you are going to tighten up and possibly use number 5, I think is great. I think it is important that we keep the businesses here and that we work to keep the businesses here. We care about our businesses Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 14
26
in Mesquite and without them we are not going to survive, and we want to help all the businesses here. So let’s work together. Minutes: Mayor Litman: Let me make a comment also on this. I happen to bump into our Code Enforcement person the day that he received the complaint and he specifically mentioned to me that this complaint was directed at Deep Roots Medical and he asked me at that point what do I do because I can’t selectively start yanking or calling people at Star Nursery and Allied Storage and telling them they have to do the same thing and yank their signs. I am the one that started this by saying to Code Enforcement, leave it alone. Until this is brought up for some kind of a formal discussion, stay out of it because we can’t selectively tell one business you pull your sign but you leave your sign. That’s step number one into a lawsuit with the City. We don’t selectively enforce. So believe me this came as a direct complaint about Deep Roots Medical, not about the signage in general. Minutes: Council member Rapson: I think we have beaten this horse. I do apologize to Council member Ballweg. I didn’t suggest you were lying. I am just saying that the relative number of people who complain at Canyon Crest are probably pretty small relative to the entire population of Canyon Crest whatever thousand that is plus. Anyway I didn’t mean to suggest you are lying.
Council Member Rapson moved to accept number 5 as the resolution and to direct staff to refine number 5 to conform with the general discussion tonight and bring it back for approval at a later date once refined. Minutes: Council member Ballweg: Council member Rapson, would you mind adding – another caveat to that would be that we would revisit this when we take ownership of the ladder signs?
Council member Rapson: The City will revisit this item when it takes ownership of the ladder signs. Council member Green seconded the motion. Passed For: 5; Against: 0; Abstain: 0; Absent: 0 8)
Adoption of Bill 518 as Ordinance 518 an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Mesquite, Nevada, amending Title 1 of the Mesquite Municipal Code "Administration"; Chapter 1 "Official Municipal Code"; creating Section 5 "Supremacy of Mesquite City Charter"; and other matters properly related thereto.
- Public Hearing - Discussion and Possible Action Minutes: Mayor Litman read this item by its title and deferred to Mr. Sweetin.
Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 15
27
Minutes: Mr. Sweetin: This is just a first step in adjusting our City Ordinances to match our Charter. There is nothing about signs in here. So it shouldn’t be too controversial. So I will kick it back to Council and if you have any questions I will answer them. Minutes: Mayor Litman opened this item to Public Hearing. There were no speakers. Mayor Litman closed this item to Public Hearing.
Council member Rapson moved to Adopt Bill 518 as Ordinance 518 an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Mesquite, Nevada, amending Title 1 of the Mesquite Municipal Code "Administration"; Chapter 1 "Official Municipal Code"; creating Section 5 "Supremacy of Mesquite City Charter"; and other matters properly related thereto. Council member Ballweg seconded the motion. Passed For: 5; Against: 0; Abstain: 0; Absent: 0 9)
Consideration of a conditional business license for Deep Roots Harvest to sell wholesale and retail recreational marijuana at 195 Willis Carrier Canyon and other matters properly related thereto.
- Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action
Minutes: Mayor Litman read this item by its title and deferred to Richard Secrist. Minutes: Mr. Secrist: This proposal was put forward after our last discussion a couple of weeks back on the recreational marijuana issue and the need to get regulations in place, the need to establish fees, etc. We are proposing this conditional business license now as an interim measure, we will be back within ninety days with proposed permanent code amendments both in area zoning and business license regulations that implement what the State has done with their rules. But this at least gets things moving, gets them a license, establishes a 3% business license fee on their gross sales and we recommend approval. Minutes: Council member Rapson: I am the petitioner here. This is a result of as Richard said the discussion at the last meeting. I would like to say that Deep Roots has told me anyway that they intend to be paying the 3% effective July 1st when they open their retail business and I think whether that is practical from the separation of inventory issues or just out of the goodness of their heart and the right thing to do, it doesn’t really matter. I think it is important to note that they did say we have no problem with that. If there are no other comments – I am sure there will be.
Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 16
28
Minutes: Council member Ballweg: I am going to toot my horn a little bit. This is my invention. I am glad we are able to use it for this. So there may be some doubters out there but I am. This is the regulation that we needed and we need it all along. The one thing I have to state is I cannot petition for a business license as a City Council member so I did my best to try to bring it up to the City as an intention. The one thing I would ask that we consider on here is to add the opening and closing times conform to the medical marijuana statute of opening and closing because there was no – I could not find anywhere in there that it pointed to opening closing times. Other than that I had no other comments on that. Minutes: Council member Rapson: What are the medical limitations? Minutes Mr. Secrist: 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM. Minutes: Council member Rapson: Okay so right now they are 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM, I believe. Minutes: Mr. Secrist: That is correct. Minutes: Council member Rapson: I don’t think I have a big issue with that. Minutes: Council member Ballweg: I just didn't want it to be some run around the clock. I just want to tie down. Minutes: Council member Rapson: I got that and yes, Council member Ballweg is right, this was his invention and it’s being applied appropriately here as it was applied appropriately the first time he did it. I agree. Now I will make a motion if there are no other comments or public comments.
Council member Rapson moved to approve conditional business license for Deep Roots Harvest to sell wholesale and retail and would like to see the hours delineated in the final product including all of the conditions outlined in the request letter and direct staff to present a proposed ordinance within 90 days for the City Council’s consideration. Council member Green seconded the motion. Minutes: Mayor Litman: Before we take the vote, Mr. Sweetin do you have a comment on this? Minutes: Mr. Sweetin: Yes, thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to note to Council member Ballweg’s point and to Council member Rapson’s that Deep Roots has been a very good business partner. They have followed all the state regulations, but in the event that they fail to like for example in Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 17
29
opening or closing or any other and I am not saying they would do this, but if the hypothetical came up that they did market something that you know might be theoretically targeted towards a child, the Council in any case could bring this back at any time to review it and revoke. They would be able to do that. So to the extent that anyone is concerned about that or the public’s concerned about that, which is kind of the double edge sword of the conditional business license. Minutes: Council member Green: You mean if they violate any State Regulation? Minutes: Mr. Sweetin: Correct. So we don't have it spelled out in here. I think it is a good idea to add that in. Legally what Council member Ballweg proposed but for example, there is no provision in here saying you have to follow all state laws. Well it’s a discretionary license. It’s a privileged license so you guys can – Council can revoke that at any point at any case.
Passed For: 5; Against: 0; Abstain: 0; Absent: 0
10)
Consideration of approval for the appointment of Interim Administrator for Mesquite Fire and Rescue.
- Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Minutes: Mayor Litman read this by item by its title and deferred to Andy Barton. Minutes: Mr. Barton: After the departure of Chief Christopher in May, I have been evaluating several options for longer term management of the fire department. This has been a bit challenging. We have had turnovers at the top of that department which is both I think disruptive and difficult for departmental staff, so I decided on recommending a path for them which offers both stability and familiarity. I am recommending that we create the position of Interim Administrator for Mesquite Fire and Rescue. This is temporary position. I am proposing that we appoint Chief Troy Tanner to the position. I am also recommending that position is temporary. It will last no fewer than six months and no more than twelve. During that period of time, Chief Tanner will act as the department head and work closely with fire department staff. At the end of his assignment, Troy will make a recommendation to move for an internal appointment to fire chief and he will resume his sole function as police chief. Troy would be paid a stipend of $15,000 for the extra duties of managing a second department. I believe that Troy can provide needed organizational structure to that department, and while there are a number of organizational challenges that the fire department is facing, there is no question that Mesquite Fire and Rescue work product is excellent. So residents should continue to expect the same level of terrific service that they have received throughout the transition period and beyond. An alternative that I consider was working through a public sector recruitment agency to hire an interim fire chief. The cost to do essentially the same thing that I am asking Chief Tanner to do, the cost for going this route could easily slip into six figures and there’s another factor too. In contrast, Troy has Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 18
30
worked for the City for over twenty years, the last six of which he has worked as police chief and he’s worked closely with Mesquite Fire and Rescue during that time frame. We are all familiar with Troy’s management ability and I am confident that he can put those skills to work managing the fire department. Let me finally stress that this is a temporary appointment. In the long term I really believe that the fire department is best served by someone with a background in the fire service and that’s our goal to appoint a chief preferably from within our fire department ranks. In the short term however, I think the interim administrator position will serve as a bridge to get us from here to there. I would be happy to answer any questions that the Council may have. Minutes: Mayor Litman: Any questions from Council? I don't see any. Are there any questions from the public? I don't see any. At this point I will seek a motion.
Council member Ballweg moved to appoint Police Chief Troy Tanner as Interim Fire Department Administrator for a period no less than six months, but not to exceed one year. Council member Rapson seconded the motion. Passed For: 5; Against: 0; Abstain: 0; Absent: 0
Public Comments 11)
Public Comment
Minutes: Mayor Litman opened up the meeting to Final Public Comment. Minutes: Steve Clutterham, Mesquite Resident. I don't want you all to try to make any kind of instant decision on this tonight but based on some of the things I heard earlier I would like to plant a little seed in your head. Talking people from Smoke Free Mesquite and Rudy's comments he had about second hand smoke. Yeah, there is a lot of proof if you sit in a room full of people smoking pot and you are the only one not doing it you will get a second hand high. However, if you are in a casino with ten people using a vapor pipe you are not going to. However one of the other questions that came up a couple of weeks ago when we were trying to decide about the recreational marijuana was people come in from out of state. Where are they going to use it? It’s a good question. Like the rest of you, I don’t want them using it in public. I don’t want them using it in casinos or restaurants or anywhere else. I don’t want our arrest reports go up because everybody is getting arrested or being high. But you do have to address that situation. Where are they going to use it? One suggestion is to allow Deep Roots now that they are open; they are selling recreational marijuana to allow them to have a marijuana café, to let people do it there on those premises. I know you hate that idea. They are going to do it somewhere. They are going to buy it. They are going to do it somewhere. It’s that simple. This is while many other towns, cities, states and countries have solved that problem. If they get too high, just like if they get too drunk in a casino and they get arrested, that’s their problem. But they are going to do that anyway if they already came here and bought that pot. If you want to not have people loitering around and getting high on street corners and driving their cars and smoking pot and what have you, you need to make an option. I am going to tell you right now, for years, but Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 19
31
especially since January 1st, people have been using vapor pens and smoking in casinos. They use it mixed with so much other things, mostly cigarette tobacco, that the average person will never know it. They are right. You are going to have a hard time enforcing it for people who are using vapor pens. It’s almost impossible. So you got to think of other options. Right now that is the only one I can think of. Thank you. Minutes: Mayor Litman: Let me comment to that one real quick before we adjourn the meeting then. That would be against State Law at this time. The State did look at that possibility and they voted that down almost unanimously. I did have conversations with the head of security both at Eureka and the Casa Blanca and they will have signage up and they are fully aware of the situation. I asked that one hotel what would they do and they said the best thing to do is ask the individual to leave and of course if they don’t then they call the police. It is still a $600 fine for the usage in public no matter what you do.
Adjournment 12)
Adjournment
Minutes: Mayor Litman adjourned the meeting at 6:12 PM
_______________________________
__________________________
Allan S. Litman, Mayor
Tracy E. Beck, City Clerk
Mesquite Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 11, 2017; 5:00 PM Page 20
32
Mesquite Technical Review Meeting Mesquite City Hall 10 E. Mesquite Blvd. Tuesday, August 1, 2017; 1:30 PM Minutes of a scheduled meeting of the City Council held Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 1:30 PM at City Hall. In attendance were Mayor Allan S. Litman, Council members David Ballweg, Rich Green, George Rapson, and Brian Wursten. Also in attendance were City Manager Andy Barton, Assistant to the City Manager Aaron Baker, Public Works Director Bill Tanner, Development Services Director Richard Secrist, City Clerk Tracy E. Beck, other city staff and approximately 3 citizens. Mayor Litman called the meeting order at 1:30 and noted Council member Withelder’s absence. (Note: This meeting was recorded and will remain on file in the office of the City Clerk for four (4) years for public examination). Below is an agenda of all items scheduled to be considered. Unless otherwise stated, items may be taken out of the order presented on the agenda at the discretion of the Mayor and Council. Additionally, the Mayor and Council may combine two or more agenda items for consideration, and may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda at any time. Public comment is limited to three minutes per person.
Public Comments 1)
Public Comment
Minutes: Mayor Litman opened up the meeting to Public Comment. There were no speakers.
Consent Agenda 2)
Consideration for approval of the July 25, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Agenda, the July 5, 2017 Technical Review Meeting minutes
- Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action
Mesquite Technical Review Meeting Minutes August 1, 2017; 1:30 PM Page 1
33
Minutes: Mayor Litman read this item by its item by its title and asked if there were any questions or comments. There were no speakers. 3) a) b) c) d)
Consideration of approval of: Notification of Budget Transfers Notification of Budget Amendments Notification of Bills Paid Purchase Orders
- Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Minutes: Mayor Litman read this item by its title and asked if there were any questions or comments. There were no speakers. 4)
Consideration of approval of Bid Award for the City of Mesquite Historical Gymnasium Masonry Renovation May 2017.
- Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Minutes: Mayor Litman read this item by its title and asked if there were any questions or comments for Bill Tanner. Minutes: Council member Ballweg: Is there anything worthwhile to talk to the public about? Minutes: Mr. Tanner: No really, it is a renovation project. We do have a grant for $40,000. Minutes: Council member Wursten: How much does that get used – that gymnasium? Minutes: Mr. Tanner: Probably it could be used more that it is. Minutes: Council member Ballweg: Not much since the boxing has moved out. Minutes: Mr. Tanner: We have taken the swamp coolers and the A/C is down, and we have taken the compressors off the wall. We have stripped the gymnasium all the way around. I sent an email out a couple of months ago that indicated that we were going to start stripping the gymnasium all the way around, so it would not be available for usage because there is not any cooling and we had to get the windows opened up to find out what the damage is and what we are doing Mesquite Technical Review Meeting Minutes August 1, 2017; 1:30 PM Page 2
34
there. So the window system next process forward after we get the masonry done, then we will start retrofitting the windows. Minutes: Council member Ballweg: Is there any intent to do anything with the stage up there? Minutes: Mr. Tanner: I can’t answer that.
Resolutions & Proclamations 5) Presentation by the Nevada League of Cities regarding the 2017 Legislative Session, the upcoming Annual League Conference in Mesquite and other matters properly related thereto. - Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Minutes: Mayor Litman read this item by its title and asked if Wes was going to be here? Minutes: Aaron Baker: Yes. Wes is going to be here 6) Presentation by the Hardy Consulting Group regarding the 2017 79th Regular Nevada Legislative Session and other matters properly related thereto. - Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Minutes: Mayor Litman read this item by its title and asked if there were any questions or comments. Minutes: Aaron Baker: Be aware that you will receive the same presentation twice.
Resolutions & Proclamations 7.
Consideration of Resolution No. 931 (All Secure Storage) to rezone 5.13acres from Rural Residential (RE-3) and Single Family (SF) to Light Industrial Planned Unit Development (IR-PUD) located at 200 West Hafen Lane on Parcel 1 of the Bunkerville Irrigation Company Parcel Map. - Public Hearing - Discussion and Possible Action Mesquite Technical Review Meeting Minutes August 1, 2017; 1:30 PM Page 3
35
Minutes: Mayor Litman read this item by its title and deferred to Richard Secrist and asked if that was on Hafen. Minutes: Mr. Secrist: Yes. Minutes: Council member Rapson: Just down from the Secure Storage. Minutes: Mr. Secrist: Right next door, Phase two.
Department Reports 8)
Mayor's Comments
Minutes: Mayor Litman: Nothing I can think of. 9)
City Council and Staff Comments and Reports
Minutes: Mayor Litman: There were no speakers either from Council or Staff.
Administrative Items 10.
Consideration of a maintenance agreement between Highland Hills HOA, Falcon Ridge Community Association, and the City of Mesquite for the remaining landscaped area of Birdie Park in Highland Hills. - Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action
Minutes: Mayor Litman read this item by its title and deferred to Richard Secrist. There were no speakers.
11.
Consideration of the Adoption of Bill No. 520 as Ordinance No. 520, amending Title 2 of the Mesquite Municipal Code “Business License Regulations”; Chapter 2 “Taxes”; Creating Article D. “Supplementing Public Safety through Marijuana Revenues” - Public Hearing
Mesquite Technical Review Meeting Minutes August 1, 2017; 1:30 PM Page 4
36
- Discussion and Possible Action
Minutes: Mayor Litman read this item by its title and stated that this was Council member Green's item if there were any questions or comments. There were no speakers.
Public Comments 14)
Public Comment
Minutes: Mayor Litman opened up the meeting to Final Public Comments. There were no speakers
Adjournment 15)
Adjournment
Minutes: Mayor Litman adjourned the meeting at 1:34 PM
_______________________________ Allan S. Litman, Mayor
__________________________ Tracy E. Beck, City Clerk
Mesquite Technical Review Meeting Minutes August 1, 2017; 1:30 PM Page 5
37
Technical Review Agenda Item 3 Submitted by: Dodie Melendez Submitting Department: Finance Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Consideration of approval of: a) Notification of Budget Transfers b) Notification of Budget Amendments c) Notification of Bills Paid d) Purchase Orders - Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action
Recommendation: Approval of Budget Transfers, Budget Amendments, Bills Paid, and Purchase Orders. Petitioner: David Empey – Financial Director/City Treasurer Is this a budgeted item? No Fiscal Impact: See Attached Background: See Attached
Attachments: Check Register - City Council Agenda 07.24.17 to 08.06.17.pdf Combined Budget Trsfrs & POs for Council.pdf
38
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017
1
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
Report Criteria: Report type: GL detail GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
08/17
08/03/2017
170284
Payee
13165 NV. ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
071017
1
10-50-230
Total 170284: 08/17
08/03/2017
08/04/2017
223.00-
.00 170355
12255 JUSTIN GOODSELL
071717
1
10-54-610
Total 170355: 08/17
.00
.00
223.001,400.00
.00 170356
12694 3M TRAFFIC SAFETY SYS. DIV.
SS73693
1
10-65-250
Total 170356:
.00
223.00- V
1,400.00 1,400.00
273.00
.00
273.00 273.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22252
1
10-63-310
.00
80.00
80.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22253
1
10-63-310
.00
500.00
500.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22254
1
10-63-310
.00
80.00
80.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22255
1
10-63-310
.00
130.00
130.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22256
1
10-63-310
.00
600.00
600.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22257
1
10-63-310
.00
80.00
80.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22258
1
10-63-310
.00
130.00
130.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22259
1
10-63-310
.00
80.00
80.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22260
1
10-63-310
.00
130.00
130.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22261
1
10-63-310
.00
80.00
80.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22262
1
10-63-310
.00
300.00
300.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22263
1
10-63-310
.00
80.00
80.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22264
1
10-63-310
.00
100.00
100.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22265
1
10-63-310
.00
230.00
230.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22266
1
10-63-310
.00
95.00
95.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22267
1
10-63-310
.00
80.00
80.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170357
10442 ACE FIRE SYSTEMS, INC.
22268
1
10-63-310
.00
240.00
240.00
Total 170357:
.00
3,015.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170358
14628 AIR CONDITIONING DISCOUNT
8689
1
10-63-250
.00
10.65
10.65
08/17
08/04/2017
170358
14628 AIR CONDITIONING DISCOUNT
8698
1
10-63-250
.00
69.19
69.19
08/17
08/04/2017
170358
14628 AIR CONDITIONING DISCOUNT
8710
1
10-63-610
.00
83.33
83.33
08/17
08/04/2017
170358
14628 AIR CONDITIONING DISCOUNT
8717
1
10-63-250
.00
110.00
110.00
39 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
08/17
08/04/2017
170358
14628 AIR CONDITIONING DISCOUNT
8789
1
10-63-250
.00
380.00
380.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170358
14628 AIR CONDITIONING DISCOUNT
8806
1
10-63-250
.00
31.45
31.45
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170358:
.00
684.62
08/17
08/04/2017
170359
3655 AIRGAS USA LLC
9065491920
1
10-57-615
.00
106.01
106.01
08/17
08/04/2017
170359
3655 AIRGAS USA LLC
9065491921
1
10-57-615
.00
125.51
125.51
Total 170359:
.00
231.52
08/17
08/04/2017
170360
8756 ALSCO
LSTG752694
1
10-60-310
.00
141.03
141.03
08/17
08/04/2017
170360
8756 ALSCO
LSTG754520
1
16-71-480
.00
93.36
93.36
08/17
08/04/2017
170360
8756 ALSCO
LSTG755463
1
10-66-610
.00
32.50
32.50
08/17
08/04/2017
170360
8756 ALSCO
LSTG756385
1
10-60-310
.00
141.03
141.03
08/17
08/04/2017
170360
8756 ALSCO
LSTG756389
1
10-66-610
.00
48.20
48.20
Total 170360: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170361
1050 AMERICAN SHOOTERS SUPPL
285886
1
10-54-610
Total 170361:
.00
456.12 74.95
.00
74.95 74.95
08/17
08/04/2017
170362
14353 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTOR
S094370947
1
10-66-245
.00
148.52
148.52
08/17
08/04/2017
170362
14353 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTOR
S094708271
1
10-66-245
.00
419.12
419.12
08/17
08/04/2017
170362
14353 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTOR
S094768274
1
10-66-245
.00
505.04
505.04
08/17
08/04/2017
170362
14353 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTOR
S094843083
1
10-66-245
.00
80.93
80.93
Total 170362: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170363
15775 ANA HUGHES
072517
1
17-34-405
Total 170363: 08/17
08/04/2017
2430 ANDERSON HERITAGE ELEC. I
14260
1
10-81-250
Total 170364: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
1,153.61 60.00
.00 170364
.00
15073 ARROW INTERNATIONAL INC
94980992
1
10-57-615
.00
60.00 60.00
110.40
.00 170365
2
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
110.40 110.40
662.85
662.85
40 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170365:
.00
662.85
08/17
08/04/2017
170366
11104 ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT
AMD1143
1
83-81-010
.00
872.02
872.02
08/17
08/04/2017
170366
11104 ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT
AMG 1117
1
83-82-010
.00
1,531.01
1,531.01
Total 170366: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170367
12319 AUTO ZONE
2230051672
1
10-66-480
Total 170367: 08/17
08/04/2017
9268 AUTOMOTIVE CERTIFIED TECH
81004
1
10-66-250
Total 170368: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
2,403.03 30.54
.00 170368
.00
14265 BEST DEAL SPRINGS, INC.
3004379
1
10-66-250
Total 170369:
.00
30.54 30.54
55.93
.00 170369
55.93 55.93
345.12
.00
345.12 345.12
08/17
08/04/2017
170370
12190 BETTY KING
JULY 17
1
17-80-310
.00
192.00
192.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170370
12190 BETTY KING
JULY 172
1
17-80-310
.00
187.50
187.50
Total 170370: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170371
15783 BEVERLY BRACK
080117
1
10-34-400
Total 170371:
.00
379.50 75.00
.00
75.00 75.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170372
13453 BILL A BERRETT, P.C.
072417
1
10-51-310
.00
150.00
150.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170372
13453 BILL A BERRETT, P.C.
17CR00332
1
10-51-310
.00
150.00
150.00
Total 170372:
3
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
300.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170373
12062 BINGHAM & SNOW LLP
16CR00653
1
10-51-310
.00
170.00
170.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170373
12062 BINGHAM & SNOW LLP
17CR00139
1
10-51-310
.00
300.00
300.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170373
12062 BINGHAM & SNOW LLP
17CR00178
1
10-51-310
.00
150.00
150.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170373
12062 BINGHAM & SNOW LLP
17CR00194-
1
10-51-310
.00
200.00
200.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170373
12062 BINGHAM & SNOW LLP
17CR00201
1
10-51-310
.00
150.00
150.00
41 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
08/17
08/04/2017
170373
Payee
12062 BINGHAM & SNOW LLP
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
17CR00253
1
10-51-310
Total 170373: 08/17
08/04/2017
15776 BUNKERVILLE 1ST WARD
072017
1
17-34-400
Total 170374: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
210.00
.00 170374
.00
14618 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES,
17591426
1
10-49-250
Total 170375:
.00
210.00 1,180.00
60.00
.00 170375
60.00 60.00
1,390.47
.00
1,390.47 1,390.47
08/17
08/04/2017
170376
4755 CASELLE INC.
35457
1
10-46-230
.00
900.00
900.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170376
4755 CASELLE INC.
81440
1
83-82-610
.00
244.12
244.12
08/17
08/04/2017
170376
4755 CASELLE INC.
81440
2
83-81-610
.00
244.12
244.12
08/17
08/04/2017
170376
4755 CASELLE INC.
81440
3
52-40-310
.00
35.00
35.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170376
4755 CASELLE INC.
81440
4
10-46-310
.00
168.00
168.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170376
4755 CASELLE INC.
81440
5
10-46-310
.00
402.08
402.08
08/17
08/04/2017
170376
4755 CASELLE INC.
81440
6
52-40-310
.00
545.68
545.68
Total 170376: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170377
14492 CENTURYLINK
1415314701
1
10-49-290
Total 170377:
.00
2,539.00 583.73
.00
583.73 583.73
08/17
08/04/2017
170378
1608 CLARK CO. DEPT. OF FINANCE
JULY 17
1
10-23240
.00
21,498.25
21,498.25
08/17
08/04/2017
170378
1608 CLARK CO. DEPT. OF FINANCE
JUNE 17
1
10-23130
.00
20,309.85
20,309.85
Total 170378:
.00
41,808.10
08/17
08/04/2017
170379
9547 CLARK CO. INFO TECH DEPT
90215804
1
10-54-310
.00
153.00
153.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170379
9547 CLARK CO. INFO TECH DEPT
90215824
1
10-47-310
.00
8,000.00
8,000.00
Total 170379:
4
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
8,153.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170380
8634 CLARK CO. TREASURER
JUNE 17
1
10-23140
.00
20,309.85
20,309.85
08/17
08/04/2017
170380
8634 CLARK CO. TREASURER
JUNE 2017
1
10-23140
.00
12,693.65
12,693.65
42 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170380: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170381
14728 CLARK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFI
080217
1
10-50-210
Total 170381: 08/17
08/04/2017
15784 CLAUDIA RICHARD
073117
1
10-34-400
Total 170382: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
33,003.50 20.00
.00 170382
.00
15769 COUNTY OF BEXAR
LI-4775
1
10-54-310
Total 170383:
.00
20.00 20.00
75.00
.00 170383
75.00 75.00
700.00
.00
700.00 700.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170384
12005 COYOTE CARPET CLEANING
3642
1
10-81-610
.00
150.00
150.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170384
12005 COYOTE CARPET CLEANING
3643
1
10-81-610
.00
250.00
250.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170384
12005 COYOTE CARPET CLEANING
3644
1
10-81-610
.00
250.00
250.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170384
12005 COYOTE CARPET CLEANING
3645
1
10-81-250
.00
400.00
400.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170384
12005 COYOTE CARPET CLEANING
3646
1
10-81-610
.00
425.00
425.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170384
12005 COYOTE CARPET CLEANING
3650
1
10-81-610
.00
450.00
450.00
Total 170384: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170385
15778 DIANE BURGE
081317
1
15-60-330
Total 170385: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
1,925.00 1,015.10
.00 170386
15777 DIANNE HEMPHILL
072417
1
10-34-400
Total 170386:
.00
1,015.10 1,015.10
65.00
.00
65.00 65.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170387
10666 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY
W287398101
1
17-80-485
.00
1,713.76
1,713.76
08/17
08/04/2017
170387
10666 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY
W287687801
1
17-80-485
.00
114.99
114.99
08/17
08/04/2017
170387
10666 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY
W288113701
1
17-80-485
.00
53.05
53.05
Total 170387: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170388
1945 DIVERSIFIED INSPECTIONS, IN
279564
1
10-57-250
5
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
1,881.80 2,340.34
2,340.34
43 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170388:
.00
2,340.34
08/17
08/04/2017
170389
14672 ELECTRICAL WHOLESALE SUP
913337326
1
10-63-610
.00
20.79
20.79
08/17
08/04/2017
170389
14672 ELECTRICAL WHOLESALE SUP
913337326
2
10-63-610
.00
120.81
120.81
08/17
08/04/2017
170389
14672 ELECTRICAL WHOLESALE SUP
913337326
3
10-63-610
.00
181.61
181.61
Total 170389: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170390
15793 ELLEN GLADYS
0801117
1
10-34-400
Total 170390: 08/17
08/04/2017
9560 EUREKA CASINO, HOTEL
072817
1
10-32-100
Total 170391: 08/17
08/04/2017
08/04/2017
170392
15785 EVELYN KLIMIUK
080117
1
10-34-400
08/04/2017
170393
15717 EVERBRIDGE, INC.
M34064
1
10-54-700
08/04/2017
170394
8643 FINAL DETAILS
41003
1
10-63-610
08/04/2017
170395
10723 FORSGREN ASSOCIATES INC.
10975
1
25-85-757
08/04/2017
55.00
.00
.00
.00
170396
14274 FRESHAIRE/AIREMASTER
76008
1
10-81-610
.00
5,500.00
15786 FREY-MOSS STRUCTURES INC
080117
1
10-32-100
.00
5,500.00 5,500.00
42.00
42.00 42.00
1,867.35
1,867.35 1,867.35
70.00
.00 170397
55.00 55.00
.00
Total 170396: 08/17
.00
50.00 50.00
.00
Total 170395: 08/17
50.00
.00
Total 170394: 08/17
.00
95.00 95.00
.00
Total 170393: 08/17
95.00
.00
Total 170392: 08/17
.00
323.21
.00 170391
6
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
70.00 70.00
5.00
5.00
44 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170397: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170398
14599 FUN EXPRESS
684614940-0
1
10-81-485
Total 170398: 08/17
08/04/2017
15770 GARY HUPPERT
864
1
15-23200
Total 170399: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
5.00 109.21
.00 170399
.00
15505 GINA R SANDOVAL
JULY 17
1
17-80-310
Total 170400:
.00
109.21 109.21
1,325.00
.00 170400
1,325.00 1,325.00
180.00
.00
180.00 180.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170401
2245 GRAINGER, INC.
9496518284
1
10-65-250
.00
87.30
87.30
08/17
08/04/2017
170401
2245 GRAINGER, INC.
9500259065
1
10-65-610
.00
42.39
42.39
Total 170401: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170402
11970 GREATER MESQUITE ARTS FO
100
1
25-85-768
Total 170402:
.00
129.69 3,335.00
.00
3,335.00 3,335.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170403
4900 H & E EQUIPMENT SERVICES,
93301948 C
1
10-66-250
.00
228.60
228.60
08/17
08/04/2017
170403
4900 H & E EQUIPMENT SERVICES,
93303114
1
10-76-740
.00
59,742.00
59,742.00
Total 170403:
.00
59,970.60
08/17
08/04/2017
170404
9347 HARTWELL FAMILY PRACTICE
170413
1
10-54-320
.00
450.00
450.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170404
9347 HARTWELL FAMILY PRACTICE
170413TM
1
10-54-320
.00
150.00
150.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170404
9347 HARTWELL FAMILY PRACTICE
170421
1
10-54-320
.00
450.00
450.00
Total 170404: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170405
Total 170405:
15771 HEIDI PETERSEN
071217
1
17-80-610
7
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00 .00
1,050.00 55.00
55.00 55.00
45 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
08/17
08/04/2017
170406
2452 HIGH DESERT SUPPLY
IN00172612
1
10-66-250
.00
238.62
238.62
08/17
08/04/2017
170406
2452 HIGH DESERT SUPPLY
IN00172745
1
10-66-250
.00
120.54
120.54
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170406: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170407
13093 HONNEN EQUIPMENT
872303
1
10-66-250
Total 170407: 08/17
08/04/2017
14966 HORROCKS ENGINEERS INC
43758
1
45-40-811
Total 170408: 08/17
08/04/2017
08/04/2017
28.16
.00
170409
15787 HURRICANE CITY RECREATIO
6536907
1
17-80-610
.00
7,467.00
13454 IACP
1728192
1
10-54-230
Total 170410:
.00
7,467.00 7,467.00
220.00
.00 170410
28.16 28.16
.00
Total 170409: 08/17
.00
359.16
.00 170408
220.00 220.00
350.00
.00
350.00 350.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170411
2435 IMAGE PRO PRINTING INC.
91382
1
10-54-240
.00
335.83
335.83
08/17
08/04/2017
170411
2435 IMAGE PRO PRINTING INC.
91468
1
10-54-240
.00
179.87
179.87
Total 170411: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170412
8506 INTERMOUNTAIN CONCRETE S 1707-211431
1
10-65-615
Total 170412:
.00
515.70 26.00
.00
26.00 26.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170413
15504 ITSAVVY LLC
00966614
1
10-47-240
.00
137.44
137.44
08/17
08/04/2017
170413
15504 ITSAVVY LLC
00966798
1
10-47-260
.00
1,185.90
1,185.90
08/17
08/04/2017
170413
15504 ITSAVVY LLC
00966874
1
10-54-610
.00
69.23
69.23
Total 170413:
8
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
1,392.57
08/17
08/04/2017
170414
13293 JAMES E. GUESMAN
071117
1
10-51-310
.00
225.00
225.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170414
13293 JAMES E. GUESMAN
072017
1
10-51-310
.00
200.00
200.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170414
13293 JAMES E. GUESMAN
072417
1
10-51-310
.00
275.00
275.00
46 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170414: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170415
14171 JESSICA BUCKLIN
JULY 17
1
17-80-310
Total 170415: 08/17
08/04/2017
15772 JESSICA CUELAR
071717
1
17-34-405
Total 170416: 08/17
08/04/2017
08/04/2017
170417
15788 JLG TRAINING ASSOCATES IN
072717
1
10-54-230
08/04/2017
.00
.00
170418
13999 JO ANNE F SMITH
JULY 17
1
17-80-310
.00
50.00
15789 JODY TORGENSON
870
1
15-23200
Total 170419:
.00
50.00 50.00
299.00
299.00 299.00
256.00
.00 170419
157.50 157.50
.00
Total 170418: 08/17
157.50
.00
Total 170417: 08/17
.00
700.00
.00 170416
256.00 256.00
255.00
.00
255.00 255.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170420
15617 JOSE GUILLEN
2175
1
52-40-610
.00
114.00
114.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170420
15617 JOSE GUILLEN
2176
1
52-40-610
.00
284.00
284.00
Total 170420:
.00
398.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170421
15460 KAERCHER CAMPBELL & ASSO
061717SW
1
52-14000
.00
43,980.00
43,980.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170421
15460 KAERCHER CAMPBELL & ASSO
062717
1
10-14000
.00
78,188.00
78,188.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170421
15460 KAERCHER CAMPBELL & ASSO
062717WC
1
10-22250
.00
89,857.00
89,857.00
Total 170421: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170422
15790 KATHERINE MAYSTADT
080117
1
10-34-400
Total 170422: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
212,025.00 75.00
.00 170423
9218 KNORR SYSTEMS INC.
SI192838
1
10-81-250
9
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
75.00 75.00
94.33
94.33
47 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170423:
.00
94.33
08/17
08/04/2017
170424
13701 KRT CONCEPTS LLC
17-0583
1
10-81-740
.00
2,498.00
2,498.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170424
13701 KRT CONCEPTS LLC
17-0584
1
10-81-740
.00
2,498.00
2,498.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170424
13701 KRT CONCEPTS LLC
17-0585
1
10-81-740
.00
2,498.00
2,498.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170424
13701 KRT CONCEPTS LLC
17-0586
1
10-81-740
.00
2,497.00
2,497.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170424
13701 KRT CONCEPTS LLC
17-0596
1
10-81-740
.00
8,238.40
8,238.40
Total 170424: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170425
15779 KUSTOM CONTAINER
17-7-6256
1
10-54-250
Total 170425:
.00
18,229.40 2,250.00
.00
2,250.00 2,250.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170426
3050 L V REVIEW-JOURNAL
0000927083
1
10-61-220
.00
121.40
121.40
08/17
08/04/2017
170426
3050 L V REVIEW-JOURNAL
0000927203
1
10-44-220
.00
72.96
72.96
Total 170426:
.00
194.36
08/17
08/04/2017
170427
9979 LARRY LEMIEUX
080417 WC
1
12-87-610
.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170427
9979 LARRY LEMIEUX
080517
1
12-87-310
.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170427
9979 LARRY LEMIEUX
080517
2
12-87-695
.00
99.39-
99.39-
08/17
08/04/2017
170427
9979 LARRY LEMIEUX
080517
3
12-87-310
.00
16.00
16.00
Total 170427:
50.921,875.25
.00
50.921,875.25
1,740.94
08/17
08/04/2017
170428
3000 LAS VEGAS CONVENTION AUT
JULY 17
1
10-23100
.00
2,217.00
2,217.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170428
3000 LAS VEGAS CONVENTION AUT
JUNE 2017
1
10-23115
.00
10,154.92
10,154.92
08/17
08/04/2017
170428
3000 LAS VEGAS CONVENTION AUT
JUNE 2017
1
10-23110
.00
81,239.39
81,239.39
Total 170428: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170429
3030 LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE DE
866 - JULY 1
1
15-21340
Total 170429: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
93,611.31 396.00
.00 170430
10236 LEGACY CONSTRUCTION, INC
7761
1
52-40-310
10
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
396.00 396.00
29,064.46
29,064.46
48 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170430:
.00
29,064.46
08/17
08/04/2017
170431
9516 LIFE ASSIST INC.
806867
1
10-57-615
.00
344.59
08/17
08/04/2017
170431
9516 LIFE ASSIST INC.
807031
1
10-57-615
.00
636.00
636.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170431
9516 LIFE ASSIST INC.
807408
1
10-57-615
.00
1,347.47
1,347.47
08/17
08/04/2017
170431
9516 LIFE ASSIST INC.
807527
1
10-57-615
.00
180.00
180.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170431
9516 LIFE ASSIST INC.
807847
1
10-57-615
.00
852.80
852.80
08/17
08/04/2017
170431
9516 LIFE ASSIST INC.
808011
1
10-57-615
.00
87.88
87.88
08/17
08/04/2017
170431
9516 LIFE ASSIST INC.
808086
1
10-57-615
.00
20.46
20.46
08/17
08/04/2017
170431
9516 LIFE ASSIST INC.
808305
1
10-57-615
.00
328.00
328.00
Total 170431:
.00
344.59
3,797.20
08/17
08/04/2017
170432
15563 LIFE LINE EMERGENCY VEHICL 005591
1
10-66-250
.00
3,813.72
3,813.72
08/17
08/04/2017
170432
15563 LIFE LINE EMERGENCY VEHICL 006233
1
10-66-250
.00
1,366.66
1,366.66
08/17
08/04/2017
170432
15563 LIFE LINE EMERGENCY VEHICL 006288
1
10-66-250
.00
3,798.80-
3,798.80-
08/17
08/04/2017
170432
15563 LIFE LINE EMERGENCY VEHICL 006495
1
10-66-250
.00
1,010.92-
1,010.92-
Total 170432: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170433
15773 LISA GOOD
071817
1
01-11750
Total 170433: 08/17
08/04/2017
9899 MADISON NATIONAL LIFE INS.
AUG 17
1
10-22510
Total 170434: 08/17
08/04/2017
08/04/2017
170435
12972 MANDY MUIR
JULY 17
1
17-80-310
08/04/2017
.00
.00
170436
15792 MARGARET WILEY
080117
1
10-34-400
.00
4,997.17
14693 MARGARITA MAGADAN
MAY17
1
17-80-310
.00
4,997.17 4,997.17
132.00
132.00 132.00
35.00
.00 170437
81.18 81.18
.00
Total 170436: 08/17
81.18
.00
Total 170435: 08/17
.00
370.66
.00 170434
11
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
35.00 35.00
108.00
108.00
49 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170437: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170438
14440 MARIA AMARILES
JULY 17
1
17-80-310
Total 170438:
.00
108.00 105.00
.00
105.00 105.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170439
3276 MASTERTECH SECURITY SERV 285491
1
10-81-310
.00
21.95
21.95
08/17
08/04/2017
170439
3276 MASTERTECH SECURITY SERV 285491
2
10-63-310
.00
37.90
37.90
08/17
08/04/2017
170439
3276 MASTERTECH SECURITY SERV 285491
3
10-55-610
.00
21.95
21.95
08/17
08/04/2017
170439
3276 MASTERTECH SECURITY SERV 285491
4
10-57-310
.00
38.90
38.90
08/17
08/04/2017
170439
3276 MASTERTECH SECURITY SERV 285491
5
10-66-610
.00
16.95
16.95
08/17
08/04/2017
170439
3276 MASTERTECH SECURITY SERV 285491
6
10-65-610
.00
21.95
21.95
08/17
08/04/2017
170439
3276 MASTERTECH SECURITY SERV 285491
7
10-70-610
.00
18.95
18.95
08/17
08/04/2017
170439
3276 MASTERTECH SECURITY SERV 285491
8
10-81-310
.00
21.95
21.95
08/17
08/04/2017
170439
3276 MASTERTECH SECURITY SERV 285491
9
52-40-310
.00
16.95
16.95
08/17
08/04/2017
170439
3276 MASTERTECH SECURITY SERV 285491
10
10-38-701
.00
21.95
21.95
Total 170439: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170440
696 MAXINE SHAW
JULY 17
1
17-80-310
Total 170440:
.00
239.40 336.00
.00
336.00 336.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170441
11236 MEADOW GOLD DAIRIES
59609503
1
16-71-480
.00
156.48
156.48
08/17
08/04/2017
170441
11236 MEADOW GOLD DAIRIES
59609583
1
16-71-480
.00
155.02
155.02
Total 170441:
.00
311.50
08/17
08/04/2017
170442
10764 MESA VIEW REGIONAL HOSPIT
348-02
1
10-57-320
.00
180.44
08/17
08/04/2017
170442
10764 MESA VIEW REGIONAL HOSPIT
348-03
1
10-57-320
.00
33.00
33.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170442
10764 MESA VIEW REGIONAL HOSPIT
366-01
2
10-57-320
.00
762.46
762.46
08/17
08/04/2017
170442
10764 MESA VIEW REGIONAL HOSPIT
366-02
1
10-57-320
.00
685.92
685.92
08/17
08/04/2017
170442
10764 MESA VIEW REGIONAL HOSPIT
366-03
1
10-57-320
.00
372.46
372.46
Total 170442:
12
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
180.44
2,034.28
08/17
08/04/2017
170443
3344 MESQUITE CHAMBER OF COM
E2821
1
10-43-610
.00
18.00
18.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170443
3344 MESQUITE CHAMBER OF COM
E2821
2
10-50-230
.00
18.00
18.00
50 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170443:
.00
36.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170444
11650 MESQUITE FORD
160139/1
1
10-66-250
.00
74.95
74.95
08/17
08/04/2017
170444
11650 MESQUITE FORD
160301/1
1
10-66-250
.00
593.58
593.58
08/17
08/04/2017
170444
11650 MESQUITE FORD
385712
1
10-66-250
.00
15.98
15.98
08/17
08/04/2017
170444
11650 MESQUITE FORD
385741
1
10-66-250
.00
350.75
350.75
08/17
08/04/2017
170444
11650 MESQUITE FORD
385839
1
10-66-250
.00
275.28
275.28
Total 170444:
.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170445
14029 MESQUITE GENERAL CONTRA
3128
1
11-65-740
.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170445
14029 MESQUITE GENERAL CONTRA
3128 RT
1
11-21330
.00
Total 170445: 08/17
08/04/2017
14391 MESQUITE REGIONAL BUSINE
2017-24-080
1
43-40-310
Total 170446: 08/17
08/04/2017
08/04/2017
170447
14871 MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC POWER
UPSD-28863
1
10-47-310
08/04/2017
28,336.68-
.00
.00
170448
15774 MNUEL T VEGA - MURILLO
862
1
15-23200
.00
15,833.33
14526 MOAPA VALLEY TELEPHONE
AUG 17
1
10-47-310
Total 170449:
.00
28,336.68-
15,833.33 15,833.33
3,100.00
3,100.00 3,100.00
185.00
.00 170449
566,733.54
538,396.86
.00
Total 170448: 08/17
566,733.54
.00
Total 170447: 08/17
1,310.54
.00 170446
13
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
185.00 185.00
199.77
.00
199.77 199.77
08/17
08/04/2017
170450
3580 MORCON INDUSTRIAL SPECIA
0017241-IN
1
10-63-610
.00
6.40
6.40
08/17
08/04/2017
170450
3580 MORCON INDUSTRIAL SPECIA
0017242-IN
1
10-63-610
.00
571.73
571.73
08/17
08/04/2017
170450
3580 MORCON INDUSTRIAL SPECIA
0017243-IN
1
10-81-250
.00
1,013.20
1,013.20
08/17
08/04/2017
170450
3580 MORCON INDUSTRIAL SPECIA
0017289-IN
1
10-63-610
.00
269.72
269.72
08/17
08/04/2017
170450
3580 MORCON INDUSTRIAL SPECIA
0017290-IN
1
10-63-610
.00
81.85
81.85
08/17
08/04/2017
170450
3580 MORCON INDUSTRIAL SPECIA
0017311-IN
1
10-55-610
.00
158.24
158.24
08/17
08/04/2017
170450
3580 MORCON INDUSTRIAL SPECIA
0017329-IN
1
10-55-610
.00
145.86
145.86
51 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
08/17
08/04/2017
170450
3580 MORCON INDUSTRIAL SPECIA
0017330-IN
1
10-55-610
.00
93.60
93.60
08/17
08/04/2017
170450
3580 MORCON INDUSTRIAL SPECIA
0017351-IN
1
52-40-610
.00
241.91
241.91
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170450:
.00
2,582.51
08/17
08/04/2017
170451
3653 MOUNT OLYMPUS WATERS, IN
10219318 07
1
10-54-240
.00
122.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170451
3653 MOUNT OLYMPUS WATERS, IN
10219327 07
1
12-87-610
.00
32.47
32.47
08/17
08/04/2017
170451
3653 MOUNT OLYMPUS WATERS, IN
10219327 07
2
10-49-240
.00
125.90
125.90
08/17
08/04/2017
170451
3653 MOUNT OLYMPUS WATERS, IN
10219327 07
3
10-41-610
.00
48.10
48.10
Total 170451: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170452
14058 MTM CLEANING SERVICE
281
1
10-63-310
Total 170452: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
15780 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
126283
1
10-41-210
Total 170453:
.00
122.00
328.47 1,010.00
.00 170453
1,010.00 1,010.00
1,489.00
.00
1,489.00 1,489.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170454
15768 NEOGOV
INV21626
1
10-48-310
.00
18,619.65
18,619.65
08/17
08/04/2017
170454
15768 NEOGOV
INV21874
1
10-48-740
.00
17,000.00
17,000.00
Total 170454: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170455
3936 NV. LEAGUE OF CITIES & MUNI
2017-30
1
10-41-310
Total 170455: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
35,619.65 15,000.00
.00 170456
4002 NV. SHERIFFS & CHIEFS ASSO
072717
1
10-54-230
Total 170456:
.00
15,000.00 15,000.00
750.00
.00
750.00 750.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170457
4126 OFFICE DEPOT
9433529990
1
10-50-240
.00
35.78
35.78
08/17
08/04/2017
170457
4126 OFFICE DEPOT
9433586650
1
10-50-240
.00
18.34
18.34
Total 170457: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170458
14894 OUT-FIT
17183
1
10-81-740
14
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
54.12 13,838.00
13,838.00
52 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170458: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170459
14295 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACC
072517
1
10-49-240
Total 170459: 08/17
08/04/2017
15166 PLURALSIGHT, LLC
INV0106965
1
10-47-230
Total 170460: 08/17
08/04/2017
08/04/2017
170461
14477 POLARIS WORLD
311254
1
10-66-250
08/04/2017
170462
14357 PREMIER VEHICLE INSTALLATI
24491
1
10-54-250
08/04/2017
1,497.00
.00
.00
170463
9073 RAY ALLEN MANUFACTURING,
RO012455
1
10-54-610
.00
134.55
15735 RELIABLE AFTERMARKET PAR
15801
1
10-66-250
Total 170464:
.00
134.55 134.55
1,594.97
1,594.97 1,594.97
82.59
.00 170464
1,497.00 1,497.00
.00
Total 170463: 08/17
.00
2,500.00 2,500.00
.00
Total 170462: 08/17
2,500.00
.00
Total 170461: 08/17
.00
13,838.00
.00 170460
15
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
82.59 82.59
47.11
.00
47.11 47.11
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
1
90-26113
.00
56.12
56.12
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
2
10-76-284
.00
56.12
56.12
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
3
10-54-284
.00
56.12
56.12
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
4
10-81-284
.00
83.37
83.37
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
5
12-87-290
.00
117.44
117.44
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
6
10-49-290
.00
443.28
443.28
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
7
10-51-290
.00
30.67
30.67
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
8
10-47-310
.00
1,208.19
1,208.19
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
9
52-40-290
.00
82.64
82.64
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
10
10-49-290
.00
1,046.86
1,046.86
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
11
10-57-290
.00
125.21
125.21
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
12
10-82-290
.00
29.63
29.63
53 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
13
10-60-290
.00
147.11
147.11
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
14
10-76-290
.00
878.35
878.35
08/17
08/04/2017
170465
4500 RELIANCE CONNECTS
JULY 17
15
10-54-290
.00
963.68
963.68
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170465: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170466
8598 RMT EQUIPMENT
T62392
1
10-66-250
Total 170466: 08/17
08/04/2017
13915 ROCKY MOUNTAIN INFO NTW, I 21824
1
10-54-310
Total 170467: 08/17
08/04/2017
08/04/2017
170468
9426 ROYAL SANITARY SERVICES
071217
1
10-32-100
08/04/2017
170469
14638 RUSH TRUCK CENTER OF UTA
3007141090
1
10-66-250
08/04/2017
100.00
.00
.00
170470
15795 RUSS WESTWOOD
072717
1
10-82-610
.00
35.00
13373 SADA SYSTEMS INC
129221
1
10-47-310
Total 170471:
.00
35.00 35.00
140.44
140.44 140.44
93.72
.00 170471
100.00 100.00
.00
Total 170470: 08/17
.00
62.00 62.00
.00
Total 170469: 08/17
62.00
.00
Total 170468: 08/17
.00
5,324.79
.00 170467
93.72 93.72
17,030.00
.00
17,030.00 17,030.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170472
4750 SCHOLZEN PRODUCTS CO., IN
6216663-00
1
10-54-250
.00
62.78-
62.78-
08/17
08/04/2017
170472
4750 SCHOLZEN PRODUCTS CO., IN
6216665-00
1
10-54-250
.00
72.10
72.10
08/17
08/04/2017
170472
4750 SCHOLZEN PRODUCTS CO., IN
6216691-00
1
10-54-250
.00
55.80
55.80
08/17
08/04/2017
170472
4750 SCHOLZEN PRODUCTS CO., IN
6223203-00
1
10-65-610
.00
33.30
33.30
08/17
08/04/2017
170472
4750 SCHOLZEN PRODUCTS CO., IN
6225638-00
1
52-40-610
.00
920.00
920.00
Total 170472: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170473
8117 SCOTT TAYLOR
072517
1
10-54-230
16
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
1,018.42 144.00
144.00
54 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170473: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170474
15781 SHAYLA ORTIZ
072717
1
17-34-405
Total 170474: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
144.00 50.00
.00 170475
5255 SHERMAN & HOWARD
701756
1
52-40-310
Total 170475:
.00
50.00 50.00
10,991.41
.00
10,991.41 10,991.41
08/17
08/04/2017
170476
12196 SHERWIN- WILLIAMS STORE 85 1012-9
1
10-81-610
.00
37.98
37.98
08/17
08/04/2017
170476
12196 SHERWIN- WILLIAMS STORE 85 1178-8
1
10-81-610
.00
118.90
118.90
08/17
08/04/2017
170476
12196 SHERWIN- WILLIAMS STORE 85 1242- 2
1
10-65-610
.00
60.44
60.44
08/17
08/04/2017
170476
12196 SHERWIN- WILLIAMS STORE 85 2445-4
1
10-65-615
.00
48.81
48.81
08/17
08/04/2017
170476
12196 SHERWIN- WILLIAMS STORE 85 2604-6
1
10-81-610
.00
33.78
33.78
08/17
08/04/2017
170476
12196 SHERWIN- WILLIAMS STORE 85 2605-3
1
10-81-610
.00
32.58
32.58
Total 170476: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170477
15611 SHRED-IT USA LLC
8122762456
1
10-54-310
Total 170477: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
332.49 59.68
.00 170478
12788 SILVER STATE TRUCK & TRAIL
VP403049
1
10-66-250
Total 170478:
.00
59.68 59.68
7.79
.00
7.79 7.79
08/17
08/04/2017
170479
13011 SILVERSTATE ANALYTICAL LA
LV210315
1
52-40-310
.00
453.00
453.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170479
13011 SILVERSTATE ANALYTICAL LA
LV210491
1
52-40-310
.00
453.00
453.00
Total 170479:
.00
906.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170480
14502 SIMPLIFILE
170206037
1
52-40-240
.00
24.00
24.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170480
14502 SIMPLIFILE
NVT7G8-073
1
10-38-900
.00
84.00
84.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170480
14502 SIMPLIFILE
NVT7G8-073
2
10-44-310
.00
72.00
72.00
Total 170480:
17
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
180.00
55 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
08/17
08/04/2017
170481
8282 SMITH CUSTOMER CHGS
418771 - JU
1
16-71-480
.00
246.09
246.09
08/17
08/04/2017
170481
8282 SMITH CUSTOMER CHGS
418771 - JU
2
16-71-480
.00
177.93
177.93
08/17
08/04/2017
170481
8282 SMITH CUSTOMER CHGS
421081 - JU
1
90-26113
.00
40.39
40.39
08/17
08/04/2017
170481
8282 SMITH CUSTOMER CHGS
421081 - JU
2
10-55-620
.00
279.04
279.04
08/17
08/04/2017
170481
8282 SMITH CUSTOMER CHGS
421081 - JU
3
10-55-620
.00
175.99
175.99
08/17
08/04/2017
170481
8282 SMITH CUSTOMER CHGS
421084 - JU
1
10-54-240
.00
33.98
33.98
08/17
08/04/2017
170481
8282 SMITH CUSTOMER CHGS
421084 - JU
2
10-41-610
.00
82.39
82.39
08/17
08/04/2017
170481
8282 SMITH CUSTOMER CHGS
421084 - JU
3
10-57-610
.00
72.40
72.40
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170481:
.00
1,108.21
08/17
08/04/2017
170482
14045 SOUTHERN NEVADA FLEET AS
072517
1
10-66-230
.00
500.00
500.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170482
14045 SOUTHERN NEVADA FLEET AS
072517
2
10-66-230
.00
50.00
50.00
Total 170482:
.00
550.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170483
13068 SOUTHWEST PLUMBING SUPP
S2883481.00
1
90-26111
.00
5.22
5.22
08/17
08/04/2017
170483
13068 SOUTHWEST PLUMBING SUPP
S2903699.00
1
10-65-610
.00
15.34
15.34
Total 170483: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170484
10591 SPRINKLER SUPPLY-ST. GEOR
M39096
1
10-76-610
Total 170484: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
20.56 642.00
.00 170485
15598 STAGE #792
080217
1
10-32-100
Total 170485:
18
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
642.00 642.00
30.00
.00
30.00 30.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3342649811
1
10-57-240
.00
8.34-
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3342649812
1
10-57-240
.00
8.34
8.34
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3342649813
1
10-81-240
.00
531.74
531.74
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3342649814
1
10-81-240
.00
100.77
100.77
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3342649815
1
16-71-240
.00
104.81
104.81
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3342649816
1
16-71-240
.00
10.33
10.33
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3342649817
1
10-49-240
.00
76.63
76.63
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343070607
1
10-57-240
.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343271767
1
10-57-240
.00
24.89
24.89
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343271768
1
10-57-240
.00
19.87
19.87
8.34-
8.34-
8.34-
56 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343271769
1
10-81-240
.00
69.03
69.03
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343271770
1
10-81-240
.00
31.74-
31.74-
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343271771
1
10-49-240
.00
48.23-
48.23-
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343557054
1
10-57-240
.00
19.87-
19.87-
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343557055
1
10-49-240
.00
28.40
28.40
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343837339
1
10-57-240
.00
19.87
19.87
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343837340
1
10-43-240
.00
10.17
10.17
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343837341
1
10-46-240
.00
7.09
7.09
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343837341
2
10-43-240
.00
2.86
2.86
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343837341
3
10-50-240
.00
48.55
48.55
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343837342
1
10-81-240
.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343837343
1
16-71-240
.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343837344
1
16-71-240
.00
52.28
52.28
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343837345
1
16-71-240
.00
114.43-
114.43-
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3343837346
1
16-71-240
.00
114.43
114.43
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3344393030
1
16-71-240
.00
57.91-
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3344711778
1
10-57-240
.00
51.34
51.34
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3344711779
1
10-81-240
.00
389.28
389.28
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3344711780
1
16-71-240
.00
114.43-
114.43-
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3344711781
1
10-49-240
.00
28.40-
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3345991344
1
10-54-240
.00
107.58
107.58
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3345991345
1
17-80-485
.00
68.98
68.98
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3345991346
1
52-40-240
.00
73.46
73.46
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3345991346
2
10-66-610
.00
70.16
70.16
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3345991347
1
10-54-240
.00
19.54
19.54
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3345991348
1
10-54-240
.00
79.98
79.98
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3346070798
1
10-81-240
.00
107.15
107.15
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3346401484
1
10-54-240
.00
53.00
53.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3346401485
1
10-65-610
.00
26.45
26.45
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3346604882
1
10-81-240
.00
35.22
35.22
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3346604883
1
52-40-610
.00
11.18
11.18
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3346682385
1
10-81-240
.00
35.22-
35.22-
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3346682386
1
10-48-240
.00
25.60
25.60
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3346682387
1
10-50-240
.00
44.88
44.88
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3346682387
2
10-48-240
.00
22.44
22.44
08/17
08/04/2017
170486
8989 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
3346987511
1
10-54-240
.00
78.96-
78.96-
Total 170486:
Payee
19
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
.00
27.33238.04
27.33238.04
57.91-
28.40-
2,081.14
57 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
08/17
08/04/2017
170487
Payee
14680 STAR NURSERY INC
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
1100100030
1
10-76-610
Total 170487:
.00
1,119.96
.00
1,119.96 1,119.96
08/17
08/04/2017
170488
1800 STATE OF NEVADA
APRIL 17 CR
1
10-23145
.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170488
1800 STATE OF NEVADA
JUNE 17
1
10-23120
.00
7,616.19
7,616.19
08/17
08/04/2017
170488
1800 STATE OF NEVADA
JUNE 17
1
10-23145
.00
60,929.54
60,929.54
08/17
08/04/2017
170488
1800 STATE OF NEVADA
MAY 17 CR
1
10-23145
.00
66,301.15
66,301.15
Total 170488:
100,000.00-
.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170489
4000 STATE OF NEVADA
JULY
08/17
08/04/2017
170489
4000 STATE OF NEVADA
JULY
08/17
08/04/2017
170489
4000 STATE OF NEVADA
JULY
08/17
08/04/2017
170489
08/17
08/04/2017
08/17
08/04/2017
17
100,000.00-
34,846.88
1
15-21320
.00
8,191.00
8,191.00
1
15-21330
.00
740.00
740.00
17
1
15-21370
.00
232.00
232.00
4000 STATE OF NEVADA
JULY 17
1
15-21360
.00
944.00
944.00
170489
4000 STATE OF NEVADA
JULY 17
1
15-23200
.00
75.00
75.00
170489
4000 STATE OF NEVADA
JULY 17
1
15-21350
.00
35.00
35.00
17
Total 170489:
.00
10,217.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170490
8579 STEPHEN WADE AUTO CENTE
1719176/1
1
10-66-250
.00
36.96
36.96
08/17
08/04/2017
170490
8579 STEPHEN WADE AUTO CENTE
5118551
1
10-66-250
.00
76.50
76.50
Total 170490: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170491
5140 STERLING CODIFIERS, INC.
19537
1
10-44-310
Total 170491: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
113.46 2,083.00
.00 170492
3725 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
072717
1
15-40-350
Total 170492:
20
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
2,083.00 2,083.00
89.50
.00
89.50 89.50
08/17
08/04/2017
170493
15170 SYNCB/AMAZON
0057600080
1
10-47-240
.00
69.98
69.98
08/17
08/04/2017
170493
15170 SYNCB/AMAZON
0063020177
1
10-54-240
.00
113.96
113.96
08/17
08/04/2017
170493
15170 SYNCB/AMAZON
01700018CM
1
10-54-240
.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170493
15170 SYNCB/AMAZON
0183195997
1
10-54-240
.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170493
15170 SYNCB/AMAZON
1307779754
1
10-54-240
.00
76.64
76.64
08/17
08/04/2017
170493
15170 SYNCB/AMAZON
2009213604
1
10-47-240
.00
102.60
102.60
3.9146.99
3.9146.99
58 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170493:
.00
406.26
08/17
08/04/2017
170494
13211 SYSCO LAS VEGAS, INC
117002824C
1
16-71-610
.00
40.00-
40.00-
08/17
08/04/2017
170494
13211 SYSCO LAS VEGAS, INC
117168578C
1
16-71-610
.00
106.92-
106.92-
08/17
08/04/2017
170494
13211 SYSCO LAS VEGAS, INC
117238570
1
16-71-480
.00
1,438.33
1,438.33
08/17
08/04/2017
170494
13211 SYSCO LAS VEGAS, INC
117244736
1
16-71-480
.00
1,445.24
1,445.24
08/17
08/04/2017
170494
13211 SYSCO LAS VEGAS, INC
OBCL117055
1
16-71-610
.00
Total 170494:
107.00-
.00
107.002,629.65
08/17
08/04/2017
170495
9127 TEAMSTERS SEC. FUND #14
JULY 17
1
10-22500
.00
69,580.00
69,580.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170495
9127 TEAMSTERS SEC. FUND #14
JULY 17
1
10-22500
.00
81,380.00
81,380.00
Total 170495: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170496
14215 TERRIE ELAINE MCARTHUR
JULY 17
1
17-80-310
Total 170496: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
150,960.00 560.00
.00 170497
15393 TESTNOTICE
0001142
1
15-60-340
Total 170497:
.00
560.00 560.00
50.00
.00
50.00 50.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170498
5290 THATCHER COMPANY
5030447
1
10-81-610
.00
452.30
452.30
08/17
08/04/2017
170498
5290 THATCHER COMPANY
5030448
1
52-40-480
.00
2,297.10
2,297.10
08/17
08/04/2017
170498
5290 THATCHER COMPANY
5030650
1
10-81-610
.00
551.50
551.50
Total 170498:
.00
3,300.90
08/17
08/04/2017
170499
11278 THOMAS PETROLEUM
P235599-IN
1
10-66-255
.00
13,648.69
13,648.69
08/17
08/04/2017
170499
11278 THOMAS PETROLEUM
P235600-IN
1
10-66-255
.00
4,332.95
4,332.95
Total 170499: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170500
Total 170500:
15484 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR C
3003336541
1
10-63-310
21
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00 .00
17,981.64 3,475.92
3,475.92 3,475.92
59 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
08/17
08/04/2017
170501
15287 TINK'S SUPERIOR AUTO PART
001140
1
10-66-480
.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170501
15287 TINK'S SUPERIOR AUTO PART
001209
1
10-66-480
.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170501
15287 TINK'S SUPERIOR AUTO PART
001284
1
10-66-480
.00
7.75
7.75
08/17
08/04/2017
170501
15287 TINK'S SUPERIOR AUTO PART
001404
1
10-66-250
.00
217.65
217.65
08/17
08/04/2017
170501
15287 TINK'S SUPERIOR AUTO PART
001561
1
10-66-250
.00
60.02
60.02
08/17
08/04/2017
170501
15287 TINK'S SUPERIOR AUTO PART
001568
1
10-66-250
.00
51.82
51.82
08/17
08/04/2017
170501
15287 TINK'S SUPERIOR AUTO PART
001770
1
10-66-480
.00
.88
.88
08/17
08/04/2017
170501
15287 TINK'S SUPERIOR AUTO PART
001773
1
10-66-480
.00
71.04
71.04
08/17
08/04/2017
170501
15287 TINK'S SUPERIOR AUTO PART
001841
1
10-66-250
.00
134.32
134.32
08/17
08/04/2017
170501
15287 TINK'S SUPERIOR AUTO PART
001845
1
10-66-250
.00
32.80
32.80
08/17
08/04/2017
170501
15287 TINK'S SUPERIOR AUTO PART
001849
1
10-66-250
.00
112.65
112.65
08/17
08/04/2017
170501
15287 TINK'S SUPERIOR AUTO PART
001894
1
10-66-250
.00
37.55
37.55
08/17
08/04/2017
170501
15287 TINK'S SUPERIOR AUTO PART
001988
1
10-66-250
.00
142.69
142.69
08/17
08/04/2017
170501
15287 TINK'S SUPERIOR AUTO PART
002054
1
10-66-250
.00
67.59
67.59
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170501: 08/17
08/04/2017
14456 TRANSUNION RISK AND ALTER
37881 - JUN
1
10-54-310
Total 170502: 08/17
08/04/2017
08/04/2017
.00
170503
5581 TROY TANNER
072517
1
10-54-230
.00
94.90
14904 TRUCKPRO LLC SIX STATES
15 322519
1
10-66-480
Total 170504:
.00
94.90 94.90
144.00
.00 170504
49.50120.84
1,008.10
.00
Total 170503: 08/17
49.50120.84
.00 170502
144.00 144.00
445.96
.00
445.96 445.96
08/17
08/04/2017
170505
8770 U.S. FOODSERVICE - L.V. DIV.
3385680
1
10-55-620
.00
421.89
421.89
08/17
08/04/2017
170505
8770 U.S. FOODSERVICE - L.V. DIV.
3416770
1
16-71-480
.00
1,450.71
1,450.71
08/17
08/04/2017
170505
8770 U.S. FOODSERVICE - L.V. DIV.
3541196
1
16-71-480
.00
1,183.70
1,183.70
Total 170505: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170506
Total 170506:
12493 UNDERGROUND SVC. ALERT O 17070952
1
52-40-610
22
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00 .00
3,056.30 521.89
521.89 521.89
60 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
08/17
08/04/2017
170507
5616 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
00009E1629
1
10-49-240
.00
51.60
51.60
08/17
08/04/2017
170507
5616 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
00009E1629
2
10-54-240
.00
32.42
32.42
08/17
08/04/2017
170507
5616 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
00009E1629
1
10-49-240
.00
25.80
25.80
08/17
08/04/2017
170507
5616 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
00009E1629
2
10-54-240
.00
36.11
36.11
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170507:
.00
145.93
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
1
10-70-290
.00
153.36
153.36
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
2
10-50-290
.00
343.02
343.02
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
3
10-41-290
.00
204.48
204.48
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
4
10-43-290
.00
61.12
61.12
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
5
10-51-310
.00
29.27
29.27
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
6
15-40-340
.00
64.45
64.45
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
7
10-61-290
.00
285.82
285.82
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
8
10-57-290
.00
366.69
366.69
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
9
10-57-290
.00
263.43
263.43
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
10
10-48-290
.00
51.12
51.12
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
11
10-47-290
.00
212.63
212.63
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
12
10-54-290
.00
59.61
59.61
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
13
10-76-290
.00
122.24
122.24
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
14
10-54-290
.00
1,425.31
1,425.31
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
15
10-54-310
.00
1,221.52
1,221.52
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
16
52-40-290
.00
79.62
79.62
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
17
10-63-290
.00
112.24
112.24
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
18
10-65-290
.00
102.24
102.24
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
19
10-81-290
.00
102.47
102.47
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
20
52-40-290
.00
153.36
153.36
08/17
08/04/2017
170508
9528 VERIZON WIRELESS
9789339253
21
16-71-290
.00
239.32
239.32
Total 170508: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170509
12230 VIEW ON MESQUITE, LLC
5375
1
10-81-480
Total 170509:
23
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
5,653.32 1,000.00
.00
1,000.00 1,000.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170510
5900 VIRGIN VALLEY DISPOSAL
9088973
1
52-40-310
.00
2,049.76
2,049.76
08/17
08/04/2017
170510
5900 VIRGIN VALLEY DISPOSAL
9088974
1
10-73-310
.00
3,049.06
3,049.06
61 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170510: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170511
8664 VIRGIN VALLEY FOOD MART, I
13427
1
10-65-610
Total 170511: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00
5,098.82 4.28
.00 170512
8748 VIRGIN VALLEY VETERINARY H 239738
1
10-54-610
Total 170512:
.00
4.28 4.28
530.04
.00
530.04 530.04
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
JULY 2017
1
10-49-282
.00
1,475.00
1,475.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
JULY 2017
2
10-55-282
.00
1,177.00
1,177.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
JULY 2017
3
10-54-282
.00
334.00
334.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
JULY 2017
4
10-57-282
.00
693.00
693.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
JULY 2017
5
10-65-282
.00
285.00
285.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
JULY 2017
6
10-76-282
.00
52,389.50
52,389.50
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
JULY 2017
7
10-81-282
.00
3,714.00
3,714.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
JULY 2017
8
10-82-282
.00
43.00
43.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
JULY 2017
9
12-87-282
.00
330.50
330.50
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
JULY 2017
10
10-65-282
.00
388.75
388.75
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
JULY 2017
11
10-38-701
.00
239.00
239.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
JULY 2017
12
52-40-620
.00
936.00
936.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
JULY 2017
13
10-66-282
.00
199.50
199.50
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
JULY 2017
14
16-71-282
.00
340.50
340.50
08/17
08/04/2017
170513
5901 VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRI
MAY 17
1
52-21400
.00
53,783.60
53,783.60
Total 170513: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170514
15796 VIVIEN BEAVES
080117
1
10-34-400
Total 170514:
24
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
116,328.35 95.00
.00
95.00 95.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
1
10-57-610
.00
50.92
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
2
15-40-350
.00
3.98
50.92 3.98
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
3
15-40-350
.00
37.14
37.14
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
4
10-57-610
.00
54.98
54.98
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
5
10-57-610
.00
25.85
25.85
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
6
10-61-240
.00
3.28
3.28
62 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
7
17-80-610
.00
107.36
107.36
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
8
17-80-610
.00
106.16
106.16
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
9
10-54-240
.00
4.44
4.44
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
10
10-54-240
.00
35.91
35.91
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
11
10-81-610
.00
20.39
20.39
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
12
10-81-490
.00
107.82
107.82
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
13
10-81-490
.00
79.84
79.84
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
14
17-80-610
.00
9.36
9.36
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
15
17-80-610
.00
39.63
39.63
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
16
10-81-610
.00
19.92
19.92
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
17
10-55-610
.00
59.10
59.10
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
18
90-26113
.00
37.88
37.88
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
19
52-40-610
.00
250.00
250.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
20
10-65-610
.00
350.00
350.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
21
10-63-610
.00
250.00
250.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
22
10-57-610
.00
8.43
8.43
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
23
10-81-490
.00
104.53
104.53
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
24
10-81-490
.00
4.97
4.97
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
25
10-81-490
.00
64.40
64.40
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
26
10-81-610
.00
38.98
38.98
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
27
10-54-250
.00
86.12
86.12
08/17
08/04/2017
170515
8034 WALMART STORES, INC.
071617
28
10-54-240
.00
12.85
12.85
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170515: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170516
14218 WARREN B HARDY II
1707
1
10-41-310
Total 170516:
25
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
1,974.24 2,500.00
.00
2,500.00 2,500.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 BT
1
10-66-260
.00
126.95
126.95
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 BT
2
10-66-260
.00
210.19
210.19
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 BT
3
10-66-260
.00
120.90
120.90
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 BT
4
10-65-610
.00
61.38
61.38
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 BT
5
10-66-610
.00
17.27
17.27
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 BT
6
10-66-480
.00
315.96
315.96
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 BT
7
10-63-610
.00
23.50
23.50
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 BT
8
10-65-230
.00
300.00-
300.00-
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 BT
9
10-65-230
.00
600.00-
600.00-
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 BT
10
10-66-230
.00
600.00-
600.00-
63 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 BT
11
12-87-610
.00
600.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 RS
1
10-50-240
.00
4.27
4.27
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 RS
2
10-50-210
.00
187.48
187.48
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 RS
3
10-50-230
.00
45.00
45.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 RS
4
10-50-230
.00
64.68
64.68
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 RS
5
10-50-240
.00
18.20
18.20
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317 RS
6
10-50-210
.00
3.50
3.50
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317A B
1
10-41-230
.00
24.00
24.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317A B
2
25-85-240
.00
29.99
29.99
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317A B
3
25-85-230
.00
50.00
50.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317A B
4
25-85-230
.00
225.00
225.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317AB
1
10-43-610
.00
135.10
135.10
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317AB
2
10-41-230
.00
162.70
162.70
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317AB
3
10-43-210
.00
1,054.00
1,054.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317AL
1
10-41-230
.00
40.00
40.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317AL
2
10-41-230
.00
180.24
180.24
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317GM
1
10-48-210
.00
199.00
199.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317GM
2
10-54-240
.00
47.90
47.90
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317NM
1
10-81-480
.00
1,390.00
1,390.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317NM
2
10-81-480
.00
1,899.00
1,899.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317NM
3
10-81-610
.00
340.50
340.50
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317NM
4
17-80-610
.00
48.31
48.31
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317NM
5
10-81-610
.00
1,259.19
1,259.19
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317NM
6
17-80-485
.00
336.69
336.69
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
1
10-57-230
.00
105.00
105.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
2
10-57-230
.00
30.00
30.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
3
10-57-230
.00
60.00
60.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
4
10-57-230
.00
720.72
720.72
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
5
10-57-230
.00
720.72
720.72
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
6
10-57-230
.00
80.00
80.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
7
10-57-230
.00
174.81
174.81
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
8
10-57-610
.00
28.44
28.44
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
9
10-57-610
.00
201.48
201.48
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
10
10-57-610
.00
335.02
335.02
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
11
10-57-610
.00
49.01
49.01
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
12
10-57-610
.00
31.28
31.28
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
13
10-57-610
.00
49.42
49.42
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
14
10-57-610
.00
63.57
63.57
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RR
15
10-57-610
.00
10.24
10.24
Payee
26
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount 600.00
64 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RS
1
10-61-240
.00
27.12
27.12
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RS
2
10-61-210
.00
150.00
150.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RS
3
10-61-210
.00
750.00
750.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RS
4
10-61-210
.00
199.00
199.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RT
1
15-40-350
.00
107.67
107.67
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RT
2
15-40-350
.00
207.00
207.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RT
3
15-60-350
.00
77.50
77.50
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RT
4
15-40-350
.00
150.00
150.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RT
5
15-40-350
.00
232.56
232.56
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RT
6
15-40-350
.00
180.00
180.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317RT
7
15-40-350
.00
75.00
75.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
1
10-54-240
.00
116.95
116.95
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
2
10-54-240
.00
46.40
46.40
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
3
10-54-610
.00
43.72
43.72
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
4
10-54-240
.00
8.92-
8.92-
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
5
10-54-250
.00
49.15-
49.15-
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
6
10-54-250
.00
515.26
515.26
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
7
10-54-230
.00
307.00
307.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
9
10-54-230
.00
33.76
33.76
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
10
10-54-230
.00
236.09
236.09
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
11
10-54-230
.00
614.64
614.64
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
12
10-54-230
.00
515.28
515.28
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
13
10-54-230
.00
339.92
339.92
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
14
10-54-230
.00
335.90
335.90
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
15
10-54-230
.00
460.92
460.92
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
16
10-54-230
.00
579.94
579.94
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
17
10-54-610
.00
125.50
125.50
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
18
10-54-240
.00
72.09-
72.09-
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
071317TT
19
10-54-250
.00
56.63
56.63
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
71317DM
1
10-47-310
.00
49.95
49.95
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
71317DM
2
10-41-610
.00
300.00
300.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
71317DM
3
10-43-240
.00
7.00
7.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
71317DM
4
10-81-230
.00
1,050.52
1,050.52
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
71317DM
5
10-81-230
.00
08/17
08/04/2017
170517
10077 WELLS FARGO
71317MC
1
15-40-350
.00
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170517: 08/17
08/04/2017
72.52475.90
.00 170518
11418 WHEELER'S ELECTRIC INC
170710
1
10-65-250
27
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
72.52475.90 18,545.06
600.00
600.00
65 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE
Check Register - for City Council Agenda
Page:
Check Issue Dates: 7/24/2017 - 8/6/2017 GL
Check
Check
Vendor
Period
Issue Date
Number
Number
Payee
Invoice
Invoice
Invoice
Discount
Invoice
Check
Number
Sequence
GL Account
Taken
Amount
Amount
Total 170518: 08/17
08/04/2017
.00 170519
12380 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION
2484146
1
10-57-615
28
Aug 08, 2017 06:21AM
.00
Total 170519:
.00
Grand Totals:
.00
600.00 840.00
840.00 840.00 1,628,010.0
Dated: ______________________________________________________ Mayor: ______________________________________________________ City Council: ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ City Recorder: ______________________________________________________
Report Criteria: Report type: GL detail
66 M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CITY OF MESQUITE PURCHASE ORDERS REQUIRING COUNCIL APPROVAL DATE OF COUNCIL MEETING: August 22, 2017
A. P.O's for Not Previously Budget-Approved Items...amounts exceed $5,000
For Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Current Vendor
Description
Requested By:
Department
Remaining
G/L
Account
Po's to be
Original
Budget
Budget
Account #
Description
Approved
Budget
Balance
(Over)Under
B. P.O's for Budgeted Items4amounts exceed $25,000
For Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Kaercher Insurance Kaercher Insurance Kaercher Insurance
Liability and Worker Comp Insurance FY 1718 Liability and Worker Comp Insurance FY 1718 Liability and Worker Comp Insurance FY 1718
Sediment Removal Davis Construction Town Wash Detention Development, LLC Basin
A Baker
City Manager
10-49-510
GF - Non Departmental Insurance
$
281,694
$
290,000
$
290,000
$
8,306
A Baker
City Manager
52-40-510
Fund 52 - Sewer Fund Insurance
$
160,000
$
160,000
$
160,000
$
-
A Baker
City Manager
Worker Comp
Department Benefits Accounts
$
325,406
$
317,100
$
317,100
$
(8,306)
B Tanner
Public Works
10-65-480
GF - Streets & Drainage Maintenance
$
65,880
$
316,800
$
273,450
$
207,570
67
CITY OF MESQUITE NOTIFICATION OF BUDGET TRANSFERS DATE OF COUNCIL MEETING: August 22, 2017
TRANSFERS FROM: Fund
Account #
Account Description
TRANSFERS TO: Incr.
Fund
Account #
Account Description
NRS 354.5980005 Budget appropriations may be transferred between functions, funds or contingency accounts in the following manner is such a transfer does not increase the total appropriation for any fiscal year and is not in conflict with other statutory provisions: (a) The person designated to administer the budget for local government may transfer appropriations within any function. (1) The governing body is advised of the action at the next regular meeting and (2) The action is recorded in the official minutes of the meeting (c) Upon recommendation of the person designated to administer the budget, the governing body may authorize the transfer of appropriations between funds or from the contingency account, if: (1) The governing body announces the transfer of appropriations of a regularly scheduled meeting and sets forth the each amount to be transferred and the accounts, functions, programs and funds affected; (2) The governing body sets forth its reasons for the transfer; and (3) The action is recorded in the official minutes of the meeting.
Incr.
68
CITY OF MESQUITE NOTIFICATION OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND BUDGET AUGMENTS DATE OF COUNCIL MEETING: August 22, 2017
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FY2017-2018
Revenues Increase Fund
Account #
Account Description
Amended Amounts Incr.
Budget
Expenditures Increase
Amended Amounts
Fund
Account #
Account Description
Incr.
Budget
Fund
Account #
Account Description
Incr.
Budget
Fund
Account #
Account Description
Incr.
Budget
DESCRIPTION: Increase Revenues to reflect the Construction of Riverside Road Waterline and Overlay Project
Fund
Account #
Account Description
Incr.
Budget
DESCRIPTION: Increase Revenues to reflect the Construction of Riverside Road Waterline and Overlay Project
Fund
Account #
Account Description
Incr.
Budget
DESCRIPTION: Increase Expenditures to reflect the Construction of Riverside Road Waterline and Overlay Project
Fund
Account #
Account Description
Incr.
Budget
Fund
Account #
Account Description
Incr.
Budget
Account #
Account Description
Incr.
Budget
Fund
Account #
Account Description
Incr.
Budget
DESCRIPTION:
Fund DESCRIPTION:
BUDGET AUGMENTS FY2017-2018
Revenues Increase Fund
Account #
Account Description
Amended Amounts Incr.
Budget
Expenditures Increase Fund
Account #
Account Description
Amended Amounts Incr.
Budget
69
Technical Review Agenda Item 4 Submitted by: Tysha Blaber Submitting Department: Public Works Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Consideration of Selection of a Consultant to prepare the 2017 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan update. - Public Comments - Discussion and Possible Action Recommendation: Recommend selection of Horrocks Engineers to prepare the 2017 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan and direct staff to begin negotiating a contract to bring back to council at a later date. Petitioner: Bill Tanner, Public Works Director Is this a budgeted item? Yes Fiscal Impact: None at this time. Background: On March 16, 2017 the City of Mesquite issued a Request for Qualifications for Engineering Services to prepare the 2017 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan. On April 21, 2017 we received two submittals for review from the following firms: • Atkins North America Inc. • Horrocks Engineers The proposals were reviewed and graded in accordance to the RFQ by four independent and separate reviewers from the City of Mesquite. After which a follow up interview process was conducted with the two firms. The Engineering firms are both well qualified for this project as was indicated by the scoring of both the RFQ and the interview process. (See attached RFQ & Interview scoring sheets). After reviewing all of the information provided, staff is recommending Horrocks Engineers as the consultant for this project.
70
Attachments: RFQScoringSummary.pdf InterviewScoringSummary.pdf RecordofSubmittalLog.pdf RequestforQualifications_16Mar17.pdf AddendumNo1_14Apr17.pdf AtkinsNorthAmerica_SOQ.pdf HorrocksEnginners_SOQ.pdf
71
Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (TCIP) RFQ 2017-002 (RFQ Scoring Summary Sheet) Reviewer #1 Scoring Categories Cover Letter Project Team Capability of Consultant Past Performance Agency Coordination
Total Possible
Atkins
5 25 20 25 25 100
5 25 18 23 21 92
Horrocks Engineers 5 25 20 24 24 98
Reviewer #2 Scoring Categories Cover Letter Project Team Capability of Consultant Past Performance Agency Coordination
Total Possible
Atkins
Horrocks Engineers
5 25 20 25 25 100
5 22 20 22 25 94
5 22 18 19 25 89
Reviewer #3 Scoring Categories Cover Letter Project Team Capability of Consultant Past Performance Agency Coordination
Total Possible
Atkins
5 25 20 25 25 100
5 20 18 21 25 89
Horrocks Engineers 5 20 19 21 25 90
Reviewer #4 Total Possible
Atkins
Cover Letter Project Team Capability of Consultant Past Performance Agency Coordination
5 25 20 25 25 100
5 23 19 23 23 93
Horrocks Engineers 5 24 19 22 24 94
Consulting Firm Atkins Horrocks Engineers
Reviewer #1 92 98
Reviewer #2 94 89
Reviewer #3 89 90
Scoring Categories
Reviewer #4 93 94
Average Score 92 93
72
Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (TCIP) RFQ 2017-002 (Interview Scoring Summary Sheet) Reviewer #1 Scoring Categories Presentation Question #1 Question #2 Question #3 Question #4 Question #5 Question #6
Total Possible
Atkins
20 10 10 10 10 10 30 100
18 9 9 9 8 8 27 88
Horrocks Engineers 17 9 9 8 10 8 28 89
Reviewer #2 Scoring Categories Presentation Question #1 Question #2 Question #3 Question #4 Question #5 Question #6
Consulting Firm Atkins Horrocks Engineers
Total Possible
Atkins
20 10 10 10 10 10 30 100
17 9 9 8 9 9 26 87
Horrocks Engineers 18 9 9 8 9 9 28 90
Reviewer #1 88 89
Reviewer #2 87 90
Average Score 87.5 89.5
73
RFQ NAME: 2017 Transportation Capital lmprovement plan (TCtP) DATE / TIME RECEIVED 1
\O:ã/â
COMPANY NAME
AlÉrñt
2
tlt4(c 3
4
5
6
7
I
9
t0
S
DUE DATE:
04t21t17
CLOSING TIIIIE:
3:00 p.m.
RECEIVED BY
Ø-4
74
Request of Qualifications (RFQ PW 2017-002)
2017 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (TCIP) RFQ Submission Date: April 21, 2017, 3:00 p.m. (Local Time)
March 16, 2017 City Manager:
Andy Barton
Mayor:
Allan S. Litman
City Council:
Geno Withelder, George Rapson, Rich Green, Brian Wursten, David Ballweg
Prepared by: City of Mesquite Public Works 10 E Mesquite Boulevard Mesquite NV 89027 (702)346-5237
75
ADVERTISEMENT FOR REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ’s) RFQ Identifying Number:
PW 2017-002
Notice is hereby given that the City of Mesquite will receive sealed RFQ’s to for the 2017 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (TCIP). The project involves assessing the City’s current transportation system and analyzing the need for future improvements using a combination of the traffic modeling software, travel demand modeling software, and VISSIM, as well as working with the City of Mesquite Staff to run roadway alternatives within the regional model. This proves will help determine the priority of recommended future improvements. See Scope of Services for additional information. The Request of Qualifications (RFQ 2017-002) 2017 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan (TCIP) proposal packet may be obtained from the City of Mesquite Public Works Department at 10 E. Mesquite Boulevard, Mesquite, NV 89027, (702) 346-5237, upon payment of $25.00 per set, or $10.00 per set of Electronic Plans, NO part of which is refundable. RFQ’s will be received at the office of the City Clerk; 10 E. Mesquite Blvd, Mesquite NV 89027, until 3:00 pm local time on April 21, 2017. All RFQ’s must be submitted in a sealed envelope plainly marked Request of Qualifications (RFQ PW 2017-002) 2017 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan to the Attention of: Mesquite City Clerk. Late submittals will not be accepted! The City of Mesquite reserves the right to reject all submissions. The City of Mesquite also reserves the right to waive any irregularity, informality, or technicality in the submission in its best interest. A short list will be developed from submittals received. Consultants on the short list may be asked to attend an interview prior to final selection. Tracy E. Beck City Clerk
76
Table of Contents 1.0
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................................................... 4
2.0
OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 4
3.0
SCOPE OF SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 4
4.0
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES (FEE) ............................................................................................... 5
5.0
PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS ................................................................................................................ 5
6.0
GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR PROPOSALS .......................................................................................... 6
7.0
SUBMISSION...................................................................................................................................... 7
8.0
EVALUATION ..................................................................................................................................... 7
9.0
AWARD .............................................................................................................................................. 7
10.0
WRITTEN AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7
11.0
OMISSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 7
12.0
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM ........................................................ 8
13.0
COST OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ............................................................................................... 8
14.0
PROPOSAL OWNERSHIP .................................................................................................................... 8
15.0
NON-COLLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 8
77 (RFQ PW 2017-002) – 2017 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan
3|Page
1.0 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS The City of Mesquite, NV is soliciting Requests for Qualifications (RFQ) from qualified design engineering firms to provide services outlined in the Scope of Services section 3.0 of this request. It is the intent of the City of Mesquite that professional services be procured in accordance with NRS 332 of the Nevada Code, NRS 332.115 1.(b) Professional Services. Selection of the most highly qualified respondent(s) will be made on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications submitted in response to this RFQ.
2.0 OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND Per the City of Mesquite municipal code the TCIP shall be reviewed and evaluated at least every three (3) years, to determine if any modifications need to be made to the TCIP. Therefore the City of Mesquite, NV is requesting proposals from engineering firms desiring to provide consulting services to update the exiting Transportation Capital Improvement Plan. The TCIP will be submitted to the Mesquite City Council for final approval.
3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The selected design firm shall furnish all expertise, labor and resources to provide complete services necessary for Work Order(s) issued during the Contract Term. All work orders shall be completed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Mesquite codes. Scope of services provided by the selected design firm shall include but not be limited to. Task 1
Preliminary Engineering/Data Collection
1.1 Obtain information from the City such as: i) Recently Completed and programmed transportation improvements ii) Discuss regional transportation model inputs, including by not limited to future residential, commercial or industrial developments, and expectation of buildout. iii) Baseline and future (5 year) traffic volumes from the locally approved regional transportation model. iv) Additional areas of potential high growth, not already accounted for in the regional model. v) Current City Land Use and Zoning Plan 1.2 Field reconnaissance 1.3 Obtain tube counts to verify peak hours 1.4 Obtain existing peak hour intersection counts Task 2
Traffic Analysis
2.1 Update and calibrate existing model with new peak hour information and recently completed improvements. 2.2 Evaluate current levels of service at system intersections (arterials and collectors) 2.3 Develop arterial and intersection volumes in coordination with the regional model output. 2.4 Update future CORSIM model with planned improvements and increased volumes (5 year projection). 2.5 Identify future deficiencies by evaluation levels of service at system intersections (based on LOS C). 2.6 Perform alternative analyses and recommend improvements. 2.7 Coordinate alternatives analysis with development services department and regional model. Task 3
Assessment Areas
(RFQ PW 2017-002) – 2017 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan
78 4|Page
3.1
Review current assessment area and evaluate existing variables with information obtained from the regional model and determine “unit cost” of development based on projected demand and revised tables.
Task 4
Update Transportation CIP
4.1 Determine cost estimates of future improvements 4.2 Revise Transportation CIP document 4.3 Perform QA/QC on methodology, calculations and documentation. Task 5
Meetings
5.1 Assume 5 meetings for: i) Obtaining information from the City as outlined in Task 1 “Preliminary Engineering/Data Collection”. ii) Presenting final product to City Council iii) Exchanging/presenting information with the Citizens Advisory Committee 5.2 Additional coordination meeting may be held via teleconference or GoToMeeting Task 6
Deliverables
6.1 Traffic Study, detailing the analysis and summarizing the results of the existing and 5-year traffic conditions and mitigation recommendations 6.2 Transportation CIP Update document, including a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan, and road impact fee net cost schedule.
4.0 COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES (FEE) The City of Mesquite intends to enter into a professional services contract with the successful firm. Compensation for the services rendered, is to be based upon a time-expended basis with an agreed maximum not to exceed value.
5.0 PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS To be considered for evaluation, proposals must follow the format prescribed below: Part 1. Cover Letter (one page maximum) Part 2. Up to four (4) single-sided pages of standard typewritten text 10 point or greater standard Arial or Times New Roman font, is allowed to describe what talents, skills, experience, expertise the consultant has to offer with respect to TCIP preparation, processing and application of Southern Nevada Regional Transportation Commission regulations as they apply to current transportation systems. The discussion should include descriptions of past performance in management, cost control, timely performance and thoroughness of work on similar projects. Graphics (optional) may be included on facing pages not applying toward the text count.
79 (RFQ PW 2017-002) – 2017 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan
5|Page
Part 3. Organizational Chart (one page) will be reviewed for size and organization of the project team assembled for the consulting services requested. Part 4. Resumes of key personnel (three page maximum) will be reviewed for demonstration of experience in transportation analysis and updating Transportation Capital Improvement Plans. Part 5. Design Schedule – Will be reviewed for timeliness of project completion.
6.0
GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR PROPOSALS a. Failure to read the Request for Qualifications and comply with its instructions will be at the firm’s own risk. b. All notations must be printed in ink or typewritten, errors may be crossed out and corrections printed in ink or typewritten, adjacent to the corrected error. Person signing the proposal must initial all corrections in ink. c. Correction or modifications to the RFQ received after the closing time will not be accepted. d. The RFQ must be signed by the designate firm representative or officer who is authorized to bind the firm contractually. Signed submissions to the City of Mesquite will be interpreted to indicate the firm’s willingness to comply with all terms and conditions set forth herein. e. Respondents shall restrict all contact and questions regarding this RFQ to the individual named below. Questions concerning terms and conditions shall be directed in writing to: City of Mesquite Attn: Travis H. Anderson, P.E., City Engineer 10 East Mesquite Blvd. Mesquite, NV 89027 Phone (702) 346-5237 Email: [email protected] f. The City of Mesquite specifically instructs all interested parties to restrict all contact and questions regarding this RFQ to e-mailed communications forwarded to the above named contact person. All questions or concerns must be received by the above named person no later than 5:00 pm local time, on April 18, 2017. The City of Mesquite shall have a reasonable amount of time in which to respond to questions or concerns by e-mail. It is the City of Mesquite’s intent to respond to all appropriate questions and concerns; however, the City of Mesquite reserves the right to decline to respond to any questions. g. This Request for Proposals does not commit the City of Mesquite to pay any costs incurred in the submittal of your Proposal. This Request for Proposals does not commit the City of Mesquite to procure or contract respondent’s services. The City of Mesquite reserves the right to reject any or all firms if deemed to be in the best interest of the City.
80 (RFQ PW 2017-002) – 2017 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan
6|Page
7.0 SUBMISSION a. Submissions must be delivered to the Office of the City Clerk at 10 East Mesquite Boulevard, Mesquite, NV 89027 on or before April 21, 2017 no later than 3:00 PM local time. b. SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED AFTER 3:00 PM LOCAL TIME WILL BE PLACED IN THE FILE UNOPENED AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS. c. Submissions must be submitted in a sealed envelope clearly bearing the name of the firm, address and the title of the project. d. The City of Mesquite will not accept any responses to this RFQ that are delivered by telephone, facsimile (fax), or electronic mail (e-mail). e. The applicant must submit five (5) copies of the complete submission.
8.0 EVALUATION Proposals will be evaluated based on demonstration of the following: • • • • •
A working knowledge of RTC Travel Demand Model Methodology, Southern Nevada Metropolitan Planning Organization policies and practices, the City of Mesquite TransCAD model and traffic operations analysis. Ability to coordinate and schedule work with local, state and federal agencies. Experience of key personnel in preparation and processing of transportation capital improvement plans, road safety auditing, as well as transportation engineering methods. Past technical and project management performance on similar projects. Submittals WILL be disqualified from evaluation for the following reasons: o Submittals received after the deadline specified in the Advertisement Notice. THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THIS DEADLINE. o Failure to follow the format outlined above. o Failure to demonstrate that the firm has a Nevada registered professional engineer in direct responsible supervision of the work to be performed (NRS 625).
9.0 AWARD The City of Mesquite reserves the right to reject all submissions. The City of Mesquite also reserves the right to waive any irregularity, informality, or technicality in the submission in its best interest. If terms cannot be mutually agreed upon, the City of Mesquite will enter into negotiations with the secondary firm.
10.0
WRITTEN AGREEMENT
The successful firm will be required to enter into a written agreement with the City of Mesquite in a form acceptable to the City of Mesquite.
11.0
OMISSIONS
Should the RFQ not contain sufficient information for the applicant to obtain a clear understanding of the services required by the City of Mesquite, or should it appear that the 81 (RFQ PW 2017-002) – 2017 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan
7|Page
instructions outlined in the RFQ are not clear or contradictory, then the firm may obtain written clarification from the project manager at least 24 hours prior to the required time and date for submission. The firm shall include a copy of the written clarification with its submission.
12.0
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM
Project participants may not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin and project participants will take appropriate measures to employ minority owned businesses. Also, the City of Mesquite will make every effort to ensure that all offers are treated fairly and equally throughout the entire advertisement, review, and selection process. The procedures established herein are designed to provide all parties reasonable access to the same basic information. The successful firm must comply with all applicable and regulatory requirements in the performance of services outlined herein.
13.0
COST OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
All cost related to the preparation of the RFQ and any related activities are the sole responsibility of the applicant. The sponsor assumes no liability for any costs uncured throughout the entire selection process.
14.0
PROPOSAL OWNERSHIP
All RFQ’s, including attachments, supplementary materials, rendering, sketches, addenda, etc. shall become upon submission, the property of the City of Mesquite, and will not be returned to the applicant.
15.0
NON-COLLUSION
The firm guarantees that the documents submitted are not a product of collusion with any other company.
82 (RFQ PW 2017-002) – 2017 Transportation Capital Improvement Plan
8|Page
ADDENDUM NO. 1 RESQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS RFQ PW2017-002 2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (TCIP)
Date:
April 14, 2017
The City of Mesquite herewith issues this addendum to the above-referenced project. Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions shall remain in effect. SECTION 3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.
Delete word “CORSIM” from task 2.4 Replace word “VISSIM” into task 2.4
SECTION 5.0 PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS 1.
Delete Part 5 - Design Schedule. Design schedule shall not be part of the proposal.
SECTION 8.1 INTERVIEW 1.
Insert Section 8.1 Interview Insert “Upon final scoring and evaluations of the statement of qualifications the City of Mesquite will be conducting interviews of the top three firms”.
83 RFQ PW2017-002 – ADDENDUM #1
crrY oF MESQU|TE STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
20''17
TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (TCIP) RFQ PW
2017-002
|
April
21
,2017
I
M
uite
84
ATKINS April21,2017
Atkins North America, lnc. 2270 Corporate Circle, Suite 200 Henderson, NV 89074-7755 Telepho n e: +1.7 02.263.7 27 5 Fax: +1.702.263.7200
www.atkinsg loba l.com/northa merica
Mr. Travis H. Anderson, PE City Engineer City of Mesquite
10 East Mesquite Boulevard
Mesquite, NV 89027 Re: Request for Qualifications (RFA) PW 2017-002,2017 Transportation Capital lmprovement Plan (TCIP) Dear Mr. Anderson and selection committee members, Atkins started working with the City of Mesquite (City) in 1997 when the City's population was just more than 2000 people. Anticipating the future growth, and forseeing the need to sustain residents' quality of life, the City retained Atkins to assist them in navigating the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), evaluating best practices, and developing an impact fee ordinance and a TCIP to help pay for essential transportation infrastructure. Atkins recommended improvements and a reliable source of funding so that Mesquite can keep pace with its ever-growing traffic demands. Since then, Atkins has performed a TCIP update for the City every 3 years. Some of the highlights our team offers for this update include:
Complete streets expertise. Atkins has assisted communities throughout the country invest in multimodal solutions. We have a passion for addressing safe and effective transportation solutions for pedestrians and bicycles and want to help create healthier, more livable communities. Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) experience. Atkins has a proven record of applying local policies on planning and engineering projects including the Neighborhood Safety Study; Maryland Parkway Alternatives Analysis; Boulder Highway Multimodal Transportation lnvestment Study; City of North Las Vegas Complete Streets Corridor Ranking Study; and Las Vegas Boulevard North Land Use, Transit, and Pedestrian Study. Our staff works extensively with the RTC modeling stafl and we are familiar with the RTC's procedures for obtaining existing and design-year model output as well as the procedure for gaining access to the model for developing specific model components. Our experts have knowledge and understanding of the City's model documentation and can provide assistance in running model scenarios if required. Collaborative success. Working with the Citizens Advisory Committee requires experience with collaboration to successfully bring together technical elements for the community and stakeholders in an understandable manner. We can extract the pertinent information and details from our meetings with the Committee and turn their input into meaningful data to support our analyses. Atkins staff is also adept in coordinating with federal, state, and local agencies in a range of capacities from planning and environmental to design and construction. Traffic safety skills and grassroots partnering projects. Several Atkins personnel hold road safety audit certifications and are familiar with state and federal auditing procedures. We have supported Nevada's traffic safety partners on Nevada Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) efforts since 2008, and we have worked directly with local Mesquite first responders and agencies for SHSP activities and traffic incident management project teams. Project management longevity and immediate availability. Principal-in-charge Emily Kubovchik has been involved in Mesquite's impact fee ordinance and TCIP since their inception. She has provided traffic modeling and engineering solutions in Nevada for 23 years, successfully working with public and private sector partners, and she has additional recent experience in Mesquite traffic planning as the ll5 Exit 118 Design-Build's traffic control manager. Project manager Danja Petro has provided support on previous Mesquite TCIP updates and has high-level analysis techniques and travel demand model expertise in Nevada. Our personnel are all immediately available for the Mesquite TCIP project, and we relish the opportunity to help the City of Mesquite achieve its ambition to maintain a livable community. lf you have any questions please contact me at702.990.7437 or [email protected]. Si
U 85 ily Ku
, PTOE
pal-in-Charge
\
2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IN/PROVEIVENT PLAN (TCIP)
Part 2. Proposal A. Qualifications, talents, skills, and expert¡se Atkins has been fortunate to have worked with the City for two decades on the preparation and updates to Mesquite's TCIP. Because the City has instituted an impact fee ordinance, the plan must be reviewed every 3 years in accordance with the NRS. Our longevity in working with the community has given Atkins a first-hand perspective of the issues and challenges facing this growing community with high livability goals. lssues, challenges, and emerging policies are identified during the preliminary planning stages to adequately capture these components within the plans, Figure
I
ATKINS
improvements, and/or funding opportunities. lt is also important to understand the system's existing state to identify current safety and operational deficiencies. Collaboration with the Citizens Advisory Committee (also required by the NRS) will allow a forum to discuss growth potential and areas of specific concern within the
transportation system. Our experience in southern Nevada has allowed Atkins' planning and engineering staff (Figure 1) to develop relationships and follow planning policy development. Previously, the recent growth in southern Nevada, including Mesquite, significantly impacted transportation needs. Many of the federal, state, and local funding sources were used to develop better traffic signals and more travel lanes. Today, the rate of growth has slowed and funding sources are running short of what is required to maintain existing infrastructure, much less sustain
Atkins key team member talents, skills, experience, and expertise
Name/role
Emily Kubovchik, PE, PTOE
Principal-in-Charge 23 years of experience 23 years with Atkins in southern Nevada
Danja Petro, PE,
Highlights
Relevant experience
. Worked on Mesquite TCIP since inception 20 years ago . Familiar with Mesquite staff
Mesquite TCIP (Citywide Level of Service Analysis); l-15 Exit 118 Design-Build (traffic control); l-15 Exit 120 lnterchange Feasibility Study; Carson Avenue Complete Streets Design; Virginia Street lnvestment Plan and Design; Horizon Drive lmprovements; l-515 Southbound Traffic and Congestion Mitigation Study; numerous RTC traffic planning projects; Project Neon Design-Build (MOT)
.
with RTC
.
Project manager on the Nevada Traffic lncident Management (TlM) Program Management project
.
Experience in traveldemand modeling in Nevada Complete streets and RTC expertise Stakeholder coordination and consensus-buildi ng facilitation Neighborhood safety and traffic calming experience
PTOE, PTP
Project Manager
.
21 years of experience 13 years with Atkins in southern Nevada
.
. Massoud Javid, Ph.D., PE
QA/QC 25 years of experience 8 years of experience in southern Nevada
Steve Hoover, AICP
Principal Planner 15 years of experience in regional transportation plannin g
RFQ PW 2017-002
and stakeholders Excellent working relationship
.
Experience in stakeholder and agency coordination . RTC corridor study and travel demand model experience . Traffic design and analysis expertise
. Expertise
in long-range transportation plans and multiagency coordination
. Complete streets experience
.
Multimodal planning experience
Mesquite TCIP; l-15 Exit 118 Design-Build; Boulder Highway Multimodal Transportation lnvestment Study; Project Neon Design-Build (traffic modeling and design); RTC Neighborhood Safety Study; RTC Las Vegas Boulevard North Land Use, Transit, and Pedestrian Study; Nevada Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) lmplementation Boulder Highway Multimodal Transportation lnvestment Study; l-515 Southbound Traffic and Congestíon Mitigation Study; ll5 Mobility Alliance Program Management (data analysis lead); Nevada State Freight Plan (alternatives/ project ran kin g); Cactus Aven ue I mprovements; l-15 North Corridor Study/Design-Build; North Fifth Street Corridor Study; Flamingo Street Corridor Study; Sahara Avenue Corridor Study Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Colorado Statewide Transportation Plan; Jefferson Street Complete Streets Alternatives Study for the City of Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority, and CDOT; SH 82 Corridor Optimization Plan for the City of Glenwood Springs, CDOT, Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, and Garfield County
86
1
2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IN/PROVEN/ENT PLAN (TCIP) cont¡nued growth. We understand that the City aims to balance infrastructure projects with funding limitations, while providing a safe and sustainable quality of life to which the community is accustomed.
ATKINS
i$:råË'
The Atkins team is fully equipped and experienced in using VISSIM as a traffic analysis platform to evaluate the existing system, analyze projected future traffic, and identify potential deficiencies for the TCIP update. ln past updates (Figure 2), Atkins has used CORSIM-another traffic simulation and analysis software which lacks the visL¡al component that VISSIM offers, but can be updated at a lower cost within a shorter time period. Our team offers the flexibility and resources to update the TCIP using either traffic modeling package depending on the City's needs and available financial resources.
Atkins' staff is familiar with the RTC's travel demand model and the policies it is associated with. We have worked with the modeling staff and can convey project requirements. We will use our knowledge of these policies when working with the City's own travel demand model. We also have the resources to update the model if necessary. We understand that this tool will provide more robust information with regards to change in travel patterns and impacts on the existing network. While travel demand software and other traffic simulation tools have been used successfully in the past to prioritize capacity infrastructure, there is no one tool to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle facilities. ln a recent RTC project, Atkins developed several tools that help prioritize bicycle/ pedestrian facilities through the use of criteria developed collaboratively by the stakeholders, use GIS tools, or pedestrian and bicycle performance indicators. ln doing this, we were able to demonstrate a replicable procedure through a consensus-based process. A critical element in updating the TCIP for the City is understanding the plan as it relates to the collection of impact fees. Only certain elements within the overall
:.] J
roadway improvements are subject to funding from impact fees. While identifying vehicular capacity shortfalls is important, it is equally important to ensure all mobility options are addressed. Not only is the TCIP important for addressing the fees associated with development, but the plan is also critical to supporting necessary improvements with respect to sustainability and livability. Other funding sources, such as grants, are often more obtainable if the plans can be substantiated with an appropriate level of community and stakeholder collaboration and can be supported through best practices and the meaningful use of current industry standards.
Although the average trips in Mesquite are relatively short and can be accommodated by a single service area, it is important during the process to consider the effect of multiple service areas to accommodate the
RFO PW 2017 002
Mesquite roadways
allocation of impact fees. This is particularly important in assessing the potential impact of development in Lincoln County and other planned unit developments. Atkins is aware of the potential impacts to the Mesquite transportation infrastructure from this development and in coordination with the City would carefully assess the likelihood of this development occurring in the near future. We understand the need to have the impacts mitigated by fees collected from the developer and not paid for by Mesquite residents. This will be addressed with the Citizens Advisory Committee. ln addition to updating the TCIP with recommended improvements that have been coordinated with the City, we will recalculate the development fees based on CIP costs, assessment area determination, and current funding sources.
Atkins' understanding of this process benefits the City by eliminating the learning curve, thereby reducing the schedule of completion, and ensuring that the staffing levels, as they relate to the scope, are commensurate with the level of effort. We understand the City has certain budget expectations, and Atkins will work with the City to make sure these expectations are met. Our knowledge of the NRS will ensure that the City is compliant with state law and reduces the risk of a legal challenge by developers. We will coordinate and schedule work with all local, state, and federal agencies as necessary to ensure the project stays on schedule and within budget. Atkins also maintains a comprehensive quality assurance/ quality control (OA/OC) review process (Figure 3) that is essential to ensuring budget and schedule adherence while promoting communication and minimizing errors.
87 2
2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL INiIPROVEMENT PLAN (TCIP)
B. Past performance on similar projects Figure 4 and the following similar projects demonstrate our past performance success in management, cost control, timely performance, and thoroughness of work.
All projects in Figure 4 have been completed on budget and within schedule, and Emily Kubovchik and/or Danja Petro have been involved in all projects in a management or technical lead capacity. Atkins also has in-depth familiarity working in Mesquite and the surrounding area. These local projects are demonstrated in Figure 5.
ATKINS
Mesquite TGIB Gity of Mesquite, NV. Atkins has provided an update to the TCIP every 3 years since its inception in 1997. Mesquite's TCIP involved preparing a study to analyze existing and future traffic conditions in the rapidly growing community. The original scope included identifying the required capital improvements to maintain acceptable levels of service and implement a traffic impact fee. Atkins analyzed the City's intersections for existing and future traffic conditions to ascertain improvement alternatives. Our staff modeled Mesquite roadways using CORSIM, which enabled the City to effectively evaluate and prioritize several alternatives. Ultimately, this was the basis for determining the capital
Figure 4 Atkins' past performance on similar projects o o
õ L
U'
c
o fL
o
Project Name
Key Features
TGIP and Updates
Update Mesquite's TCIP since inception in 1997 until present
(City of Mesquite)
l-15 Exit 118
lnterchange Design-Build
o o L o
o.9
Ø
õ
F
0)
Þ
3c
o
õ.9 àt ou) (!(!
o
EcD (!P.=
o,9' Oc)
a o o) L
Ìn o,
õ fit
E
Þg J¡
oo) oã
0) o = -c-L o) oO 12.: o c.= o. o €u tt ç. õ oo (.) i- >\ õP oo o= >o E o >= oo t- 0rO sË oo ö!,ú gE' o (!0 É. za- F(! JTJ ftsoè l- c) o o3
iE
lo.g LÞ
{
I
r'
{
{
I
t
r'
r'
{
r' {
{
{
I
J
/
/
I
{
r'
r'
r'
{
{
/
I
{ r' /
r'
r'
{
r'
{ r'
r'
r' {
/
/
{
r'
Managed traffic control and traffic design as the lead design firm for innovative arch on local interchange
{
{
{
r'
(City of Mesquite)
Maryland Parkway Alternatives Analysis
Provided transportation alternatives analysis for a variety of transit options
I r'
(RTc)
Virginia Street Gorridor lnvestment Plan and Design (Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County) 5 =-.
a
Conducted multimodal analysis for transportation improvements to increase mobility, improve safety, and address planning needs, while collaborating with business owners and economic development
l-515 Southbound Studied traffic operational and congestion Traffic and mitigation improvements to improve Congestion Mitigation efficiency at l-51511-215 interchange and Study (City of Henderson) ramps Boulder Highway ldentify and analyze potential Multimodal improvements to the 13-mile corridor Transportation to focus on technology advancements/ lnvestment Study intelligent transportation system (lTS) (RTc) modifications, access management, bike/
r' {
r' r'
ped/transit improvements, and safety
Neighborhood Safety Study (RTC)
Studied mitigation measures for traffic calming in neighborhoods and recommended solutions
Gity of North Las Vegas Gomplete
ldentified and assessed candidate corridors for complete streets treatment
Streets Gorridor Ranking Study (RTC)
implementation
RFQ PW 2017 002
{
88 3
ATKINS
2017 IRANSPORTATION CAPIIAL IMPROVEIV]ENT PLAN (TCIP) improvements necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service on the City's arterials and collectors within the next 5 years. From the capital improvements identified, funding sources were investigated and an impact fee ordinance was developed. Reference: Bill Tanner, City of Mesq u ite,
7
02.346.5237; Cost/sched u le control: Th is
project and all updates were completed on schedule/ within budget. l-15 Exit 118 Design-Build, City of Mesquite, NV. Atkins was the lead designer on this alternative delivery project to establish a new interchange at Exit '118 to relieve traffic at the existing interchange (Exit '120) on l-15. The Atkins team designed a dual precast arch system. This dual thin-walled arch system allows the bridge crossing to be installed in both directions in less than 5 days, thus reducing the amount of disruption to the critical interstate traffic. Atkins is responsible for the traffic control and maintenance of traffic on this project. Reference: Travis Anderson, City of Mesquite, 702.346.5237; Cost/schedule control: This project was completed on schedule/within budget.
:t
Maryland Parkway Alternatives Analysis, RTC, NV. Atkins provided a transportation alternatives analysis associated with the Maryland Parkway corridor as it transitions from a phase of community expansion to a phase of community refinement. The study considered transit technology options including conventional buses, bus rapid transit, streetcars, and light-rail and involves consensus-based planning. Atkins also considered guideway alternatives, complete streets, and rightof-way alternatives. Local involvement was critically important to the success of the Maryland Parkway study. ln order to achieve this, the Atkins team implemented an innovative and engaging stakeholder process to identify issues important to the community. This consensus-based approach to community and stakeholder engagement enhanced the study results and improved implementation strategies. Reference: David Swallow, RTC, 702.676.1500; Cost/schedule control: This project was completed on schedule/within budget. Potential Transit Districts on
Maryland Parkway
analysis for transportation improvements on Virginia Street in Reno. The study identified recommendations for increasing mobility options, improving safety, addressing planning needs, and collaborating with business owners and economic development efforts in the corridor. The plan identified short- and long-term improvements and developed a funding strategy and implementation plan based on previously completed studies. As a subconsultant, Atkins assisted with the environmental document and preliminary design of the project. Reference: Amy Cummings, Washoe RTC, 775.335.1825; Cost/schedule control: This project was completed on scheduleiwithin budget. ,:i
Í
rt\ t]
ñl
i.l ,J.,
i-l :u
.f ,r--c .l : 'r! Virginia Street planning study diagram of potential improvements
l-515 Southbound Traffic and Gongestion
Mitigation Study, City of Henderson, NV. Atkins completed a study of potential traffic operational and congestion mitigation improvements along southbound l-515 near the l-215 interchange. The existing ramp operations are deficient and lead to peak hour congestion. The study identified near-term and/or potential long-term improvements within rightof-way to relieve this congestion. Reference: Scott Jarvis, City of Henderso n, 7 02.267.3065; Gost/sched ule control: This project was completed on schedule/within budget.
Boulder Highway Transportation Multimodal lnvestment Study, RTC, Clark County, NV. Atkins is identifying and analyzing potential transportation system, traffic operations, and safety improvements to Boulder Highway between Wagonwheel Drive and Charleston Boulevard. The study is focused on overall right-of-way management and allocation based on the needs of all users and includes technology solutions specifically suited to the corridor. Reference: Mohammad Farhan, RTC, 702.676.17 36', Gost/ schedule control: This project is proceeding on
schedule/within budget.
Neighborhood Safety Study, RTC, Clark Gounty, NV. Atkins studied mitigation measures for traffic calming in neighborhoods where safety issues are prevalent. We provided a state-of{he-practice literature
o
Virginia Street Corridor lnvestment Plan and Design, Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (Washoe RTC), Reno, NV. As the prime consultant, Atkins conducted a multimodal RFQ PW
20r7
002
review to summarize calming measures successfully employed across the country for similar issues including traffic circles, bicycle lanes, striped shoulders, and complete street concepts. Neighborhood representatives were involved in workshops to provide resident input. Reference: Mohammad Farhan, RTC, 702.676.1736; Cost/schedule control: This project was completed schedule/within budget. 4
89
2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (TCIP)
ATKINS
Part 3. Org anizational Chart
)
es
uite
REGIONAL FTOOD CONTROLDISTR]CT
Principal-in-Charge
QA/QC Massoud Javid, Ph.D.,
Emily Kubovchik, PE, PTOE
PE
Project Manager Danja Petro, PE, PTOE, PTP
Principal Planner Steve Hoover, AICP
Data Collection/Traff ic Analysts Victor Molano-Paz Devin Louie Lia Grimaldi
Brittney Brickman,
El
: TJ
While the majority of these personnel are located in Atkins' southern Nevada office, additional resources can be made available as needed. Atkins can draw upon more than 140 employees in Nevada to meet project needs.
90 RFQ PW 2017-002
5
2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IN/PROVEMENT PLAN (TCìP)
ParT
4. Resumes of Key Personnel
Emily Kubovchik, PE, PTOE Principal-in-Charge 8.5., Civil Engineering, University of Arizona Emily Kubovchik has dedicated her career to providing traffic engineering and analysis solutions. She has 23 years of diverse traffic engineering and planning experience including extensive traffic control and maintenance of traffic (MOT) design. Her recent traffic control experience includes:
Mesquite TCIP, City of Mesquite, NV, Project manager with overall responsibility for schedule and budget, CORSIM modeling and analysis, and coordination with client and stakeholders. Atkins has provided an update to the plan every 3 years since its inception in 1997. l-1S/Exit 120 lnterchange Feasibility Study, Barcelona Partners LLC, Mesquite, NV. Project manager responsible for client and agency coordination, project schedule and budget management, and general project oversight. Atkins provided an interchange operational assessment and alternative feasibility study at Exit 120 along l-15. Based on an evaluation of existing and future land use, we provided 10- and 2O-year traffic projections, and we assessed the effects of increased traffic on interchange operations. l-15 Exit 118 lnterchange Design-Build, City of Mesquite, NV. MOT lead responsible for overseeing the development of the traffic management plan and MOT plans. Also led traffic design elements in the later part of the project. l-515 Southbound Traffic and Congestion Mitigation Study, NDOT, Las Vegas, NV. Project manager responsible for overseeing traffic modeling, safety analyses, and data analysis for the southbound l-515 to westbound l-215 corridor from Sunset Road to Stephanie Street. -t
ATKINS
Project Neon Design-Build, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), Las Vegas, NV. MOT lead responsible for overseeing the development of the traffic management plan and MOT plans and coordinating with public outreach.
Virginia Street Corridor lnvestment Plan and Design, Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, NV. Project manager responsible for a multimodal analysis and design for transportation improvements and recommendations. Collaborated with business owners and economic development efforts. Carson Avenue, Casino Center to 10th Street, Gity of Las Vegas, NV. As traffic task manager, provided traffic design review and oversight as well as information and guidance on pedestrian and bicycle treatments.
RFQ PW 2017 002
Maryland Parkway Corridor Alternative Analysis, RTC, Las Vegas, NV. Conceptual engineering lead responsible for concept development/planning considering transit technology alternatives, guideway alternatives, complete streets improvements, station locations and concepts, and preliminary environmental evaluation.
l-80 Gorridor System Master Plan, NDOI CA to WY. Project manager. Atkins developed a system master plan for the l-80 corridor between San Francisco, California, and Cheyenne, Wyoming, to maximize the existing infrastructure through innovative operations and create new infrastructure to provide for future capacity needs. The multimodal plan ensured the mobility and safety needs of commerce, commuters, homeland security, recreation, and tourism.
Neighborhood Safety Study, RTC, Clark County, NV. Project manager responsible for overseeing the development of a before/after study including mitigation measures for traffic calming in neighborhoods where speeding and other safety issues were prevalent.
Danja Petro, PE, PTOE, PTP Project Manager M.5., Civil Engineering, University of California, Berketey; 8.5., Civil Engineering, Polytechnic University Danja Petro has 21 years of experience in transportation planning, lTS, and traffic safety and operations. Her software experience includes CORSIM and VlSSlM. She has provided planning and operationaland safety analysis for urban and interstate corridor studies; bicycle, pedestrian, and transit accessibility and connectivity studies; traffic calming and neighborhood safety studies; safe routes to school; and ITS projects. Ms. Petro has conducted numerous urban arterial operational analyses, signal timing, and arterial progression analyses including transit signal priority, traffic impact analyses for residential and commercial development, and traffic design (signing, striping, and signals). Her project experience includes:
Boulder Highway Transportation Multimodal lnvestment Study, RTC, Clark County, NV. Project manager responsible for identifying and analyzing potential improvements to the 13-mile corridor to focus on technology advancements/lTS modifications, access management, bi ke/ped/transit improvements, and safety. Virginia Street Corridor lnvestment Plan and Design, RTG, Reno, NV. Transportation planner responsible for assisting with conducting a multimodal analysis for transportation improvements on Virginia Street in Reno' Project Neon Design-Build, NDOT, Las Vegas, NV. 91 Traffic operations lead responsible for managing all tasks 6
ATKINS
2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEIVlENT PLAN (TCIP) pertaining to traffic operations such as the corridorwide CORSIM and Synchro rnodeling and the MOT analysis.
Las Vegas Boulevard North Land Use, Transit, and Pedestrian Study, RTC, North Las Vegas, NV. Lead transportation planner responsible for data collection, demographic and land use analysis, transit operations analysis, safety analysis, pedestrian circulation, and parking. Developed recommendations for pedestrian and transit connectivity improvements along the corridor. To help reinvigorate ridership, this study helped identify a community-based, long-term integrated land use and transportation vision for the corridor. Maryland Parkway Corridor Alternative Analysis, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. Traffic analysis lead and transportation planner responsible for model development and coordination.
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Grossing Study, RTG, Glark County, NV. Technical lead responsible for assessing existing conditions and future mobility needs, developing mitigation measures alternatives, and prioritizing UPRR crossings in the Las Vegas valley. As part of the RTC's strategic planning process, Atkins identified current and future network deficiencies of the UPRR, developed potential solutions, and prioritized solutions considering the RTC's goals. l-80 Gorridor Study, NDOT, Washoe Gounty, NV. Traffic analyst responsible for providing data collection, traffic analysis, and land use planning. Atkins completed a study concerning growth implications on l-80 corridor land use and mobility. We provided planning expertise and process facilitation to help stakeholders work through the identified issues and develop a corridor plan.
Corridor Study, NDOT, Garson City to NV. Project engineer responsible County, Churchill modeling development providing demand travel for and statistical analysis, collection and analysis, data and accident mitigations management and congestion process planning involved a neutral support. Atkins' working group with the stakeholder facilitator working of meetings. and NDOT in a series US 50 East
'-n II lI)
I Massoud Javid, Ph.D., PE I on¡oc pn.o.., Civit Engineering, IJtah State t)niversity; M.8., Transportation Engineering, Concordia U niveristy; 8.E., Transportation Engineering, Concordia Univeristy Massoud Javid has 25 years of experience in a wide range of transportation planning and traffic engineering experience in consulting and public sectorwork. He has completed numerous transportation planning projects including corridor studies and travel demand models. His expertise in project management includes stakeholder and agency coordination, developing schedules and
RFQ PW
2017 002
work plans to keep projects on track, evaluating project risks, and developing risk mitigation measrlres and working with diverse team of professionals and stakeholders. Dr. Javid's project experience includes:
Boulder Highway Transportation Multimodal lnvestment Study, RTG, Clark Gounty, NV. Project planner responsible for identifying and analyzing potential improvements to the 13-mile corridor to focus on technology advancements/lTS modifications, access management, bike/ped/transit i mprovements, and safety. l-515 Southbound Traffic and Congestion Mitigation Study, NDOT, Las Vegas, NV. Planner responsible for overseeing traffic modeling, safety analyses, and data analysis for the southbound l-5'15 to westbound l-215 corridor from Sunset Road to Stephanie Street.
Fastlane Grant Proposal Support, NDOT, Las Vegas, NV. Provided travel demand forecasting for various scenarios and horizon years. Performed traffic engineering and corridor evaluation. Reviewed and developed cost estimates. Participated in benefit cost analysis. This project consisted of a proposal to use Fastlane Grant to use for the construction of a system to system interchange between CC215 and l-15 in the Las Vegas valley. l-15 Mobility Alliance Program Management, Las Vegas, NV. Data analysis task leader responsible for obtaining and processing data and providing QA/QC of safety and goods movement data such freight analysis framework, fatal accident and fatality analysis reporting system, highway performance monitoring system, travel time, and other safetY data.
Nevada State Freight Plan, Las Vegas, NV. Developed improvement alternatives, provided high level cost estimates, and participated in project ranking. The Nevada State Freight Plan will identify freight transportation hubs and facilities critical to Nevada's economic growth and recommend appropriate prioritization for investments in these hubs and facilities.
Cactus Avenue lmprovements, Las Vegas, NV. Designed and reviewed traffic signal controls and signing and stripping for the entire project. Provided preliminary and finaldesign and prepared plans, specifications, and estimate (PS&E).
Steve Hoover, AICP Principal Planner
MURP, lJrban & Regional Planning, University of Cotorado; MLA, Landscape Architecture, Univeristy of Colorado; 8.5., EnvironmentalSfuldes, University of Redlands Steve Hoover has 15 years of transportation planning experience including regional, statewide, and multimodal long-range planning; corridor studies; alternatives 92 analysis; feasibility studies; complete streets; National 7
2O'17 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (TCIP)
Environmental Policy Act environmental impact statements; performance management plann ing; information technology and GIS analysis and application development; decision support and knowledge management practices; graphic communication and publication; resource management plans; applied research; data analysis; asset management planning; and public involvement. His project experience includes:
Colorado Statewide Transportation Plan, Golorado Depa rtment of Transportation (CDOT), Statewide, Colorado. Member of the project's QA/QC team. Provided independent review of major draft documents and other major milestone materials.
Jefferson Street Complete Streets Alternatives Study, City of Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority, and GDOT, Fort Gollins, CO. Seníor transportation planner responsible for the day{o-day work required to develop and evaluate a comprehensive set of design option based alternatives aimed at achieving the livability, urban character, bicycle and pedestrian, air quality, and mobility goals of the project. SH 82 Corridor Optimization Plan, Gity of Glenwood Springs, CDOT, Roaring Fork Transportation
Authority, and Garfield Gounty, Glenwood Springs, CO. Transportation planner responsible for defining mobility challenges, developing evaluation criteria and improvement strategies, and recommendations. Strategies proposed to address future regional and local transportation demand also were consistent with local livability goals and small town context.
Victor Molano-Paz Data Col lection/Traffic Analyst M.5., Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; 8.5., Civil Engineering, Universidad del Cauca, Colombia
:-l -1
Victor Molano-Paz's experience involves traffic modeling, traffic operation, data analysis, optimization, and data collection. He has additional experience in business ntelligence desig n and implementation, software development, and cost-benefit studies. His software expertise includes CORSIM, Transmodeller, VlSSlM, and Transcad. His project experience includes: i
.
Project Neon Design-Build, NDOT, traffic operations
engineer
. l-515 Southbound Traffic and Congestion Mitigation Study, NDOT, traffic modeler and safety/data analysis
Devin Louie Data Collection/Traffic Analyst 8.5., Civil Engineering, University of California, lrvine Devin Louie has transportation design experience involving roadway and light rail design and multimodal transportation research. M r. Louie's responsi bilities have included preliminary design drawings, data RFQ PW 2017,002
ATKINS
collection, data analysis, and technical reports and presentations. His software expertise includes CORSIM, Transmodeller, VlSSlM, and Transcad. His Atkins project experience includes:
.
Northwest Collaborative Multi-Agency Regional Long Range Transportation Plans, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), planner
.
Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Long Range Transportation Plans, FHWA, planner . America's Great Outdoors Rocky Mountain Greenway, FHWA, planner on draft feasibility study . l-25 Reconstruction (SH 392 to SH 14), CDOT, planner/data and traffic analyst
Lia Grimaldi Data Col lection/Traffic Analyst
8.5., Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Lia Grimaldi's engineering experience focuses on traffic signals, roadway lighting, lTS, and fiber-optic upgrades. She also has experience revising the financial aspect of projects including billings to major clients; collaborating with engineering teams to produce construction drawings; and creating spreadsheets including trackers, construction schedules, and site data packages. Her project experience incl udes:
.
Project Neon Design-Build, NDOT, traffic/lTS designer
. CC 215 Bruce Woodbury Beltway from l-15 to Range Road, Clark County Public Works, project designer . Traffic Signals, Roadway Lighting, and ITS Design Services On-call, NDOT, project designer
. Cadence Roadways Design and Traffic Study, The
.
LandWell Company, project designer Purple Line Design-Build, Maryland Department of Transportation, Maryland, project designer
Brittney Brickman, El Data Col lection/Traffic Analyst
8.5., Civil Engineering, Georgia lnstitute of Technology Brittany Brickman has planning, design, maintenance, and operational experience involving ITS and traffic engineering. She has experience in traffic management, lTS, and advanced transportation management systems design, signal timing optimization, signalized intersection design, traffic planning, and signing/marking design. Ms. Brickman's project experience includes:
. Traffic Signals, Roadway Lighting, and ITS Design Services On-call, NDOT, traffic designer . Project Neon Design-Build, NDOT, traffic designer . Regional Traffic Operations Program, Georgia Department of Transportation, traffic designer . SunTrust Park Traffic Mitigation Study, Cobb County Department of Transportation, traffic desi g ner
93
94
RFQ PW 2017-002
,
| April 2017
rliir
t g
¡b I
'qL
I
{rrd..
Mesqu ite Nevada
2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Prepared by:
FIOR-R.OCKS I
ti
ll,[
i \, I
I rl.
::
95
1349 Galleria Drive, Suite #110 Henderson, Nevada 89014 www.honocks.com
April19,2017
I{OR.R.OCKS
Henderson Office Tel: 702.966.4063
ENGINEERS
-ll'll-
Travis H. Anderson, PE, City Engineer City of Mesquite 10 East Mesquite Blvd Mesquite, NV 89027
RE:
Proposal lor 2017 Transportation Capital lmprovement Plan (RFQ PW 2017-002)
Dear Mr. Anderson
Honocks Engineers respectively submits our proposal to update the Mesquite Transportation Capital lmprovement Plan (TCIP) and transportation impact fee. As a full-service engineering firm, we have spent the past 48+ years assisting many communities with planning, designing and constructing their growing infrastructure. We have provided planning services for many smaller communities similar in size to Mesquite. Through our recent work on the Exit 11 I and Exit 120 projects, we are familiar with the City's staff, policies, procedures, and standards as well as the RTC and Mesquite travel demand models. We are sensitive to the fact that Mesquite is a unique community with an older population and experiences significant seasonal traffic flucuations between the winter and summer. As such, the City experiences transportation challenges that require solutions which balance the appropriate infrastructure investment to address peak seasonal demands with the overall costs and benefits to year-round residents. Our experience in developing and helping implement TCIPs for other similar seasonal communities such as St. George and Moab, UT gives us a special understanding and insights that we will bring to Mesquite to help address this dilemma.
We expect this TCIP update to be of significant importance to the City in meeting its future transportation infrastructure needs and goals. We also realize that master plans have the potential to generate significant interest within the community. We will work closely with the City to understand the key values that are important to the communíty so that we can weave them into the final product. Our role as transportation professionals is to use sound principles to predict realistic future conditions based on the anticipated growth and land uses of the City, and provide practical recommendations to accommodate the City's future transportation needs.
The Honocks team is a great fit for this project because it offers Mesquite the following advantages:
¡
Ateam with recent and relevant transportation experience in Mesquite that possesses a cunent working knowledge of RTC travel demand methodology, the Mesquite TransCAD model, and VISSIM traffic analysis softrrare that is immediately available to perform the work
r
Our portfolio of recent experience in peforming transportation planning and design for Mesquite, NDOT and the RTC on Exit 118 as well as performing dozens of TCIPs for communities throughout the intermountain west including the leadership of Wayne Horlacher who developed the original COM TCIP and impact fee ordinance
r
Our experience with transportation planning studies and engineering design allows us to produce a practical plan that the City can use to guide its infrastructure development and that is based on the latest state-of-th+practice approaches and methodologies for travel demand modeling and impact fee development
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal for your consideration. We are committed to mobilizing our resources to complete the project on time and within budget and are immediately available to begin working on the project. Please feel free to contact me at 702-9664063 or [email protected] with any questions. Sincerely,
HORROCKSÆNGINEERS
4ytáø'a-\Âhyne Horlacher Principal-ln-Charge
96
Mesouite r r*.¡.
PART 2: QUALIFICATIONS / APPROACH
^
Honocks Engineers is a multi-disciplinary engineering firm that provides clients in the public and private sector with the engineering expertise they need to address today's complex planning, design and construction issues. We serve a diverse public agency client base throughout Nevada, Utah, ldaho,
actual roadway design and construction experience that we bring to the table in support of our planning efforts. Because we have actually designed and constructed numerous projects from cities' TClPs, we understand how to properly evaluate the construction feasibility and provide realistic cost estimates.
Arizona, and New Mexico with municipal, transportation, traffic, and environmental consulting engineering services.
Our recent experience on the Exit 118 project provides us with a better understanding of the local COM construction costs for
MASTER PLANNING, TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
capital improvement projects which will help assure the accuracy of the cost estimates developed for needed improvements and sound impact fee calculations compliant with NRS 2788.
The expertise of Horrocks Engineers in the field of travel demand modeling is well known throughout the transportation planning community. We have utilized the RTC TransCAD regional travel demand model and VISSIM traffic analysis programs for transportation projects in Mesquite and LasVegas, ln addition, we have performed travel demand and traffic modeling for dozens of communities across Utah and ldaho in completing master plans, capital improvement plans, area-wide regional studies, corridor studies, environmental documents, and roadway design projects.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY Honocks is very interested in the COM TCIP update. We have committed experienced leaders to active project roles for continuity and to ensure a strong commitment throughout the project. Our background efforts along with the knowledge gained from our recent experience in Mesquite and with the RTC model allow us to immediately hit the ground running upon selection.
Recent Clark County projects that demonstrate our ability to
Client satisfaction, control of costs, quality of work, and meeting project schedules are of utmost importance to us and are the guiding principles of our management philosophy. Regular contact w¡th COM staff to coordinate project direction and with the Citizen's Advisory Committee to receive input is extremely effective in addressing challenges, resolving conflicts and addressing specific needs as they develop.
provide the trafüc analysis required for this project include:
r
l-15 Exit 118 Program Management where we utilized the Mesquite TransCAD model to veriff and update design volumeswith the RTC and NDOTforthe new interchange and Lower Flat Top Drive and used VISSIM for design level traffic modeling to determine intersection and lane configurations and tuming bay storage lengths
r
RESOURCES Honocks has over 325 employees at our disposalwith expertise in all the critical technical and support areas of the project. We utilize the latest computer softruare for transportation, travel demand, land planning, demographics analysis, socio-economic analysis, GlS, traffic operations, scheduling, budget tracking, and project management. We have allocated our resources so that our local staff is immediately available for this project.
l-15 Stan Avenue Interchange where we utilized the RTC TransCAD model to generate design year 2020 and 2040 traffic volumes and VISSIM for operational analyses to obtain the required FHWA Change in Control of Access (CCAR) approval for this new interchange
¡ .
l-15 Exit 120 Design-Build where we utilized VISSIM to assist in the analysis and design of the roundabouts and the efension of Falcon Ridge Parkway to Leavitt Lane
QA/QC
Valle Verde DriveM/indmill Parkway where we utilized VISSIM to perform detailed alternatives analysis between a
Honocks prides itself on our ability to deliver a quality product on schedule and within budget. ln order to ensure the highest quality engineering services, we have instituted an internal QA/
roundabout, signal and 4-way stop at this busy intersection near a middle school
QC program that defines a project specific methodology for internally controlling the quality of our analysis and final products. Throughout the performance of the project and before delivery of the final product, our QA/QC manager will verity that the defined methodology had been followed and thereby assure that the work performed is of the upmost quality. The project managerwill
ENG¡NEERING SOLUTIONS Honocks has a proven history of working with local governments and regional agencies on transportation projects. Whether it is a local road project or a regional corridor or transportation study, Honocks' ability to work with local governments and state and
be responsible for assuring that the appropriate quality control checks were performed by the independent QC team and that the quality of our analysis meets or exceeds COM and RTC
federal agencies to develop appropriate and context sensitive solutions has been demonstrated many times such as on the recent Exit 118 project. One advantage our team offers is the
1
20,1
7 TRANSPORTATI
standards and expectations.
O
N CAP ITAL M PROVEM ENT PLAN I
IIORROCKS
97
PART 2: QUALIFICATIONS
Mesquite
/ APPROACH
Ns.d¡
--L
Our QA/QC program has significant schedule and cost control elements as well. Schedule control will be ensured by the preparation of a project specific, resource loaded schedule that identifies critical path elements. During the course of the project, the schedule will be continually reviewed and updated by the project manager. Critical path items will be continually tracked and monitored. ltems that could affect the schedule or budget will be discussed at regular project meetings. This will allow us to identify any potential impacts and to develop measures to keep the project on track. Our project costs will also be continually monitored and managed directly by our project manager. During regular team meetings, the budget and time charges will be reviewed with each discipline lead to identify and address any potential issues.
GENERAL PROJECT APPROACH One of the fundamental truths that we have learned from our experience in community master planning with respect to communities' transportation needs is that even though communities may seem similar, their transportation needs are unique. This is because all communities have unique features
such as topography, climate, waterways,
these issues and innovative solutions to address them. These could include strategies such as roundabouts, temporary lane configuration changes through the use of "tackable" curbing and islands, temporary signal operation strategies, developing more attractive alternate routes, etc. SCOPE AND SCHEDULE We have reviewed the detailed scope-of-work in the RFP and agree with the tasks and work items outlined therein. Completing these items as presented will result in a sound TCIP that meets all the RTC regulations and provides a sound basis for impact fees that comply with NRS 2788. Though there may be other items the COM could consider in the work plan such as extending the TCIP out beyond 5 years to also address mid and long term needs, these items can be discussed during the negotiation process when the scope of work, schedule and budget are refined and incorporated as COM sees fit. We are confident that a scope of work can be finalized that addresses allthe needs outlined in the RFP and within the COM's budget for the project.
Based on our experience in developing and updating TClPs, the
neighborhoods, landforms, cultures, history and demographics. Therefore, using a standard "boiler plate" set of solutions to address transportation needs is a formula for failure.
technicalwork usually requires from 3-6 months depending on the level of involvement and review from citizen's committees, staff, and elected officials. The schedule can also be affected
Many transportation plans fail to fully understand and identiff the vision and transportation problems of a community. Too often planners and engineers rush to the analysis of solutions
(summer vs winter or in-schoolvs out-of-school), identification of new and planned developments, status of general land use and zoning plans, etc. \Â/ith our resources and team availability, we
and recommendations that meet the technical needs before fully understanding the details of transportation, social, environmental and other community issues. Therefore, our general approach to updating the COM TCIP is focused on reflecting and incorporating the unique values of the community into a practical TCIP that
have the flexibility to complete the work in the timeframe that best
serves the city on a daily basis. For example, one unique aspect of Mesquite is the high ownership
number of second homes and large influx of residents during the in certain areas and on select roads that may be experiencing high congestion levels during the winter, but then operate just fine during the rest of the year when the seasonal population drops. An intersection that normally operates just fine during the summer may experience lots of delay and wanant a signal during the winter.
winter... snowbirds. This presents challenges
However, with limited budgets and competing infrastructure needs, installing an expensive signalto address a problem that only exists part of the time may not be the best nor most appropriate solution. Our experience in working with other communities such as St. George and Moab, UT that experience similar seasonal population influxes provides us an in-depth understanding of
2
by the amount of data collection required such as the number of intersections and roads to be counted, when they can be counted
meets the COM's need.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
Though Horrocks provides services, our expertise is
a full range of civil engineering
in
public transportation oriented
projects. Our traffic engineering services include: Advance Planning Studies Alignment and Corridor Studies Access Management Studies Bike and Pedestrian Planning CapitalFacilities Planning and lmpact FeeAnalysis
r . r ¡ r r ¡ r r r r r r .
ConidorOperationsAnalysis Electronic Data Collection Level of Service Analysis Long Range Area Plans Local and Community Transportation Planning Transportation Studies and Master Planning Traffic Calming
Trafüc Operations Analysis (VlSSlM, Corsim, Synchro,
98
SimTraffic, HCS)
ïravelDemand Forecasting (TransCAD, CUBE, ORS ll)
2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
rIORROCKS
Mesouite *-û
PART 2: QUALIFICATIONS / APPROACH
-f.j-
The table below represents recent projects performed by Horrocks with work elements similar to those that will be provided in updating the COM TCIP.
E
Ê o ou,
o,'e
EU,
Ë .=àõÊ'-øE
ã
'-9^
¡¡ c, G
!,
o,
oPROJECT
(J
g
Â(Ð
CL
a!
ËËËËËeËggEËãå¡ã= EãõÈÈ'n: ËeeË ãEi
EEEãEEå-(r<(r(r<ÀÉc5
l-15 Exit 118 lnterchanoe, Mesquite, NV l-15 WestMesquite lnterchange, Mesquite, NV l-'15 Starr Ave lnterchange, Las Vegas, NV
Shadow Lane, Las Veqas, NV Val le Verde/ìff i ndmi I I I ntersecti
on, Henderson, NV
St. Georoe Citv TMP UT
lvins City TMB Uf Washinoton Citv TMP UT Hurricane Citv TMP/lFFP, UT Orem Citv TMP, UT Rexburg, lD & Madison County, lD TMP
South Jordan TMP/CFP Update, UT West Jordan 2040 TMP/ClB UT
Sprinqville Citv TMP/ClP/IFFP Analysis, UT American Fork TMP/ClP/IFFB UT West Point TMP/IFFB UT Spanish Fork TMP/IFFB UT Riverdale IFFP, UT Svracuse TMP, UT
Layton City TMB UT Pleasant Grove TMP, UT Saratoga Springs TMP/CFP, UT
Spanish Fork TMP, UT Kaysville TMP/CFB UT Riverton TMP/CFB UT
Salt Lake County East West Arterial Study, UT
ln addition to the above projects, we have chosen three of these projects to highlight for additional discussion. These are found on the following page and represent projects with directly related experience to the COM TCIP which were either done directly in Mesquite or involved extensive use of the RTC TransCAD modeling and methodologies.
99
2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
rIORROCI(S
Mes ui te
PART 2: QUALIFICATIONS / APPROACH
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EXPERIENCE
I-15 EXIT 1 18 INTERCHANGE
nnesQuITE, NV
Horrocks Engineers provided traveld demand modeilng and trafilc analysis and design services associated with the developmentof the new l-15 Exit llS lnterchange in Mesquite, Nevada. The project, funded by RTG Fuel Revenue lndexing Funds, included: a bridge over l-15; four ramps; 1,500 feet of Lower FlatTop Drive; both arterialand freeway signing and striping design;traveldemand modeling and traffic analysis; storm drain design; additional culvert crossings jacked and bored beneath 115; and extensive retaining walls. Horrocks developed the preliminary design of the interchange and Lower Flat Top Drive. Using the RTC Mesquite TransCAD travel demand model, Horrocks verified the opening day and 2040 design year traffic projections and then used these number to conduct a traffic analysis to value engineer the need for five lanes on the bridge over l-15 as indicated in the EA. The outcome of this analysis indicated a very low probability for the need of a fifth lane and recommended the bridge be reduced to four lanes. These results were then coordinated and approved by NDOT and FHWA. This resulted in a project savings of about half a million dollars. The analysis also determined that traffic signals were not warranted at opening day.
I.15 WEST MESQUITE INTERCHANGE
MESQUITE, NV
Horrocks worked with NDOI the RTC and Mesquite to replace the l-15 Exit 120 West Mesquite lnterchange as part of a design-build project. The interchange was orginally configured as a diamond interchange, but the project reconfigured it to a roundabout interchange. A key element of the project was the traffic engineering we performed related to the operational analysis and design layout of the two roundabouts at the ramp terminal intersections. Additional traffic engineering work addressed detour routing, maintenance of traffic (MOT) requirements, temporary trafüc signals, ITS components, signing, striping, and lighting. The originalconcept design called for a complete realignment of Falcon Ridge Parlarvay with a new bridge crossing location. Through our analysis, we were able to redesign the conceptual roundabouts to maintain the existing alignment and implement Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) technologies to replace the l-15 bridges in 56 hours, thereby significantly reducing MOT delays and saving months on the original project schedule.
I-1 5 STARR AVE INTERCHANGE ms VEGAS, NV Horrocks Engineers was retained by the NDOT to provide staff augmentation in the area of travel demand modeling and traffic analysis for the design of the new Stan lnterchange on l-15 in Las Vegas, NV. The primary work effort was the detailed travel demand modeling and traffic analysis required to support the design and FHWA approval of the new interchange. Horrocks collected daily and peak hour volumes at the adjacent Cactus Avenue and St. Rose Parhray interchanges and the íntersections of StarrAvenue with Dean Martin Drive and Las Vegas Boulevard. Using these volumes, the RTC regionalTransCAD traveldemand modeland NDOT count data, opening year 2020 and design year 2040 volumes were projected. Honocks then used HCS 2010, Synchro, and Vissim software packages to analyze intersection, interchange, ramp, merge/diverge,
weave and ramp metering operations for both AM and PM peak hours to evaluate the performance of the new interchange as well as the effect it would have on the adjacent interchanges and sunounding street network. Design related recommendations were then provided to assist with the development of lane configurations, acceleration/deceleration lengths, and turn lane storage requirements. A key element of the analysis was ensuring the operation of the proposed TUDI interchange was equalto that of the SPUI that was originally approved in the EA. The procedures, methodologies, finding and recommendations were documented the100 Change in Controlof Access Report (CCAR) for FHWAapprovalof the new interchange.
4
2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
IIORR"OCI(S
Mesouite i
PART 3: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Àd¡d¡
-
PROJECT TEAM We recognize that the most important element in any project is the project team. A key advantage of our team is the capability of our Henderson and St. George in-house staff to perform the
CITY OF MESOUITE 'l{^Vll ÅNl)1fi1ì{)l\ ir: .;¡t! i tì{l[ì1$t
work. Each key team member brings unique previous experience from working on both local City of Mesquite (COM) projects such as Exit 118 and Exit 120 as well as on dozens of other transportation projects across Clark County for the RTC that will benefit this project. The organizational chart below outlines the make-up of our team members. Resumes of each team member are provided in Part 4.
Ptincipal-in-Charge
. .
We offer Mesquite:
P¡incipal ol Horrocks and Las Vegas 0ffice Manager
27 years of experience managing and designing multi-
.
Experienco includos serving as the proiect manager for tho original Mesquite TCIP (while employed at a previous firm) rosponsible lor performing OAÆC ac,tivities for the proiect and assuring adsquato firm resources aro awilablo to üs projec't têâm lo comploto the work
lMll bs
Projecl Manager LEE CAEELL, PE.
. . . ¡
r The ability
to efficiently complete transportation planning update process with a core team based entirely in our nearby Henderson, NV and St. George, UToffices
0A/0C Manager
disciplined transportation projects
.
The capability of the Horrocks Engineers team is evidenced by each individual team member's solid reputation in their specific area of expertise. Our team is able to draw on the full capabilities of the team members to assure COM that sufficient resources are available to successfully provide the quality transportation planning and engineering needed to complete the project in a thorough and timely manner.
|
WAYNE HORLACHER, PE.
24 years erperience rn prolect rûnaoenlent traffic engtne€r¡¡_0 kansportatiûn masler .0rridor studics lrâific ânaiysrs and s¿lely shidies
DranninE
rtolkeo on s¿rious nuntcipal ano regional lransDorl¿l¡0rr capitâl ültprovement pianninq projects Tratlic manaqs ior Fx¡l 1 18 lnkìrchan-08 Pr0qram Manaqcnrenl
Will ff¡
re
slnnsio's f 0' orrricling lhû prolrcl wori staii. sdxrdule and brrrlçl anrl marnlarnirrr¡ croæ
coord¡qatr0n witn the C¡ly- 0i Mesquile
the master
¡ The understanding and experience to implement an approach based on
the
r
iilcltAtl
ltEAPs, P.E.
ymrs exporisnæ in traffic analysis and altemativrc dwelopment lor vaious banspodation inprovement polæts, Fansportation mal€r plans, lreolay and 1
3
¡
arlerial conidor studies, project prioritization for uso
in long+ango plans, usertenefit studi6. and tnvel dsmand modol dev6lopment¿nd malnlomnce
.
lntogral
ifl
trarßporhtion masler plans lor
Wæhington, Hurricane and St. George
r
Podormd up&te to regional trawl dernand model
Will bo
respons¡ble
sïtvE 8Er-ulro, flood control, and utility dæign
r Load dæigner on he Exil
fiallic
o
opor¿tions analysis
lor l-15 Starr Ave
Transponafion Masþr Plans lor St.
Gooç,
P.E.
13 years of mporionm in rmdway dæign. fiæwa¡
yeae as City of Sl. Gærge Trafic Enginær and Asistant City Enginær
CCAB
o
r
Flat Top Drive
1 1
I lnlorclunç and Lo¡nr
projæl
Will be ræponslble lor developing cosl ætimatæ lor recommen&d improvemonls to bs usod ir¡ updating the impactfæs
Hunicane, lvins, Washington, and Dixie MP0
lor Dixie MPO
.
r
ARON BAIGR, P.E. Senior A¡soclale wiûr 25 yæls oqodonce in trafic and lransportalion onginærlng, 14
for pedorming trallic analysis
o Will be ræponsible for performíng traflic opralions analys's and updating the hansponafion imFcllcss
and tralfic enginæring araluations
community's
vision statement and specific transportation goals
r
¡,r.i¡, L.
The ability to include
and work with
key stakeholders to develop shared
'
ti
lf
,iit
Il
:.
!llrrrì r,.lllI
a
understanding of the general and specific transportation concerns in the city and develop consensus amongst parties
¡
A strong technical expertise to address the detailed travel demand modeling, traffic engineering, capital improvements, and engineering feasibility elements of the project and to develop sound technical options, alternatives and solutions
r
A recent familiarity with the COM's TransCAD model from our prior work in veriffing and updating the trafüc volumes for the Exit 101 l1 I lnterchange project
tr
2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
I{ORROCKS
Mesquite
PART 4: RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL
¡-råi
NN¡r¡
-
LEE CABELL, P.E, Project Manager
WAYNE HORLACHER, P.E.
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
. . . !
"t
Principal-ln-Charge / QA/QC Manager
. .
NevadaPENo.21596 Utah PE N0.188020
Arizona PE N0.49885
EDUCATION
.
EDUCATION
.
Nevada PE No. 10739 California PE N0.50918
B.S. Civil Engineering, Brigham Young Univenity
M.S. Civil Engineering, Brigham Young University
A Lee is a Principal of Honocks Engineers, has M.S. and B.S. degrees in Civil Engineering, and 24 years of experience as a project manager and design engineer for transportation, traffic and environmentalprojects. His projects have included master plans, corridor studies, trafüc signal design, highway lighting design, roadway design - including various alternative intersections, striping and signing design, safety analysis, intersection design and operations analysis, traffic impact studies, traffic control design, and environmental studies and documentation. Lee's master planning experience includes the management
and preparation of several local traffic and transportation master plans for communities of various sizes. His iesponsibilities for this project include reviewing and QA/QC
of deliverables, executing contractual matters, monitodng scope, schedule and budget, directing the day-to{ay performance of the staff, and coordinating with COM staff.
native Nevadan, Wayne has spent over 25 years working on the design and development of transportation infrastructure in Southern Nevada. He has an understanding
of RïC requirements as well as the design standards and specif¡cations used on local, public agency projects. His experience includes serving as the project manager for the initial COM TCIP. As the Principal-in+harge, Wayne will ensure that the project team has the necessary resources to complete this plan within time and budget. SIMILAR EXPERIENCT l-15 Exit llS lnterchange, Mesquite, NV l-15 StarrAve lnterchange, LasVegas, NV Valle VerdeM/indmill Roundabout, Henderson, NV Mesquite TCIP and lmpact Fee lmplementation, Mesquite, NV Regional Transportation Commission, Maryland Parhrvay Altematives Analysis, Las Vegas, NV Rainbow Bou levard/Sahara Aven ue Super-Arterial Feasibility Study, Las Vegas, NV
. . .
. . .
SIMILAR EXPERIENCE l-15 Exit llS lnterchange, Mesquite, NV l-15 West Mesquite lnterchange, Mesquite, NV l-15 StanAve lnterchange, LasVegas, NV Washington City lmpact Fee Update, UT
. . . . .
STEVE BELLINO, P.E. Transportation Engineer
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
Dixie MPO Regional Travel Demand Model Update,
.
Washington County, UT
. Washington City MasterTransportation PlatVClP, UT . Hunicane City MasterTransportation Plan/ClP, UT . lvins City MasterTranspoftation Plan/ClP, UT . St. George MasterTransportation Plan/ClP, UT
. BluffStreet Corridor Study, St. George, UT . Bloomington Roundabout lnterchange Study, St. George, UT . Draper City Master Transportation Plan/ClP, UT
. West Jordan Gity MasterTransportation Plan/ClP, UT . Riverton City MasterTransportation Plar/ClP, UT . Sandy City MasterTransportation Plan/ClP, UT . Pleasant Grove City MasterTransportation Plan/ClP, UT . SR-18; Bluff Street and Sunset Boulevard, St. George, UT . Southem Parloivay, St. George, UT
.
River Road Corridor Study, St. George, UT
Nevada PE No. 19040
EDUCATION
.
B.S. University of Nevada Las Vegas
Steve has 13 years of experience providing public clients with detailed designs for roadways, freeways, flood control facilities, and utilities. He is thoroughly familiar with City of Mesquite design standards from serving as the lead design engineer on the Exit 118 project. He will assist the team by developing cost estimates for recommended improvements. SIMILAR EXPERIENCE l-15 Exit llS lnterchange, Mesquite, NV l-15 StarrAve lnterchange, Las Vegas, NV Buffalo Drive Traffic Capacity lmprovements Design, Las Vegas, NV US 95/Kyle Canyon lnterchange Value Engineering, Las Vegas, NV Shadow Lane lmprovenients, Las Vegas, NV
. . . .
102
. 6
2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
I{ORROCKS
Mesouite
PART 4: RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL
--¿-**ù
MICHAEL HEAPS, P.E. Traffic Engineer
JAYSON CLUFF, P.E. Traffic Engineer
PROFESSIONAL REG¡STRATIONS:
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
.
l'.
Utah PE N0.5252497
EDUCATION
.
of experience in travel demand modeling, traffic operations analysis, traffic engineering and transportation planning. He is also experienced in traffic, signing, lighting, ATMS, and signal design. He has been integral in the planning and production of many recent traffic studies. Over the past 5 years Mike has worked extensively with the Dixie MPO CUBE and QRS llTravelDemand Models (TDM) and provided much of the data used in calculating the latest St. George City and Washington City transportation impact fees. SIMILAR EXPERIENCE l-15 Exit 118 lnterchange Program Management, Mesquite, NV l-15 West Mesquite lnterchange, Mesquite, NV Valle VerdeM/indmill Roundabout Analysis, Henderson, NV Pahrump RoundaboutAnalysis, Pahrump, NV
. . .
. . l-15 MP 8-10 Widening and Mall Drive Underpass, St. George, UT . SR-18; Bluff Street and Sunset Boulevard, St. George, UT . EWCRPO Corridors Study, Washington Gounty, UT . River Road Capacity Study, St. George, UT . Dixie MPO Regional Travel Demand Model Update, Washington Coun$, UT . l-15 EnvironmentalAssessment, St. George, UT . Washington Parkway CosUBenefit Study, Washington, UT . Washington City Transportation Master Plan/ClP, UT . Hurricane City Transportation Master Plan/ClP, UT . Dixie State College Traffic, Pedestrian, and Parking Master Plan Study, St. George, UT . St. George City Transportation Master Plan/ClP, UT . Dixie Drive lnterchange Access Justification Report, St. George, UT . Southern Parkway, Segment lll Transportation Study, St. George, UT . Lighting and ATMS design for the Hunicane State Street . .
Reconstruction, Hurricane, UT LehiTechnology Corridor Study, Lehi, UT l-15 The Point Project, Salt Lake County, UT
utahPENo.3i8632 PTOE CertNo.2269
EDUCATION
B.S. Civil Engineering, University of Utah
Mike has 13 years
. .
B.S. Civil Engineering, Brigham Young University
Jayson has 21 years of experience in traffic and transportation engineering focusing on traveldemand modeling and traffic operations analysis. His experience has ranged from large regional travel demand planning projects to small site specific
trafüc operations studies. Jayson has broad experience in travel demand modeling including creating subarea models, splitting traffic analysis zones, performing select link analyses and subarea trip extractions, and updating socio-economic data. His experience includes planning and operations for all modes of travel including vehicular, commuter rail, light rail, bus rapid transit, bus transit, bicycle, and pedestrian. Recent projects included using TransCAD, Cube, VlSSlM, Synchro, SimTraffic, and Highway Capacity Sofiware to project future traffic volumes and to model traffic operations. His current working knowledge of model softruare will ensure that the modeling tasks are performed in an efficíent manner. He recently served as the lead travel demand modeler for the l-15 StarrAve lnterchange using the RTC TransCAD model. SIMILAR EXPERIENCE l-15 StarrAve lnterchange, Las Vegas, NV Spanish Fok City Master Transportation Plan/ClP, UT Sandy City MasterTransportation Plan/ClP, UT Pleasant Grove City MasterTransportation Plan/ClP, UT LehiCity MasterTransportaion Plan/ClB UT St. George City Transportation Master Plar/ClP, UT l-15 Dixie Drive lnterchange, St. George, UT Dixie MPO Regional Travel Demand Model Update, Washington County, UT l-15;Atkinville lnterchange, St. George, UT River Road Conidor Study, St. George, UT l-15 MP 8 Diverging Diamond lnterchange, St. George, UT UDOT Region 3 Program Management, UT West Davis Conidor ElS, Davis County, UT Layton lnterchange ElS, Layton, UT Geneva Road ElS, Utah County, UT l-15: Lehi Main To SR-92, Lehi, UT Sandy City Frontage Road Study, Sandy, UT Bangerter Highway and 600 West Design, Salt Lake County, UT 1800 North, 2000 West to l-15, Davis County, UT Syracuse Road, 1000 West to 2000 West, Syracuse, UT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
103
7
2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
I{ORROCKS
Mesouite ---J-
PART 4: RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL
-
ARON BAKER, P.E. Transportation Engineer
MIKE SEELY, P.E. Transportation Engineer
PROFESS¡ONAL REGISTRATIONS:
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
.
. .
Utah PE No.181351
EDUCATION
.
.
T:
experience, with 14 of those years spent working for the City of St. George. His duties at St. George as the City Trafüc Engineer involved master planning roads and developing and implementing the Streets Capital Facility Plan and lmpact Fee Program as development evolved and capital improvements were constructed. Aron has been with Horrocks for 9 years and has managed several master planníng and impact fee studies for the communities of St. George, Washington, lvins and Huricane. Aron also was the project manager for several critical roadway systems in the area including Snow Canyon Parkway, Riverside Drive, the roundabout at Snow Canyon Drive and Center Street in lvins. He has also been integrally involved in the creation of the award-winning Dixie Traffic Control Center which is a communication hub for all of the traffic signals, highway weather stations, and traffic CCW's in the St. George area. His most recent work included traffic operations modeling for the l-15 Starr Ave Interchange CCAR.
SIMILAR EXPERIENCE l-15 StarrAve Interchange, Las Vegas, NV
. . Shadow Lane lmprovements, Las Vegas, NV . Valle Verder Road Rehabilitations, Henderson, NV . Washington City lmpact Fee Update, UT . Washington City MasterTransportation Plan/ClP, UT . Hurricane City Master Transportation Plan/ClP, UT . Hunicane Ci$ lmpact Fee Study, UT . lvins City MasterTransportation Plan/ClP, UT . St. George Master Transportation Plan/ClP, George, UT . Dixie MPO Regional lTSArchitecture Study, Washington County, UT . Snow Canyon Roundabout, lvins, UT . River Road Capacity Study, St. George, UT . l-15 MP 8-10 Widening and Mall Drive Underpass, St. George, UT . SR-18; Bluff Street and Sunset Boulevard, St. George, UT . Bangerter Highway lmprovement Study, Salt Lake County, UT . St. GeorgeAirportAccess Road, St. George, UT . Enoch City Capital Facilities Plan, Enoch, UT
Utah PE N0.318903 Arizona PE N0.49279
EDUCATION
B,S. Civil Engineering, Brigham Young Univenity
Aron is an Associate at Horrocks and has a B.S. in Civil Engineering. He has 27 years of municipal engineering
N"..¿,
B.S. Civil Engineering, Brigham Young University
Mike has 20 years of experience working on civil engineering
projects emphasizing in traffic operations, planning, and engineering design. His projects include developing traffic routing and contingency plans, development and review of maintenance of traffic (MOÐ plans for construction projects, and general trafüc engineering. Mike specializes in traffic operations modeling and the use of VlSSlM, Synchro and SimTraffic. Recent experience includes travel demand modeling and VISSIM traffic operations modeling for the l-15 StarrAve lnterchange in Las Vegas, NV. SIMILAR EXPERIENCE l-15 StarrAve lnterchange, Las Vegas, NV Brigham Young University Transportation Plan, Provo, UT Atkinville lnterchange SPU|signaldesign, St. George, UT l-80 lnterchange Signals, Salt Lake County, UT l-80 Reversible LanesAnalysis, UT New Bingham Highway Railroad Crossing lmprovements, UT North Provo City Quiet Zone design, UT Eagle lsland Crossing roundabout analysis, Ada County, ID
l-15 CORE Program Manager Traffic Analysis, Utah County, UT Daybreak Roundabout Analysis, UT
Dixie Drive Environmental Assessment,
\ÂIashington
Gounty, UT SR-92 Program Manager TrafficAnalysis, UT Valley Fair Mall/Constitution Ave Traffic Study, UT West Jordan City Transportation Master Plan Update, UT UDOT Access Utah County, American Fork Main Street Access Justification Report, UT UDOT Access Utah Gounty, SR-92 Access Justification Report,UT North Legacy Corridor Preservation Study, Davis County, UT
104
B
2017 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
I{ORROCKS
Technical Review Agenda Item 5 Submitted by: Tysha Blaber Submitting Department: Public Works Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Consideration of designating Vehicles and Equipment as City Surplus items and direct Public Works to list these items on the Public Surplus website with the exception of the two Senior Center Vans recommending these to be donated to Silver Rider. - Public Comments - Discussion and Possible Action Recommendation: Direct Public Works to list Vehicles and Equipment for sale on Public Surplus website and to donate Vehicles 3039 & 3040 to Silver Rider. Petitioner: Bill Tanner, Public Works Director Is this a budgeted item? Yes Fiscal Impact: Increased Revenue for surplus items would be receipted into Misc Revenue Account GL No. 1036120 (Sale of Assets) Fund. Background: Public Works would like to place the following items on a Public Website for auction at www.publicsurplus.com. Vehicles: 1994 Ford F-150 1995 Ford F-150 1995 Ford F-150 1995 Ford F-150 1998 Ford Expedition 2001 Ford Triton Van 2001 Ford Triton Van
#768 #906 #957 #969 #103 #3039 #3040
70,099 Miles 76,973 Miles 114,430 Miles 117,853 Miles 188,881 Miles 153,045 Miles 191,709 Miles 105
Equipment: 1988 Wells 5th Wheel Trailer 1996 Polaris Sportsman ATV #6004 4,014 Miles 2004 John Deere Mower # 949 345 Hours Full Swing Golf Simulator – Rec Center 2’x2’ Play Ground rubber padding estimated to be total 4200 SqFt.
Attachments: VehiclePictures.pdf EquipmentPictures.pdf SNTC_501c3Letter.pdf SNTCAgreement_2005.pdf SNTCAgreement_2010.pdf
106
1994 Ford F-150 Vehicle 768
107
1994 Ford F-150 Vehicle 906
108
1994 Ford F-150 Vehicle 957
109
1994 Ford F-150 Vehicle 969
110
1998 Ford Expedition Vehicle 103
111
2001 Ford Triton Van Vehicle 3039
112
2001 Ford Triton Van Vehicle 3040
113
1988 Wells 5th Wheel Trailer
114
1996 Polaris Sportsman ATV Vehicle 6004
115
2004 John Deere Mower Vehicle 949
116
Full Swing Golf Simulator – Rec Center
Still Need Picture
117
2’x2’ Play Ground Rubber Padding Estimated to be a total of 4200 SqFt.
118
119
120
ORIGINAL AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of Mesquite. a M0t1icipal Corporation of the Staie of Nevada ("the City'). and the Southem NeVllda Transit Coalition ("SNTC"). organized as a Nevada non-profit organization.
WITNESSB'111: WHEREAS, the SNTC currtotly prov~'i tnmsit services for lhe benefit of the residents of the. City; and
WHEREAS, the SNTC proposes to assume the managemcut of the Store of Nevada Division fur Aging Services funded senior b:anspottatioo program (''1te Program") currently being nm by die City; and WHKREAS, both parties believe that transfuai.ng the management of the Program to SNTC to provide the service portion of the grant will f8Cl1iture a better,. safer. and :D10m financially secure cransponalion service for senior rui7.ens in the Mesquite area; and WJlEREAS, the State of Nevada Division for Aging Services bas exprcssed i.tB support for the tranafer of assignment of the Program regarding the ttansportetion services for BCUior citizeM under the Agreement. . NOW~ TREREFOn in roosideration of lhe foregoing premises and die following termc and conditions. the patties agree as fullows: . 1.
2.
3.
The SNTC will assume the responsibilities and obligations under the Stat.e grant for providing transportation 8el'Viccs to aeai.or citizens coms:nco.clttg on July 1. 2000. All ~ as well as any unexpended grant revenue. or mvenues collected from patronS will be subject to the adminif.1ration of the SNTC. All calls for senior 1rallsportation services will be .refened to the SNTC dispatching office
in. Mesquite.
4. 5.
6.
1.
The City will assign lhe right to the SNJ'C to apply direc:tly to the State of NeNada Division foc the Aging Services for future grant monies to provide stated services curmatly provided by the Program. The City agrees to lease the use of two (2) 14 passenger vans. purebased in part w.ith State grant monies, to die SNTC for providing local tranBpo.rtation fOT a period not to exceed five (S) years. 1be SNTC shall be responsible for providing .Ill required maintenance activity on the vehicles including recommended maintenance, major repair, oil changes. fuel. tire replacement, etc. The SNl'C sbalJ maintain cunmt regist:ratioll. on the vehicles \tiith the Nevada .Department of MOlor Vehicles. The SNIC will provide general liability. vehicle and property .insurance at its sole expense, and name the City as an additional insured on all sudi policies. with .respect to dte use of the vehicles and assumption of serv.k:es by SNTC pursuant to dm Agreement. This insurance must be main1ained at all timt.S du.ring the use of the vehicles by SNTC. As part of this Agreement. the SNI'C shall. with adequate advance notice. supply to the City tmnsportadon services fill' City business or recreational trips at a rate of $10 pa driving hour and $0.SO per mile for use of passenger van or small bus, and $0.60 per mile on large bus.
121
. 8.
9.
I
'Ibis Agreement may he k:mlinated upon a Party giving the other Party at least one· hundred lwenty (120) days wriltCn advance Daticc of incen1 to terminate the A,greemenr. Upon termination or expimtion of this Agreement without renewal, the SNTC will return lhe two 14 passenger vans and assign 1he State grant, including any unexpended State funds, and rights back to lhe City. The rates included in this Agreement may be amended in the fun.ue by the agreement of the Me3<1.uite City Manager and the Soutllem Nevada Transit Coalition Executive Director.
mutual
IN WITNFSS WHEREOF~ the Parties have caused this Agrt:ement. to be duly executed
-Oil the dates below.
CITY OF MESQUITE
SO. NEVADA TRANSIT COALITION
By.Q,jq ~ BillNt~yoc
By.~Q.J...
Date:
Debbie Dauenhauer, Executive Director
t21\""M\ O~
ATTEST:
*"~:J..
By: Carol Wl
Ci
Clerk
p
122
AGREEMEl{T THIS AGRIEMEÌIT is made and entered ¡nto by and between
Municipal Corporation of the State of Nevada ("the
Citfl,
the City of Mesquite, a
and the Southern Nevadr Transit
Coalition {'SNTC,}, orgnnized as a Nevada non-profit organiaation. WffTESSETH:
lmlfREAS, the SNTC currently provides transit services for the benefit of the residents of the City; and UTHEREAS,
the SHTC currêr¡tþ rnäneges th€ State of Nevada Division for Aging Servic¿s
funded seniortransportation progrãm {'the Program"} and
both parties belieræ that the management of the Program by Sl,lTC provides the service portion of the grãnt ¡n a safer and nrore financially secure trânspörtation service for senior citizehs ¡n the Mesquite area, WHEREAS,
t{OW' THEngFOtE, in consideration of the foregoing premises aôd the following terms and conditions, the parties agree as follows:
1. The SNTC will cont¡nue the 2-
3. 4. 5,
responsibilities and obli6ations under the State grant fûr providing tr¡nsportation servicesto senlor cltizens as it has since July 1, 2fi)3. All expens€s, as well as eny unexpended grant revenus, or revenues collected from patrons
will be subject to tñe administration of the SNTC. All calls for senior transportation seruices will be referred to the Mesquite.
SNTC
dispatching office in
The City has assigned the right to the SNTC to apply directly to the State of trlevada Aging and Disability Division for future 6rant monies to provide $tâted services current¡y provided
bythe program. The City agrees to lease the use of trnro (2) 14 pässenger vans, to the SNTC lor providing local transportâtion for a period not to exceed five {5} T€ars. The SNTC shall be responsible for providirç *!l requ¡red maintenanæ activity on the vehicles inctuding recommended maintenance, major repair, oil changes, fuef tire rcplacement, etc. The SNTC shall maintain current r€gislration on the vehicles with the Ner¡ada Department of MotorVehicles. vehicle and property insurance at its sole expen$e, and name the City as an additional insured on all such pollcies, with respect to the use of
6. Ihe SNIC will provide general liability, the rchicles and
assumption
of
services by SNTC pursuant
to this Agreemenr,
This
insurance must bè mainteined at ellt¡mes during the use of the vehicles by SHTC. SNTC shall provide the City a copy of the insurance certification on each insurance renewal date,
7.
to ¡ndemnify and hold the Cþ harmless from and against any and all liabilþ, or causês of action and expenses connected therewith {including reasonable aüomeyy feesl cause{ or asserted to have been caused, d¡rcctly or indirectly, S¡|TC egrses
losses, damages, claims
123
by or as a result of neglígent acts of SttlTC during the performance of duties hereunder or those of its agents, ernployees, servants, officerc or assigns.
8-
As part of this Agreemfnt, the SNTC shall,
with adequate advance notice, supply to the C¡ty transportation services for City business or recreational trips et a rðte of $f0 per driv¡ng hour and $0-tt0 per rnile for use of pass€nger van or small bus, and $0.4o per mile on large bus^
9.
This Agreement may be terminated upon a Party giving tl¡e other Party at least one hundred
turÊnty (1?0) days written advance notice of intent to t€rminate the Agreement. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement without renewal, the SNTC will return the (2) two 14 pãss€nger vans and assign the State grent, including any unerpended State funds, and nihts b¡ck to the City. The panies shall provide all notices required by this Agreement in writing and by ekher of the folÌowing means to the below listed addresses: {1} certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, retum receipt requested, ín which case notice shall be deemed delivered three {3} business days after the postmark date or (2} personal detirrery in which cas€ the notice shall be effectÍve when received. 10.
The rates ¡ncluded in this Agreement may be amended in the future by the mutual agreement of the Mesquite Ci{ Manager and the Southern Nevåda Transit Coalítion Executive Director-
It{
the Parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on the
WITXES!$ W}IEREOF,
dates below, 7 TITY
I
'By:
SO. Í{EVADA TRANSTT GOÀUNON
8y: Susan
Mayor
Debbie Dauenhauer, Executive
Director Date: Date:
Cherry
J-/t¿-/t a
City CIerft
APPROVEDASTO FORM:
CítyAttorney
124
Technical Review Agenda Item 6 Submitted by: Tysha Blaber Submitting Department: Public Works Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Consideration of Approval of Resolution No. 932, adopting an Interlocal Contract (No. 934) between the City of Mesquite and the Regional Transportation Commission for maintenance and reconstruction of City of Mesquite Roads, 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – Phase I. - Public Comments - Discussion and Possible Action
Recommendation: Recommendation is to approve Resolution No. 932, conditioned upon RTC approval on August 10, 2017. Petitioner: Bill Tanner, Public Works Director Is this a budgeted item? Yes Fiscal Impact: $1,343,000.00 to be funded by Regional Transportation Commission through Fuel Revenue Indexing Direct Distribution Funds Project #063AK-FTI. Background: This Interlocal Contract applies to improvements to existing roads within the City of Mesquite. The 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – Phase I improvements will include roadway rehabilitation such as paving dirt roadways, removal and replacement of failed pavement, or resurfacing of paved roads; drainage facilities; traffic control devices; and other appurtenances as may be necessary for a complete and functional project. The project includes, but is not limited to asphalt milling, grading, pulverizing and asphalt replacement of the following streets: East Mesquite Boulevard, West First South Street, Leavitt Lane, West Pioneer Boulevard, North Dairy Lane, Gean Street, Sage Way and Mimosa Way. 125
Attachments: ResNo932.pdf InterlocalContract_No934.pdf SitePlanExhibits_PhaseI.pdf
126
RESOLUTION NUMBER 932 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MESQUITE ADOPTING AN INTERLOCAL CONTRACT (NO 934) BETWEEN THE CITY OF MESQUITE (COM) AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RTC) FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF CITY OF MESQUITE ROADS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF MESQUITE, NEVADA. WHEREAS, Nevada Revised Statues Chapter 277.180 provides that two or more public agencies may enter into an agreement for the performance of any governmental service, activity or undertaking which any of said agencies is authorized by law to perform; and WHEREAS, Nevada Revised Statues Chapter 277.045(2) requires that interlocal agreements be adopted by formal resolution or ordinance; and WHEREAS, a Project COM intends to perform construction inspection and construct roadway improvements for the City of Mesquite 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – Phase 1, hereinafter referred to as “PROJECT”, being located wholly within the City of Mesquite, has been approved by the RTC; and WHEREAS, the COM is requesting an Authorization to Proceed from RTC to commence construction for the PROJECT; and NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Mesquite that the Interlocal Agreement (No 934) between the City of Mesquite and Regional Transportation Commission is adopted. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Mesquite, Nevada on the 22nd day of August , 2017. THE CITY OF MESQUITE, NEVADA:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: Allan S. Litman, Mayor
By: Robert Sweetin, City Attorney
ATTEST: By: Tracy E. Beck, City Clerk
127
Contract# 934 INTERLOCAL CONTRACT 2018 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT – PHASE I
THIS INTERLOCAL CONTRACT made and entered into this 10th day of August, 2017, by and between the City of Mesquite, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the “CITY” and the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada hereinafter referred to as “RTC”. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, a Project CITY intends to perform construction inspection and construct roadway improvements for City of Mesquite 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – Phase I, hereinafter referred to as “PROJECT”, being located wholly within the CITY, has been approved by the RTC; and WHEREAS, the CITY is requesting an Authorization to Proceed from RTC to commence construction for the PROJECT; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and promises of the Parties hereto, the Parties agree to proceed as follows: SECTION I: SCOPE OF PROJECT This Interlocal Contract applies to improvements to existing roads within the City of Mesquite. The improvements will include roadway rehabilitation such as paving of dirt roadways, removal and replacement of failed pavement, or resurfacing of paved roads; drainage facilities; traffic control devices; and other appurtenances as may be necessary for a complete and functional project. The project includes, but is not limited to asphalt milling, grading, pulverizing and asphalt replacement of the following streets: East Mesquite Boulevard, West First South Street, Leavitt Lane, West Pioneer Boulevard, North Dairy Lane, Gean Street, Sage Way, and Mimosa Way. SECTION II: PROJECT COSTS The RTC agrees to provide funding from CITY Fuel Revenue Indexing Funds for PROJECT costs according to its policies, including but not limited to Section 6.1 REIMBURSABLE COSTS of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the RTC, incorporated herein by reference, and in accordance with the following: 1. The total PROJECT cost for construction shall not exceed $1,343,000.00. 2. A written request must be made to the RTC and an additional supplemental interlocal contract approved to allow exceptions to the adopted policies and procedures of the RTC or the amount noted above prior to payment of any additional funds.
128 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – MES FY 2017/2018
Page 1 of 3
SECTION III: GENERAL 1. The title sheet of both the plans and specifications shall designate the RTC as the funding agency. If construction funds are provided by sources other than the RTC, the plans, contract documents, special provisions, and PROJECT signs shall also show the RTC as a funding agency. 2. Preliminary engineering, design and right-of-way engineering shall be performed by the CITY or by a consultant employed by the CITY. 3. The design, construction, right-of-way acquisition and contract administration of the PROJECT shall comply with the requirements as set forth in the current “Policies and Procedures” of the RTC. 4. The CITY’s Department of Public Works has a policy, which effectively prohibits utility cuts through the pavement for a period of five years after the completion of a PROJECT. 5. Upon completion of the construction of the PROJECT, it shall be maintained by the CITY and no funding is provided by this Contract for such maintenance. 6. The PROJECT must be completed to the satisfaction of the RTC prior to current applicable completion date of July 1, 2018. The RTC may, at any time thereafter, grant time extensions or terminate this Contract and require all sums advanced to the CITY be repaid. 7. It is understood and agreed that the purpose of this Interlocal Contract is to fund the PROJECT as herein above set forth. It is further understood and agreed that the CITY is responsible for the design and construction of the PROJECT. The CITY will be responsible for the actions or inactions of its Officers and Employees. The RTC’s sole responsibility is to facilitate funding for the PROJECT. The RTC disavows any responsibility for the actions or inactions of the CITY, its Officers, Employees, or agents. 8. Should the construction funds be provided by sources other than the RTC, the CITY will reimburse the RTC for a percentage of the preliminary engineering and design costs associated with other funding sources, as mutually agreed upon by the RTC and the CITY. ///
///
///
///
/// 129 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – MES FY 2017/2018
Page 2 of 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Interlocal Contract is effective as of the date first set forth above. Date of Commission Action: August 10, 2017
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BY: LAWRENCE L. BROWN III, Chairman Attest:
KELLY BACKMAN, Executive Secretary Approved as to Form:
GREG GILBERT, Outside General Counsel, RTC Date of Council Action:
CITY OF MESQUITE
BY: ALLAN S. LITMAN, Mayor Attest:
TRACY E. BECK City Clerk Approved as to Form:
ROBERT SWEETIN City Attorney 130 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – MES FY 2017/2018
Page 3 of 3
Can yon Dr
ac k
Rd
Francy L n Cottonwood Dr
Dairy Ln
Willow St
Palm Dr
Lantana Ln
Wa y anda
en Haf Lily Ln
PROPOSED_PROJECT_ROADWAYS
Lane
al C t
Cryst
Second Sout h St Primrose Ln
J ac a r
Piute St
Thistle St
Partridge Ln
Pheasant Dr
Legend
Bannock St
Quail Run
Thompson Dr
First South St
Cherokee St
Eagle St
Muscat Dr
Mesquite Boulevard
Laurel Way
Falcon St
Condor St
Yucca St
First North St
Arrowhead Ln
Internal Street
Clover Ln
Cir
n y L
Burns Ln
Camellia
Woodb ur
Osprey St
ill R d
Grayce Dr
Old M
Pinyo n Ln
Gean St
15
al S t
Tex St
§ ¦ ¨
Sand hill Bo u leva rd
Can
Joseph St
leb
e id
Manzanita Dr
eva rd
ul Bo
er
P
e io n
lls Hi
e
Dr
Chalet Dr
Tu rt
Dr
ys
iv Dr
w rkvie Pa
Fa ir w a
Dr
og lld Bu
EXHIBIT 1
Green Park Dr
EXHIBIT 1 - (East Mesquite Blvd, West First 6RXWK Street, North Dairy Lane, Gean Street, Sage Way and Mimosa Way)
City of Mesquite GIS Date: 5/22/2017 Feet 150 300 600 900 1,200 Path: S:\PublicWorks\Engineering\Reconstruction Projects\2018 Phase I\RTC Agenda0 Items\2018 Reconstruction Project Exhibit.mxd
131
´
Wa y
Cir
hi
rizo
an
Ho
an dy Ln
Siena Ln
ti
on tp e
M
y can Tus
No rm
Crest View Dr
nB
C
re Cir
EXHIBIT 2
lvd
Pio
n ee rB
ou l ev
ar d
§ ¦ ¨ 15
Legend PROPOSED_PROJECT_ROADWAYS
132 EXHIBIT 2 - (Pioneer Blvd, South Lane)
City of Mesquite GIS Date: 7/25/2017 Feet 45 90 180 270 360 Path: S:\PublicWorks\Engineering\Reconstruction Projects\2018 Phase I\RTC Agenda0 Items\2018 Reconstruction Project Exhibit 2.mxd
´
EXHIBIT 3 l Fa co n Ri dg e Pa w rk
Ci
r
Willis Carrier Cyn
ay
A
o ut
M
l al
§ ¦ ¨ 15
Legend PROPOSED_PROJECT_ROADWAYS
133 EXHIBIT 3 - (West Pioneer Blvd)
City of Mesquite GIS Date: 7/25/2017 Feet 60 120 240 360 480 Path: S:\PublicWorks\Engineering\Reconstruction Projects\2018 Phase I\RTC Agenda0 Items\2018 Reconstruction Project Exhibit 3.mxd
´
§ ¦ ¨ 15
EXHIBIT 4
Falcon
Ridge Parkw ay Leavitt Ln
Legend PROPOSED_PROJECT_ROADWAYS
134 EXHIBIT 4 - (Leavitt Lane)
City of Mesquite GIS Date: 7/25/2017 Feet 30 60 120 180 240 Path: S:\PublicWorks\Engineering\Reconstruction Projects\2018 Phase I\RTC Agenda0 Items\2018 Reconstruction Project Exhibit 4.mxd
´
Technical Review Agenda Item 7 Submitted by: Tysha Blaber Submitting Department: Public Works Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Consideration of Approval of Resolution No. 933, adopting an Interlocal Contract (No. 952) between the City of Mesquite and the Regional Transportation Commission for maintenance and reconstruction of City of Mesquite Roads, 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – Phase 2. - Public Comments - Discussion and Possible Action
Recommendation: Recommendation is to approve Resolution No. 933, conditioned upon RTC approval on August 10, 2017. Petitioner: Bill Tanner, Public Works Director Is this a budgeted item? Yes Fiscal Impact: $498,000.00 to be funded by Regional Transportation Commission through Direct Distribution Funds Project #063AL. Background: This Interlocal Contract applies to improvements to existing roads within the City of Mesquite. The 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – Phase II improvements will include roadway rehabilitation such as paving dirt roadways, removal and replacement of failed pavement, or resurfacing of paved roads; drainage facilities; traffic control devices; and other appurtenances as may be necessary for a complete and functional project. The project includes, but is not limited to asphalt milling, grading, pulverizing and asphalt replacement of the following streets: Elwin Whipple Way, West First North Street, Second North Street, Clover Lane, Foxglove Lane, Goldenrod Lane, Heather Court, Honeysuckle Lane, Jasmine Court, Lilac Court, Myrtle Court, Megan Circle, Moss Drive, Larkspur Lane, Laurel Way, Lavender lane, Lily Lane, Poppy Lane, Primrose 135 Lane and Sunflower Way.
Attachments: ResNo933.pdf InterlocalContract_No952.pdf SitePlanExhibits_PhaseII.pdf
136
RESOLUTION NUMBER 933 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MESQUITE ADOPTING AN INTERLOCAL CONTRACT (NO 952) BETWEEN THE CITY OF MESQUITE (COM) AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RTC) FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF CITY OF MESQUITE ROADS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF MESQUITE, NEVADA. WHEREAS, Nevada Revised Statues Chapter 277.180 provides that two or more public agencies may enter into an agreement for the performance of any governmental service, activity or undertaking which any of said agencies is authorized by law to perform; and WHEREAS, Nevada Revised Statues Chapter 277.045(2) requires that interlocal agreements be adopted by formal resolution or ordinance; and WHEREAS, a Project COM intends to perform construction inspection and construct roadway improvements for the City of Mesquite 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – Phase 2, hereinafter referred to as “PROJECT”, being located wholly within the City of Mesquite, has been approved by the RTC; and WHEREAS, the COM is requesting an Authorization to Proceed from RTC to commence construction for the PROJECT; and NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Mesquite that the Interlocal Agreement (No 952) between the City of Mesquite and Regional Transportation Commission is adopted. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Mesquite, Nevada on the 22nd day of August , 2017. THE CITY OF MESQUITE, NEVADA:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: Allan S. Litman, Mayor
By: Robert Sweetin, City Attorney
ATTEST: By: Tracy E. Beck, City Clerk
137
Contract# 952 INTERLOCAL CONTRACT 2018 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT – PHASE II THIS INTERLOCAL CONTRACT made and entered into this 10TH day of August, 2017, by and between the City of Mesquite, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the “CITY” and the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada hereinafter referred to as “RTC”. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, a Project CITY intends to perform construction inspection and construct roadway improvements for City of Mesquite 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – Phase II, hereinafter referred to as “PROJECT”, being located wholly within the CITY, has been approved by the RTC; and WHEREAS, the CITY is requesting an Authorization to Proceed from RTC to commence construction for the PROJECT; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and promises of the Parties hereto, the Parties agree to proceed as follows: SECTION I: SCOPE OF PROJECT This Interlocal Contract applies to improvements to existing roads within the City of Mesquite. The improvements will include roadway rehabilitation such as paving of dirt roadways, removal and replacement of failed pavement, or resurfacing of paved roads; drainage facilities; traffic control devices; and other appurtenances as may be necessary for a complete and functional project. The project includes, but is not limited to asphalt milling, grading, pulverizing and asphalt replacement of the following streets: Elwin Whipple Way, West First North Street, Second North Street, Clover Lane, Foxglove Lane, Goldenrod Lane, Heather Court, Honeysuckle Lane, Jasmine Court, Lilac Court, Myrtle Court, Megan Circle, Moss Drive, Larkspur Lane, Laurel Way, Lavender Lane, Lily Lane, Poppy Lane, Primrose Lane and Sunflower Way. SECTION II: PROJECT COSTS The RTC agrees to provide funds for PROJECT costs according to its policies, including but not limited to Section 6.1 REIMBURSABLE COSTS of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the RTC, incorporated herein by reference, and in accordance with the following: 1. The total PROJECT cost for construction shall not exceed $498,000.00. 2. A written request must be made to the RTC and an additional supplemental interlocal contract approved to allow exceptions to the adopted policies and procedures of the RTC or the amount noted above prior to payment of any additional funds.
138 2018 Street Reconstruction Project Phase II – MES FY 2017/2018
Page 1 of 3
SECTION III: GENERAL 1. The title sheet of both the plans and specifications shall designate the RTC as the funding agency. If construction funds are provided by sources other than the RTC, the plans, contract documents, special provisions, and PROJECT signs shall also show the RTC as a funding agency. 2. Preliminary engineering, design and right-of-way engineering shall be performed by the CITY or by a consultant employed by the CITY. 3. The design, construction, right-of-way acquisition and contract administration of the PROJECT shall comply with the requirements as set forth in the current “Policies and Procedures” of the RTC. 4. The CITY’s Department of Public Works has a policy, which effectively prohibits utility cuts through the pavement for a period of five years after the completion of a PROJECT. 5. Upon completion of the construction of the PROJECT, it shall be maintained by the CITY and no funding is provided by this Contract for such maintenance. 6. The PROJECT must be completed to the satisfaction of the RTC prior to current applicable completion date of July 1, 2018. The RTC may, at any time thereafter, grant time extensions or terminate this Contract and require all sums advanced to the CITY be repaid. 7. It is understood and agreed that the purpose of this Interlocal Contract is to fund the PROJECT as herein above set forth. It is further understood and agreed that the CITY is responsible for the design and construction of the PROJECT. The CITY will be responsible for the actions or inactions of its Officers and Employees. The RTC’s sole responsibility is to facilitate funding for the PROJECT. The RTC disavows any responsibility for the actions or inactions of the CITY, its Officers, Employees, or agents. 8. Should the construction funds be provided by sources other than the RTC, the CITY will reimburse the RTC for a percentage of the preliminary engineering and design costs associated with other funding sources, as mutually agreed upon by the RTC and the CITY. ///
///
///
///
/// 139 2018 Street Reconstruction Project Phase II – MES FY 2017/2018
Page 2 of 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Interlocal Contract is effective as of the date first set forth above. Date of Commission Action:
August 10, 2017
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BY: LAWRENCE L. BROWN III, Chairman Attest:
KELLY BACKMAN, Executive Secretary Approved as to Form:
GREG GILBERT, Outside General Counsel, RTC Date of Council Action:
CITY OF MESQUITE
BY: ALLAN S. LITMAN, Mayor Attest:
TRACY E. BECK City Clerk Approved as to Form:
ROBERT SWEETIN City Attorney 140 2018 Street Reconstruction Project Phase II – MES FY 2017/2018
Page 3 of 3
Tex St
Sandhill Boulevard
Dairy Ln
Mimosa Way
Honeys uckle C t
Gean St
Ken Ct
Willow St
Yucca St
Desert Dr
In
Hughes Ave
tre
Old Mill Rd
et
te rn al S
Camellia Cir
EXHIBIT 1
ite Blvd Mesqu
Palm Dr
Mesquite Boulevard
First South St
Way
Lantana Ln
an d a
Legend
J acar
Piute St
Cassia Ln
2018_Phase_2_Proposed_Roadways Eucalyptus Ln
Hafe n L a
ne
141 Exhibit 1 - (Elwin Whipple Way, West First North Street, Second North Street, Clover Lane, Foxglove Lane Liliac Court, and Myrtle Court)
City of Mesquite GIS Goldenrod Lane, Heather Court, Honeysuckle Lane, Jasmine Court, Date: 6/6/2017 Path: S:\PublicWorks\Engineering\Reconstruction Projects\2018 Phase II\2018 Reconstruction Project Phase 2 Exhibit 1.mxd
0
75
150
300
450
Feet 600
´
Old M ill R d
Mesquite Boulevard
Eagle St
Second South St
Piute St
Cherokee St
Thistle St
Hawk St
Condor St
Bannock St
Quail Run
Partridge Ln
Pheasant Dr
Thompson Dr
Muscat Dr
Concord Dr
Reber Dr
Grapevine Rd
Vineyard Ln
Topaz Ln
Garnet Ln
Rodeo Ln
Lisa Ln
Hacienda Way
Emperor Ln
Riverside Road
Emmarene St
Falcon St
Desert Winds Way
Shade Tree Ln
Desert Willow Ln
San Marcos Way
Smokey Ln
First South St
Osprey St
Ocotillo Ln
Navajo St
EXHIBIT 2
en Haf
Lane
Duchess Ln
G reat Divide Trl
Legend
Jensen Dr
Lewis St
Sagebrush St
Clark St
Saguaro Way
2018_Phase_2_Proposed_Roadways
142 City of Mesquite GIS Exhibit 2 - (Megan Circle, Moss Drive, Larkspur Lane, Laurel Way, LavendHr Lane, Lily Lane, Date: 8/7/2017 Path: S:\PublicWorks\Engineering\Reconstruction Projects\2018 Phase II\RTC Agenda Items\2018 Reconstruction Project Phase 2 Exhibit 2.mxd 0
112.5
Poppy Lane, Primrose Lane and Sunflower Way) 225
450
675
Feet 900
´
Technical Review Agenda Item 8 Submitted by: Tysha Blaber Submitting Department: Public Works Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Consideration of Approval of Resolution No. 934, adopting an Interlocal Contract (No. 953) between the City of Mesquite and the Regional Transportation Commission for maintenance and reconstruction of City of Mesquite Roads, 2018 Street Reconstruction Phase 2 (Senate Bill 5). - Public Comments - Discussion and Possible Action
Recommendation: Recommendation is to approve Resolution No. 934, conditioned upon RTC approval on August 10, 2017. Petitioner: Bill Tanner, Public Works Director Is this a budgeted item? Yes Fiscal Impact: $9,000.00 to be funded by Regional Transportation Commission through Senate Bill 5 Funds Project #063AL-SB5. Background: This Interlocal Contract applies to improvements to existing roads within the City of Mesquite. The 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – Phase II (Senate Bill 5) improvements will include roadway rehabilitation such as paving dirt roadways, removal and replacement of failed pavement, or resurfacing of paved roads; drainage facilities; traffic control devices; and other appurtenances as may be necessary for a complete and functional project. The project includes, but is not limited to asphalt milling, grading, pulverizing and asphalt replacement of the following streets: Elwin Whipple Way, West First North Street, Second North Street, Clover Lane, Foxglove Lane, Goldenrod Lane, Heather Court, Honeysuckle Lane, Jasmine Court, Lilac Court, Myrtle Court, Megan Circle, Moss Drive, Larkspur Lane, Laurel Way, Lavender lane, Lily Lane, Poppy Lane, Primrose 143 Lane and Sunflower Way.
Attachments: ResNo934.pdf InterlocalContract_No953.pdf SitePlanExhibits_PhaseII.pdf
144
RESOLUTION NUMBER 934 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MESQUITE ADOPTING AN INTERLOCAL CONTRACT (NO 953) BETWEEN THE CITY OF MESQUITE (COM) AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RTC) FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF CITY OF MESQUITE ROADS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF MESQUITE, NEVADA. WHEREAS, Nevada Revised Statues Chapter 277.180 provides that two or more public agencies may enter into an agreement for the performance of any governmental service, activity or undertaking which any of said agencies is authorized by law to perform; and WHEREAS, Nevada Revised Statues Chapter 277.045(2) requires that interlocal agreements be adopted by formal resolution or ordinance; and WHEREAS, a Project COM intends to perform construction inspection and construct roadway improvements for the City of Mesquite 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – Phase 2, hereinafter referred to as “PROJECT”, being located wholly within the City of Mesquite, has been approved by the RTC; and WHEREAS, the COM is requesting an Authorization to Proceed from RTC to commence construction for the PROJECT; and NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Mesquite that the Interlocal Agreement (No 953) between the City of Mesquite and Regional Transportation Commission is adopted. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Mesquite, Nevada on the 22nd day of August , 2017. THE CITY OF MESQUITE, NEVADA:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: Allan S. Litman, Mayor
By: Robert Sweetin, City Attorney
ATTEST: By: Tracy E. Beck, City Clerk
145
Contract# 953 INTERLOCAL CONTRACT 2018 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT – PHASE II THIS INTERLOCAL CONTRACT made and entered into this 10TH day of August, 2017, by and between the City of Mesquite, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the “CITY” and the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada hereinafter referred to as “RTC”. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, a Project CITY intends to perform construction inspection and construct roadway improvements for City of Mesquite 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – Phase II, hereinafter referred to as “PROJECT”, being located wholly within the CITY, has been approved by the RTC; and WHEREAS, the CITY is requesting an Authorization to Proceed from RTC to commence construction for the PROJECT; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and promises of the Parties hereto, the Parties agree to proceed as follows: SECTION I: SCOPE OF PROJECT This Interlocal Contract applies to improvements to existing roads within the City of Mesquite. The improvements will include roadway rehabilitation such as paving of dirt roadways, removal and replacement of failed pavement, or resurfacing of paved roads; drainage facilities; traffic control devices; and other appurtenances as may be necessary for a complete and functional project. The project includes, but is not limited to asphalt milling, grading, pulverizing and asphalt replacement of the following streets: Elwin Whipple Way, West First North Street, Second North Street, Clover Lane, Foxglove Lane, Goldenrod Lane, Heather Court, Honeysuckle Lane, Jasmine Court, Lilac Court, Myrtle Court, Megan Circle, Moss Drive, Larkspur Lane, Laurel Way, Lavender Lane, Lily Lane, Poppy Lane, Primrose Lane and Sunflower Way. SECTION II: PROJECT COSTS The RTC agrees to provide funding from CITY Senate Bill 5 Funds for PROJECT costs according to its policies, including but not limited to Section 6.1 REIMBURSABLE COSTS of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the RTC, incorporated herein by reference, and in accordance with the following: 1. The total PROJECT cost for construction shall not exceed $9,000.00. 2. A written request must be made to the RTC and an additional supplemental interlocal contract approved to allow exceptions to the adopted policies and procedures of the RTC or the amount noted above prior to payment of any additional funds.
146 2018 Street Reconstruction Project Phase II – (SB5) MES FY 2017/2018
Page 1 of 3
SECTION III: GENERAL 1. The title sheet of both the plans and specifications shall designate the RTC as the funding agency. If construction funds are provided by sources other than the RTC, the plans, contract documents, special provisions, and PROJECT signs shall also show the RTC as a funding agency. 2. Preliminary engineering, design and right-of-way engineering shall be performed by the CITY or by a consultant employed by the CITY. 3. The design, construction, right-of-way acquisition and contract administration of the PROJECT shall comply with the requirements as set forth in the current “Policies and Procedures” of the RTC. 4. The CITY’s Department of Public Works has a policy, which effectively prohibits utility cuts through the pavement for a period of five years after the completion of a PROJECT. 5. Upon completion of the construction of the PROJECT, it shall be maintained by the CITY and no funding is provided by this Contract for such maintenance. 6. The PROJECT must be completed to the satisfaction of the RTC prior to current applicable completion date of July 1, 2018. The RTC may, at any time thereafter, grant time extensions or terminate this Contract and require all sums advanced to the CITY be repaid. 7. It is understood and agreed that the purpose of this Interlocal Contract is to fund the PROJECT as herein above set forth. It is further understood and agreed that the CITY is responsible for the design and construction of the PROJECT. The CITY will be responsible for the actions or inactions of its Officers and Employees. The RTC’s sole responsibility is to facilitate funding for the PROJECT. The RTC disavows any responsibility for the actions or inactions of the CITY, its Officers, Employees, or agents. 8. Should the construction funds be provided by sources other than the RTC, the CITY will reimburse the RTC for a percentage of the preliminary engineering and design costs associated with other funding sources, as mutually agreed upon by the RTC and the CITY. ///
///
///
///
/// 147 2018 Street Reconstruction Project Phase II – (SB5) MES FY 2017/2018
Page 2 of 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Interlocal Contract is effective as of the date first set forth above. Date of Commission Action:
August 10, 2017
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
BY: LAWRENCE L. BROWN III, Chairman Attest:
KELLY BACKMAN, Executive Secretary Approved as to Form:
GREG GILBERT, Outside General Counsel, RTC Date of Council Action:
CITY OF MESQUITE
BY: ALLAN S. LITMAN, Mayor Attest:
TRACY E. BECK City Clerk Approved as to Form:
ROBERT SWEETIN City Attorney 148 2018 Street Reconstruction Project Phase II – (SB5) MES FY 2017/2018
Page 3 of 3
Tex St
Sandhill Boulevard
Dairy Ln
Mimosa Way
Honeys uckle C t
Gean St
Ken Ct
Willow St
Yucca St
Desert Dr
In
Hughes Ave
tre
Old Mill Rd
et
te rn al S
Camellia Cir
EXHIBIT 1
ite Blvd Mesqu
Palm Dr
Mesquite Boulevard
First South St
Way
Lantana Ln
an d a
Legend
J acar
Piute St
Cassia Ln
2018_Phase_2_Proposed_Roadways Eucalyptus Ln
Hafe n L a
ne
149 Exhibit 1 - (Elwin Whipple Way, West First North Street, Second North Street, Clover Lane, Foxglove Lane Liliac Court, and Myrtle Court)
City of Mesquite GIS Goldenrod Lane, Heather Court, Honeysuckle Lane, Jasmine Court, Date: 6/6/2017 Path: S:\PublicWorks\Engineering\Reconstruction Projects\2018 Phase II\2018 Reconstruction Project Phase 2 Exhibit 1.mxd
0
75
150
300
450
Feet 600
´
Old M ill R d
Mesquite Boulevard
Eagle St
Second South St
Piute St
Cherokee St
Thistle St
Hawk St
Condor St
Bannock St
Quail Run
Partridge Ln
Pheasant Dr
Thompson Dr
Muscat Dr
Concord Dr
Reber Dr
Grapevine Rd
Vineyard Ln
Topaz Ln
Garnet Ln
Rodeo Ln
Lisa Ln
Hacienda Way
Emperor Ln
Riverside Road
Emmarene St
Falcon St
Desert Winds Way
Shade Tree Ln
Desert Willow Ln
San Marcos Way
Smokey Ln
First South St
Osprey St
Ocotillo Ln
Navajo St
EXHIBIT 2
en Haf
Lane
Duchess Ln
G reat Divide Trl
Legend
Jensen Dr
Lewis St
Sagebrush St
Clark St
Saguaro Way
2018_Phase_2_Proposed_Roadways
150 City of Mesquite GIS Exhibit 2 - (Megan Circle, Moss Drive, Larkspur Lane, Laurel Way, LavendHr Lane, Lily Lane, Date: 8/7/2017 Path: S:\PublicWorks\Engineering\Reconstruction Projects\2018 Phase II\RTC Agenda Items\2018 Reconstruction Project Phase 2 Exhibit 2.mxd 0
112.5
Poppy Lane, Primrose Lane and Sunflower Way) 225
450
675
Feet 900
´
Technical Review Agenda Item 9 Submitted by: Aaron Baker Submitting Department: City Manager Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Consideration of approval of Resolution 935 approving an Interlocal Agreement between the Southern Nevada Health District and the City of Mesquite for 2,000 square feet of office space, located at 830 West Hafen Lane and other matters properly related thereto. - Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Recommendation: Approve Resolution 935 approving an Interlocal Agreement between the Southern Nevada Health District and the City of Mesquite for 2,000 square feet of office space, located at 830 West Hafen Lane and other matters properly related thereto. Petitioner: Aaron Baker, Assistant to the City Manager Is this a budgeted item? Yes Fiscal Impact: Currently, the City receives $11,280 per year in lease revenue (rental income and utilities) for the total space. ($0.47 per square foot for 2,000) The lease revenue has two components--rental income and utility reimbursement. Currently, the District pays $.27 per square foot a month for 2,000 square feet, the City receives $6,480 a year in rental income. The new lease would charge $.54 per square foot a month for 2,000 square feet, the City would receive $12,960 a year in rental income the first year of the new lease. Each year, the lease rate would increase by 5%. In addition to the rental income, the City will be reimbursed for the utilities. The utility reimbursement rate is set to a per-square-foot price to cover actual costs. The current rate of $.20 is covering the utility costs. Each year, these costs will be re-examined to verify that they are appropriately addressing actual costs. Background: Southern Nevada Health District currently leases 2,000 square feet of space from the City at 830 West Hafen Lane and would like to continue to occupy the same space.
151
In addition to their normal activities inside the building, SNHD would like to periodically use the parking lot to provide mobile clinic services. The mobile clinic would be park in such a way as to not interfere with the Veterans Center use of the parking lot.
Attachments: 2017 Interlocal Agreement between SNHD and COM for 830 Hafen Lane.docx Resolution Number 935 - Interlocal Agreement with SNHD.docx
152
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY BETWEEN THE CITY OF MESQUITE AND SOUTHERN NEVADA HEALTH DISTRICT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE LEASE OF PROPERTY ("Lease") is hereby made by and between the Southern Nevada Health District, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada, ("District"), and the CITY OF MESQUITE, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada, ("City"), (individually referred to as Party, collectively as ("the Parties")). This Lease is effective September 1, 2017 ("Effective Date"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the City owns the real property and improvements located on certain real property commonly known as a 19,000-square-foot building located at 830 Hafen Lane, Mesquite, NV 89027 (the “Premises”); and WHEREAS, Nevada Revised Statues Chapter 277.180 provides that two or more public agencies may enter into an interlocal agreement for the performance of any governmental service, activity or undertaking which any of said agencies is authorized by law to perform; and WHEREAS, Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 277.045(2) requires that interlocal agreements be adopted by formal resolution or ordinance; and WHEREAS, the District currently leases 2,000 square feet of office space from City located on the Premises which is more specifically depicted on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and desires to continue to do so; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City is charged with maintaining the health, safety and welfare of the community and has determined the lease of the Premises to District for the purposes as hereinafter set forth, will provide a substantial benefit to the residents of the city of Mesquite; and WHEREAS, the District’s mission is to protect and promote the health, the environment and the well being of Southern Nevada residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, the Premises has historically been used for uses that help protect and maintain the public health of the community; and WHEREAS, the City has complied with the requirements set forth in Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 268 regarding the leasing of public property; and WHEREAS, the Parties, now desire to more fully define their respective rights and obligations with respect to the lease agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties expressly agree as follows:
153 Page 1 of 9
1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND EXHIBITS. The foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are hereby incorporated and made part of this Lease. 2. LEASE OF PREMISES. Subject to the provisions of this Lease, City hereby leases to District and District hereby leases from City, two thousand square feet (2,000) of space at the Premises. Additionally, District shall be able to use the parking lot to provide mobile clinic services from time to time. 3. District's Budgetary Limits and Fiscal Fund Out. a) The District, as local governmental entity, is subject to the requirements of NRS 244.230 and NRS 354.626, which require Southern Nevada Health District to budget annually for its expenses and which prohibit District from obligating itself to expend money or incur liability in excess of the amounts appropriated for a particular function or purpose. All Southern Nevada Health District's financial obligations under this Lease are subject to those statutory requirements, and subparagraphs 2.2 and 2.3 below, hereinafter referred to as the "Fund Out Clause." b) Notwithstanding the monetary obligations of this Lease, the total amount of District's payment obligations hereunder for any fiscal year shall not exceed the amounts that District has appropriated for rent, maintenance of space and related liabilities for property located at 830 Hafen Lane, Mesquite, Nevada. Southern Nevada Health District reasonably believes that sufficient funds can be obtained for this Lease from the budget for the fiscal years covered by the term of this Lease, and Southern Nevada Health District staff shall take appropriate actions to obtain funding for each fiscal year to satisfy financial obligations under this Lease. c) Notwithstanding the monetary obligations of this Lease, this Lease shall terminate and Southern Nevada Health District liability and payment obligations thereunder shall be extinguished at the end of the fiscal year (June 30) in which the Southern Nevada Health District governing body fails to appropriate monies for the ensuing year for the payment of all amounts which will then become due. 4. TERM AND TERMINATION OF LEASE. a) Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 4c herein, the term of this lease shall be for a period of one (1) year (the “Initial Term”). The Initial Term begins on the Effective Date. b) Extended Term. At the end of the Initial Term, this Lease shall automatically renew for three additional terms of one (1) year each (each an “Extended Term”), based on the terms and conditions of this Lease, unless either Party provides written termination notice, at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the end of the current term. c) Termination. This Lease may be terminated at any time for any reason by District or the City upon thirty (30) days prior written notice, serving notice upon City or District, as the case may be. 5. RENT. For base rent during the Initial Term, District shall pay to City monthly base rent of fifty-four cents ($.54) per square foot. a) Property Taxes and Utilities. The cost of property taxes and utilities (water, electricity, sewer and garbage) are included in the rent payment to the City. Accordingly, in addition to the base rent noted above, District shall pay to City monthly a utility and property tax payment of twenty cents ($.20) per square foot. Page 2 of 9
154
b) Total Payment to the City. District shall monthly pay the City a total of forty-six cents ($.74) per square foot (Monthly Base Rent plus Property Taxes and Utilities). c) Extended Term Rent. The base rent shall increase to fifty-seven cents ($.57) per square foot for the First Extended Term. The base rent shall increase to sixty cents ($.60) per square foot for the Second Extended Term. The base rent shall increase to sixty-three cents ($.63) per square foot for the Third Extended Term. The monthly utility and property tax payment shall be evaluated and mutually agreed upon to ensure that actual costs are being covered for the Extended Term. 6.
IMPROVEMENTS. District shall have the right, at District's cost and expense, to make such improvements and alterations upon the Leased Premises as District desires. Prior to commencing any work that requires a construction permit or other government approvals, District shall provide City with prior written notice of such improvements or alterations together with copies of any plans or specifications relating thereto and City's written permission will be required in advance of such improvement or alterations which City will not unreasonably withhold. District shall obtain all required construction permits and other governmental approvals in connection with any improvements or alterations upon the Leased Premises. District shall not permit to be created nor to remain undischarged any lien or encumbrance arising out of any work or work claim of any contractor, mechanic, laborer, or material supplier of District upon the Leased Premises. If any such lien be filed by a party engaged by District or District's contractor against the Leased Premises, District shall, within thirty (30) days after notice of the filing thereof, cause the same to be discharged of record of payment, bonded off, or insured over by City's title company. All structural improvements to the Lease Premises shall adhere to the Leased Premises, and become the property of City, with the exception of such additions as are usually classified as equipment, furniture and trade fixtures, and all of the same are to remain the property of District and may be removed by District at the termination of this Lease. District shall repair and restore all damage done to the Leased Premises by removal of its trade fixtures and equipment.
7.
REPAIRS AND MAINTENCE. a) City’s Obligations. City shall keep the Premises, interior and exterior walls, roof and common areas and the equipment whether used exclusively for the Premises or in common with the other premises, in good condition and repair. In addition, City is responsible for providing heating, cooling, plumbing, water, fire suppression and electrical services to the Premises, and shall keep such systems, equipment, and fixtures in good condition and repair so as to provide reasonably comfortable working conditions in the Premises. City reserves the right at any time to make other non-material changes, alterations or additions to the Premises. City will notify District of any changes, alterations or additions to the Premises that materially impact the District’s use of the Premises and City will use commercially reasonable efforts to avoid impacting the District’s operations. City will make a good faith effort to provide notice to the District of any changes, alterations or additions to Premises, thirty (30) days prior to any such changes, alterations or additions. b) District’s Obligations. (1). Notwithstanding City’s obligation to keep the Premises in good condition and repair, District shall be responsible for payment of the cost thereof to City as additional rent for that portion of the cost of any maintenance and repair of the
Page 3 of 9
155
Premises, or any equipment (wherever located) that serves only District, to the extent such cost is attributable to causes beyond normal wear and tear. City may, at its option, upon reasonable notice, elect to have District perform any particular such maintenance or repairs, the cost of which is otherwise District’s responsibility hereunder. (2). On the last day of the term hereof, or earlier termination, District shall surrender the Premises to City in the same condition as received, ordinary wear and tear excepted, clean and free of debris. District shall repair any damage to the Premises occasioned by the installation or removal of District’s trade fixtures, alterations, furnishings and equipment. 8.
USE OF THE PREMISES. District shall use the Premises for public health-related services and related office use and such other uses as are ancillary to or reasonably necessary for the operation of the healthcare related businesses of District. District shall not use or permit the use of the Premises in violation of any law or ordinance of the United States, State of Nevada, City of Mesquite, or any other governmental authority. District shall not commit any act of waste in, on or about the Premises, and District shall not create, maintain or permit any nuisance in the Premises.
9.
LIABILITY AND PROPERTY INSURANCE. a) Casualty - Contents. District shall be responsible for obtaining insurance to cover all of its personal property on the Premises. b) District's Liability Insurance. Southern Nevada Health District is self-insured and shall provide Lessor with proof of Southern Nevada Health District's insurance coverage within thirty (30) days of the initial term of this Agreement.
10. Damage of Leased Premises; Restoration. In the event there is a fire or other damage to the Premises and the repair restoration of the Premises can reasonably be expected to be accomplished within one hundred eighty (180) days after the date of occurrence of such casualty, City shall restore the Premises to its condition immediately prior to such fire or other damage by a reputable contractor as agreed upon by City and District. If such restoration cannot be completed to the satisfaction of District, District shall have the right to terminate this Lease by giving written notice to City within thirty (30) days from the date of City's receipt of written notice from District. a. If the repair and restoration of the Premises is not complete within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date of the casualty, District shall have the right to terminate this Lease by giving written notice to City. From the date of such damage or destruction until the Premises have been completely repaired or restored, an equitable abatement of rent shall be allowed District by City. If District is not open for business at the Premises as a result of fire, damage or other casualty, the Rent shall abate entirely. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if such damage or destruction is caused by negligent or intentional act or omission of District, there shall be no abatement of the Rent. 11. ASSIGNMENT. District may not sublet all or any portion of the Premises without the prior written permission of City, 12. DEFAULT BY DISTRICT. The following constitutes a "Default" by District: i) the failure by District to make any payment of Rent or other payments required hereunder on or before the due date thereof and such failure continues for a period of thirty (30) days after receipt by District of written notice thereof from District; or ii) the failure by District to observe or perform any of the covenants, conditions or provisions of this Lease to be Page 4 of 9
156
observed or performed by District and such failure continues for a period of sixty (60) days after receipt by District of written notice thereof from City; provided, however, it shall not be a Default hereunder if such failure is not capable of being cured within such sixty (60)-day period and District commences such cure within such sixty (60)-day period and diligently thereafter continues to effect such cure. 13. REMEDIES. Upon the happening of any one or more of the above Defaults, City may at its election and without additional notice to District: a) Terminate this Lease and all rights of District under this Lease in and to the Premises and all rights of any persons claiming under District; b) Re-enter the Premises with or without process of law, using such force as may be necessary, expel all persons and chattels, and repossess and enjoy the Premises; and c) Exercise its statutory right to a lien on any property belonging to District, whether the same be exempt from execution and distress by law or not. In the event of any Default hereunder by District, District may (but shall not be obligated to) immediately, or at any time thereafter, without notice and without terminating this Lease, cure such Default for the account and at the expense of District. If District at any time, by reason of such Default, is compelled to pay, or elects to pay, any sum of money, or is compelled to incur any expense, in instituting or prosecuting any action or proceeding to enforce District’s rights hereunder, the sum or sums so paid by District shall be deemed to be additional Rent hereunder, and shall be due from District to City on the first day of the month following the payment of such respective sums or expenses or, if District elects to terminate this Lease, recovered by District as additional Rent. 14. DEFAULT BY DISTRICT. District shall in no event be charged with default in the performance of its obligations under this Lease unless and until District shall have received written notice from City specifying wherein District has allegedly failed to perform any obligation hereunder, and District shall have failed to perform such obligation, or remedy such default, within sixty (60) days (or such additional time as is reasonably required to correct any such default) after receipt of such notice from District. 15. NO PARTNERSHIP. City does not by this Lease, in any way or for any purpose, become a partner or joint venturer of District in the conduct of its business or otherwise. 16. FORCE MAJEURE. City and District shall each be excused for the period of any delay in the performance of any obligation hereunder when prevented from doing so by cause or causes beyond that party’s control, including labor disputes, civil commotion, war, governmental regulations or controls, fire or other casualty, inability to obtain any material or services, or acts of God. 17. NO WAIVER. Failure of either the City or District to insist upon the strict performance of any provision or to exercise any option hereunder in any one or more instances shall not be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of its right to do so in the future. No provision of this Lease shall be deemed to have been waived by City/District unless such waiver is in writing. 18. PROVISIONS BINDING. Except as otherwise provided, all provisions herein shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties, their legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns. Page 5 of 9
157
19. NON-DISCRIMINATION. District agrees that the Premises will not be segregated with respect to race, color, religion or national origin; that it will not segregate or discriminate on such grounds with respect to public utilization of or access to the Premises; and that it will comply with all applicable federal laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination in connection with federally-funded programs. 20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Lease, including any exhibits attached hereto, sets forth the entire agreement between the Parties. Any prior conversations or writings concerning the lease of the Premises are merged herein and extinguished. 21. AMENDMENT OR MODIFICATION. No amendment to or modification of this Lease shall be binding upon City or District unless it has been reduced to writing. 22. CAPTIONS AND SECTION NUMBERS. The captions and section numbers appearing herein are inserted only as a matter of convenience and are not intended to define, limit, construe or describe the scope or intent of any section or paragraph. 23. ATTORNEY’S FEES. In the event City/District institutes any judicial proceeding against City/District relating to any default, the prevailing party shall be entitled to seek an award of reasonable attorney’s fees as determined by the court. 24. COUNTERPARTS/ELECTRONIC DELIVERY. This Lease may be executed in counterparts, all such counterparts will constitute the same contract and the signature of any Party to any counterpart will be deemed a signature to, and may be appended to, any other counterpart. Executed copies hereof may be delivered by facsimile or email and upon receipt will be deemed originals and binding upon the Parties hereto, regardless of whether originals are delivered thereafter. 25. INDEMNIFICATION. Neither Party waives any right or defense to indemnification that may exist in law or equity. 26. NOTICES. Any notice, demand or communication required, permitted, or desired to be given hereunder shall be deemed effectively given when personally delivered, when received by receipted overnight courier, or five (5) days after being deposited in the United States mail, with postage prepaid thereon, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: If to City: City of Mesquite 10 East Mesquite Blvd. Mesquite, NV 89027
With Copy To: City of Mesquite 10 East Mesquite Blvd. Mesquite, NV 89027 Attention: City Manager Attention: City Attorney
If to District: Southern Nevada Health District Director of Administration 330 S. Valley View Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89107 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Lease Agreement as of the dates set forth below. The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank [Signatures on Next Page] Page 6 of 9
158
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY BETWEEN CITY OF MESQUITE AND SOUTHERN NEVADA HEALTH DISTRICT [Signature Page] CITY OF MESQUITE, NV “City” By: ______________________________ Allan S. Litman, Mayor Dated: ____________________________ ATTEST: By: ______________________________ Tracy Beck, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ______________________________ Robert Sweetin, City Attorney STATE OF NEVADA) )ss. County of Clark ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO by ___________________, the ________________ for THE CITY OF MESQUITE, NEVADA, a municipal entity, this _____ day of __________, 2017. ___________________________ Notary Public
159 Page 7 of 9
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY BETWEEN CITY OF MESQUITE AND SOUTHERN NEVADA HEALTH DISTRICT [Signature Page Continued] SOUTHERN NEVADA HEALTH DISTRICT “District” By: _______________________________ Joseph P. Iser, MD, DrPH, MSc Chief Health Officer Dated: ______________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: _________________________________ Annette L. Bradley, Esq. Southern Nevada Health District Attorney
160 Page 8 of 9
EXHIBIT A Premises
161 Page 9 of 9
RESOLUTION NUMBER 935 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MESQUITE (CITY) APPROVING THE CITY’S PARTICPATION IN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND SOUTHERN NEVADA HEALTH DISTRICT (SNHD) TO ALLOW SNHD TO LEASE BUILDING SPACE FROM THE CITY. WHEREAS, Nevada Revised Statues Chapter 277.180 provides that two or more public agencies may enter into an interlocal agreement for the performance of any governmental service, activity or undertaking which any of said agencies is authorized by law to perform; and WHEREAS, Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 277.045(2) requires that interlocal agreements be adopted by formal resolution or ordinance; and WHEREAS, SNHD and the City (the Parties) have mutual interests in preserving the health of Mesquite residents; and WHEREAS, SNHD leases approximately 2,000 square feet of space from the City, at 830 Hafen Lane; and WHEREAS, the existing lease expires August 31, 2017; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to continue their relationship and have drafted an interlocal agreement to that end that more fully clarifies each party’s respective responsibilities. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Mesquite that the Interlocal between the City and SNHD is approved. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Mesquite, Nevada on the 22nd of August, 2017. The City of Mesquite: Attest: By: __________________________________ Tracy Beck, City Clerk By: __________________________________ Allan S. Litman, Mayor
Approved as to form: By: __________________________________ Robert Sweetin, City Attorney
162
Technical Review Agenda Item 10 Submitted by: Tracy Beck Submitting Department: Mayor and Council Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Consideration of approval of Resolution 936 directing City Staff to prepare an agenda item relating to the expenditure of all marijuana-related business licensing fees as part of FY18-19 budgeting process and other matters properly related thereto. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 936 directing City Staff to prepare an agenda item relating to the expenditure of all marijuana-related business licensing fees as part of FY18-19 budgeting process and other matters properly related thereto. Petitioner: Council member David Ballweg Is this a budgeted item? No Fiscal Impact: There will be no immediate fiscal impacts as a result of this resolution. Any fiscal impacts will be considered in the context of the FY18-19 Budget. Background: During the 2017 Legislative session, the Legislature capped local governments’ ability to collect a business licensing fee from all types of marijuana-related businesses at 3% of gross revenue (SB487 Sec. 18.5). At this time, it is difficult to predict the amount of business licensing fees that will be collected because this is a new industry in Nevada and there is no historical data. Recently, community members have expressed interest in having the City contribute a portion of this business licensing fee to various causes. While many of the causes are good and would help the community, it would be better to have a year’s worth of data in order to better understand what revenues may or may not materialize. Further, this discussion is most productive within the framework of the City’s budgeting process that occurs every spring. In an effort to continue the conversation, but also to help provide a proper fiscal context for the requests, Resolution 936 directs City Staff as part of the FY18-19 budgeting process to bring an agenda item before the City Council that addresses the amount of revenue collected year-to-date from all marijuana-related businesses, any unforeseen expenses associated with marijuana-related businesses and the City’s overall fiscal condition. With this presentation as a reference point, the City163
Council can then realistically and prudently examine the feasibility of providing funding not only for local educational needs, but for all community and civic groups that may be interested in seeking funding from the City of Mesquite. At that point, if the Council desires to allocated funding, City Staff can then develop a process whereby groups can apply for funding
Attachments: Resolution 936 - Marijuana Revenue.docx Cover Sheet
164
RESOLUTION NUMBER 936 A RESOLUTION DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO PREPARE AN AGENDA ITEM RELATING TO THE EXPENDITURE OF ALL MARIJUANA-RELATED BUSINESS LICENSING FEES AS PART OF THE FY18-19 BUDGETING PROCESS WHEREAS, during the 2017 Legislative session, the Legislature capped local governments ability to collect a business licensing fee from all types of marijuana-related businesses at 3% of gross revenue; and WHEREAS, there are marijuana-related businesses licensed to operate within the City of Mesquite; and WHEREAS, the recreational marijuana industry is a new industry in Nevada and there exists great uncertainty regarding the regulations and revenues associated with this industry; and WHEREAS, the City of Mesquite has only received revenues from medical marijuana establishments and has not yet received any revenue from recreational marijuana-related businesses; and WHEREAS, the City of Mesquite prepares a budget annually in the spring of each year based on historic data and other verifiable information; and WHEREAS, the community members recently approached the City Council about aiding in offsetting costs to schools and students of certain programs and educational opportunities; and WHEREAS, there are multiple community and civic groups that do much good for the community that are not officially affiliated with the local schools. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Mesquite that City Staff shall bring forward an agenda item as part of the FY18-19 budgeting process that addresses at a minimum the following. 1. The amount of revenue collected year-to-date from all marijuana-related businesses 2. Any unforeseen expenses associated with marijuana-related businesses 3. The City’s overall fiscal condition
165 1
FURTHER, the City Council resolves that for the current fiscal year funding allocations of this nature for educational, non-profit, community and civic groups shall be examined within the context of the FY18-19 budget process. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Mesquite, Nevada on August 22, 2017.
By: __________________________________ Allan S. Litman, Mayor Attest:
Approved as to form:
By: ________________________________ Tracy Beck, City Clerk
By: ________________________________ Robert Sweetin, City Attorney
166 2
Technical Review Agenda Item Report Submitted by: Tracy Beck Submitting Department: City Manager Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Mayor's Comments Recommendation: Petitioner: Andy Barton, City Manager Is this a budgeted item? No Fiscal Impact:
Background: Contract Bid Expires On: Attachments:
167
Technical Review Agenda Item Report Submitted by: Tracy Beck Submitting Department: Development Services Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: City Council and Staff Comments and Reports Recommendation: Petitioner: Andy Barton, City Manager Is this a budgeted item? No Fiscal Impact:
Background: Contract Bid Expires On: Attachments:
168
Technical Review Agenda Item 13 Submitted by: Jesselyn Bickley Submitting Department: Development Services Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Consideration of Introduction of Bill #521, an Ordinance amending Title 2 of the Mesquite Municipal Code entitled “Business License Regulations” by amending Chapter 12, Section 2-12-11 entitled “Duration of Special Event” and other matters properly related thereto. - Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Recommendation: Introduce Bill 521 and set public hearing for Bill No. 521 for September 12, 2017 at 5 p.m. at the Regular Mesquite City Council meeting. Petitioner: Jesselyn Russo Is this a budgeted item? No Fiscal Impact: Revenue to Special Events Background: Currently, the Mesquite Municipal Code limits Special Events to no more than two times per year. However, staff feels this greatly limits the groups who wish to put on more public events in the City. Staff recommends changing the Special Event duration to not more than one event per calendar month per group. Staff believes by allowing more Special Events the City and local residents could benefit from boosted tourism and/or community involvement.
Attachments: Special Event Code Amendment.pdf 521 ORD.pdf
169
2-12-11: DURATION OF SPECIAL EVENT: The event for which the applicant has received a special event permit shall be no more than five (5) continuous days in length, unless otherwise approved in accordance with this chapter. A special event requiring a special event permit shall not occur more than one time per calendar month per applicant. two (2) times within a twelve (12) month period. (Ord. 477, 12-10-2013, eff. 12-31-2013)
170
CONSIDERATION OF INTRODUCTION OF BILL #521, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE MESQUITE MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED “BUSINESS LICENSE REGULATIONS” BY AMENDING CHAPTER 12, SECTION 2-12-11 ENTITLED “ DURATION OF SPECIAL EVENT” AND OTHER MATTER PROPERLY RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Mesquite is a growing community; WHEREAS, and Special Event Permits are required for “any temporary, short term event with an anticipated daily attendance of less than one thousand (1,000) people held on private or public property that may disrupt the normal expected peace of any area in the city of Mesquite or any activity outside of the established and normal use allowed by zoning.”; WHEREAS, the Mesquite Municipal Code limits a group’s special events to no more than twice per year; WHEREAS, more special events in the City may benefit the community by boosting tourism or other means; WHEREAS, it is reasonable and appropriate for the City of Mesquite to review and revise special event provisions; WHEREAS, it is reasonable and appropriate to amend the Mesquite Municipal Code from time to time; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MESQUITE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Chapter 12, of Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the City of Mesquite, Nevada is hereby amended as set forth in Appendix A: SECTION 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. The City Clerk is instructed and authorized to publish the title to this ordinance as provided by law. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective upon passage, approval and publication. SECTION 5. The provisions of this ordinance shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its purpose in the interest of the public health safety, welfare and convenience. SECTION 6. If any subsection, phrase, sentence or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. SECTION 7. The City Council finds that this ordinance is not likely to impose a direct and significant economic burden upon a business or directly restrict the formation, operation or expansion of a business, or is otherwise exempt from Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 237.
171
Technical Review Agenda Item 14 Submitted by: Richard Secrist Submitting Department: Development Services Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Consideration of alternative proposals for dealing with off-premise temporary directional signs in outlying areas. - Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action Recommendation: Receive a presentation put forward by property owners for an alternative type of Off-Premise Directional Sign in the Mesquite Technology and Commerce Center (MTCC), and, if it is the desire of the Council to pursue this proposal, direct staff to come back with a proposed ordinance to permit it. Petitioner: David Ballweg, City Council Is this a budgeted item? No Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impact at this time. If the proposal goes forward and is codified, there will be startup costs of designing, purchasing, and constructing signs. Background: The issue of what to do with temporary off-site directional signs that began popping up along Pioneer Boulevard in the Mesquite Technology and Commerce Center (MTCC) was discussed at the City Council meeting on July 11, 2017. Several alternative actions were considered, and the Council directed staff to come back with a draft ordinance amendment to allow commercial and institutional uses located off the main business loop (Falcon Ridge Parkway to Sandhill Boulevard, between Pioneer and Mesquite Boulevards) to be allowed the use of temporary off-premise directional signs. The argument being made by the owners of these businesses is that they are located so far off the principal business loop that few traveling motorists see where they are located. This is especially true of Deep Roots Harvest and Star Nursery which sit back a ways from Pioneer Boulevard. Following the July 11, 2017 meeting, another proposal was put forward to staff dealing with directional signs in the MTCC. It was suggested that the City put up Logo Signs in the MTCC, similar 172
to those seen on the Interstate, where businesses could put up their logos with simple directions to their sites. Sign structures would be put up on City Streets with pre-designed spaces that individual businesses could lease or buy to put their logo signs on, with directional arrows to point the way. The CEOs of Loadtec and Deep Roots Harvest believe this latter proposal may have some merit, but they did not have time to research the design, cost, and interest by other business owners for such a proposal. If the Council desires to look into this further, staff will do the research and come back at a later date with recommendations. To help visualize the proposal, some photos of freeway logo signs are attached.
Attachments: LogoSign_84%ofMotorists.JPG LogoSign_6.JPG
173
174
175
Technical Review Agenda Item 15 Submitted by: Tysha Blaber Submitting Department: Public Works Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Consideration of Approval of the Mesquite Airport Wildlife Deterrent Perimeter Fencing Construction FAA Grant. - Public Comments - Discussion and Possible Action
Recommendation: Recommend to Approve the Mesquite Airport Wildlife Deterrent Perimeter Fencing Construction FAA Grant. Petitioner: Bill Tanner, Public Works Director Is this a budgeted item? Yes Fiscal Impact: Budgeted in FY 17-18 Airport Special Revenue Fund 1287740 Expense Account (Perimeter Fencing Design) 1233225 Revenue Account FAA Grant FY 16-17 TOTAL
$968,513.00 $907,980.00 $ 60,533.00
FAA Grant Funded at 93.75% City Funded at 6.25%
Background: Public Works has been working the past year on a FAA Grant for Construction of Wildlife Deterrent & Perimeter Fencing for the Mesquite Airport. This grant is for construction in FY 17-18 with anticipated bid award in late September or early October. Bids have already been received for this project and once we get final approval from the FAA we will recommend award of that bid with notice to proceed in November.
176
Technical Review Agenda Item 16 Submitted by: Michelle Reber Submitting Department: City Attorney Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Consideration of the Introduction of Bill No. 526 as Ordinance No. 526, amending Title 2 of the Mesquite Municipal Code “Business License Regulations”; Chapter 2 “Taxes”; Creating Article C. “Supplementing Local Education through Marijuana Revenues” and other matters properly related thereto. - Public Comment - Discussion and Possible Action
Recommendation: Introduce Bill No. 526 as Ordinance No. 526 and set the public hearing date for the Regular City Council Meeting on September 12, 2017 at 5:00 PM Petitioner: Council member Brian Wursten Is this a budgeted item? No Fiscal Impact: This ordinance will create a fund separate from the general fund which will be used only to supplement education in the Virgin Valley. The fund will be administered by the City Council upon its own motion or recommendation of the Virgin Valley Community Education Advisory Board (CEAB). Background: In July 2017, the City Council imposed a 3% license tax by way of a conditional business license upon all marijuana establishments operated by Deep Roots. Though difficult to estimate at the present time, revenues to the City from that tax are projected to be between $300,000 and $500,000 annually. The presented ordinance would take half of 1% of that 3% tax (16.67% of total revenue collected from marijuana establishments) and set it aside to supplement shortfalls in funding from the Clark County School District. Though the state budget passed during the 2017 biennium dedicates a projected $70 million to education, that $70 million is distributed across the state. Further, the Clark County School District’s annual budget is roughly $2.3 billion. Even assuming Clark County School District received the entire 177 $70 million (which it will not), that amount makes up 3% of the District’s annual budget.
This ordinance would provide relief for Virgin Valley Schools and Business owners who donate heavily to our school programs. All monies collected would only be distributed upon approval by the City Council in a public meeting. As presented by stake-holders in the education community, funds would be used to: supplement athletic team travel (which is not funded by the district); purchase updated text books where the school district has denied funding; pursue after-school programs; and assist with development of STEM programs, among other potential uses. This action would bring the City of Mesquite on-par with other large to medium-sized cities where municipal government supplements and oversees certain educational programs and initiatives, often working with the local school district to bring more money into the community.
Attachments: Bill 526_Marijuana_School_Funds.doc
178
BILL NO. 526 ORDINANCE NO. 526 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MESQUITE, NEVADA, AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE MESQUITE MUNICIPAL CODE “BUSINESS LICENSE REGULATIONS”; CHAPTER 2 “TAXES”; CREATING ARTICLE C. “SUPPLEMENTING LOCAL EDUCATION THROUGH MARIJUANA REVENUES” AND OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, AB 422 passed by the Nevada Legislature during the 2017 legislative session allows for the implementation of a license tax by an incorporated City upon a marijuana establishment not to exceed three percent (3%); and WHEREAS, the City of Mesquite granted a conditional business license to Deep Roots, a marijuana establishment, fixing a three percent (3%) license tax upon gross receipts during its meeting on July 11, 2017; and WHEREAS, Deep Roots is a lawfully conforming marijuana establishment under the laws of the State of Nevada and the laws of the City of Mesquite; and WHEREAS, the City of Mesquite has established the Virgin Valley Community Education Board to further the purposes and policies of local education concerns affecting the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, currently many educational experiences are paid out of pocket or by way of donation, depriving low-income students from certain opportunities and experiences that would otherwise further their educational experience; and WHEREAS, education in the Virgin Valley is a matter of local concern affecting health, safety, welfare and morals; and WHEREAS, a fund specifying certain proceeds from revenues received from marijuana establishments will aid in offsetting costs to schools and students of certain programs and educational opportunities; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Mesquite, Nevada, does ordain:
179
Section 1:
Mesquite Municipal Code Title 2, Chapter 2, Article C, “Supplementing Local Education Through Marijuana Revenues” is hereby created as follows:
2-2C-1: DEFINITIONS Board or the Board: Shall refer to the Virgin Valley Community Education Advisory Board. Local Educational Needs: Any need, as deemed appropriate by the City Council, which has a significant nexus to promoting public education within the City of Mesquite. Marijuana Establishment: Any establishment that is defined as any type of Marijuana Establishment under the laws of the State of Nevada or by the City of Mesquite.
2-2C-2: IMPOSITION OF LICENSE TAXES RELATING TO MARIJUANA AND APPLICABILITY This ordinance shall be applicable to any and all license taxes imposed upon any marijuana establishment operating within the City of Mesquite. Such a tax may be imposed by any legal means. This ordinance shall not apply to any initiation, processing or one-time fees associated with any such license. 2-2C-3: CREATION OF FUND FOR SUPPLEMENTING LOCAL EDUCATION Upon passage and approval of this ordinance, the Director of Finance shall create a fund where 16.67% of all revenues received from any license tax imposed upon a marijuana establishment shall be deposited and held for the purpose of supplementing local education needs. 2-2C-4: ADMINISTRATION OF FUND The funds deposited in the fund created pursuant to section 3 of this article shall be administered solely by the City Council. The Virgin Valley Community Education Advisory Board (CEAB) may bring to the City Council recommended uses for any such funds upon a majority vote by the Board. Section 2: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 3: The City Clerk is instructed and authorized to publish the title to this ordinance as provided by law. Section 4: This ordinance shall become effective upon passage, approval and publication. Section 5: The provisions of this ordinance shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its purpose in the interest of the public health safety, welfare and convenience. 180
Section 6: If any subsection, phrase, sentence or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. Section 7: The City Council finds that this ordinance is not likely to impose a direct and significant economic burden upon a business or directly restrict the formation, operation or expansion of a business, and complies with Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 237. PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED this ___ day of ______, 2017.
By: __________________________ Allan S. Litman, Mayor
ATTEST: By: __________________________ Tracy E. Beck, City Clerk AYE: NAY: ABSTAIN: PUBLICATION DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE:
Approved as to Form By: ____________________________ Robert D. Sweetin, City Attorney
181
Technical Review Agenda Item Report Submitted by: Tracy Beck Submitting Department: City Manager Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Public Comment Recommendation: Petitioner: Andy Barton, City Manager Is this a budgeted item? No Fiscal Impact:
Background: Contract Bid Expires On: Attachments:
182
Technical Review Agenda Item Report Submitted by: Tracy Beck Submitting Department: City Manager Meeting Date: August 15, 2017
Subject: Adjournment Recommendation: Petitioner: Andy Barton, City Manager Is this a budgeted item? No Fiscal Impact:
Background: Contract Bid Expires On: Attachments:
183
