OPEN FORUM: A Closer Look At Town Boundary Proposals

Clark County has proposed an adjustment of town boundary lines between Moapa, Moapa Valley and Bunkerville. On March 12 the County presented the proposal at the Moapa TAB meeting.

The proposal would grow the Moapa town boundary by 155 square miles, while shrinking the existing areas of Bunkerville and Moapa Valley towns; by 144 square miles from Bunkerville and two square miles from Moapa Valley. Part of Moapa town area addition would also include the old Glendale town of some nine square miles. Click here to see Exhibit A) for details.

At the March 12 meeting, the Moapa TAB unanimously recommended approval of the proposed boundary changes with the mention that the boundaries could be adjusted again later after July 1. The later adjustment would include frontage along the I-15 corridor for the Moapa Valley town.

In my opinion, the County proposal of March 12 requires a closer look. At its heart, this proposal raises an issue of equity among the three towns. The lopsided area analysis in the above table is only one indicator of the inequitability of the outcome of the March 12 meeting.

Size alone should not wholly dictate town boundaries between communities.Other factors should be considered. The wants, needs, and desires of the communities involved should weigh in the decision. Also considered should be the factor of access for potential growth such as the I-15 corridor.

The Clark County Transportation Element, for example, shows an arterial road from the Carp – Elgin I-15 interchange through the BLM Land Disposal Area, on the east side of Moapa Valley. Because of this future road and because this area makes up the northern viewshed to Moapa Valley, this interchange is of jurisdictional interest to Moapa Valley.

Population should also be a consideration in a boundary change. Interestingly, with the current boundaries, Moapa Valley has the largest population but the smallest area in the northeast County. Bunkerville has the smallest population but has the largest boundary.

Perhaps the most important element for consideration ought to be the proportions of developable land. In the 277 square miles of the existing Moapa Valley town boundary, some 177 square miles comprise Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Bureau of Reclamation Land, Wildlife Refuge and State Land (Valley of Fire etc.). That leaves Moapa Valley with only 100 square miles of developable land.

Thus it appears that this proposal favors the Moapa Town. To form a more fair and equitable solution, several questions should be considered. (A) Do the adjusted town boundary lines distribute equitable areas? (B) Do they address desires, wants, and needs of the respective towns? (C) Do they respect areas of jurisdictional interest? (D) Do they cause difficulties of splitting connected private or public ownerships into two or three different jurisdictions? (E) Do they provide equitable areas of growth?

Prior to the March 12 meeting much of the above questions from items A through E had already been deliberated amongst the three TABS. Now it seems that these deliberations are being cast aside. It is important to note that, over time and ending in February, each of the three TABS had consensus as to the boundary lines. As I was involved in much of this process, it would be beneficial here to recount some of that history.

First, the Moapa TAB made a request to iron out some issues dealing with the Riverview development. They requested the inclusion of some nine square miles of the old Glendale town to their boundary. In addition, they requested two square miles of the Riverview Development from the Moapa Valley town to be included in the Moapa town. Finally, they requested that an additional 12 square miles from the Bunkerville town be included in Moapa; this in contrast to 144 square miles proposed to Moapa in the March 12 meeting.

Secondly, the Riverview developer along with members of the Moapa TAB came to a meeting of the Moapa Valley TAB last May to request agreement to these changes. Moapa Valley recommended approval of these actions. But we also discussed adjusting the north line of Moapa Valley to the Lincoln County line as well as moving the east line to include the I-15 Carp-Elgin Interchange including a quarter of a square mile of private land (160 acres) at at that interchange. The Moapa Valley TAB felt that, since Bunkerville was being impacted, their TAB should be consulted. But the Moapa Valley TAB did take action to approve whatever Bunkerville would approve.

Lastly, after three Bunkerville TAB meetings on this issue, in February Bunkerville took action to unanimously approve Moapa Valley’s consideration of the Carp-Elgin Interchange boundary between Moapa Valley and Bunkerville. Click here to see Exhibit B) for details.

Of course, anyone can see that Bunkerville would take a significant hit, even more of a hit if the March 12 proposal is adopted. But Bunkerville has the smallest population of the three towns and the least desire to grow. Furthermore, its current boundary extends far West to a line between the Glendale and Overton-Logandale exits – far from what should be of any jurisdictional interest to Bunkerville.

Bunkerville TAB could, however, equalize their area with the Moapa and Moapa Valley areas by expanding their town to the south toward the Gold Butte area. At their February 24 TAB meeting they not only recommended approval for the Carp-Elgin boundary between Moapa Valley and Bunkerville, but also recommended expanding to the South. That expansion was not shown in the Clark County’s March 12 presentation. Still, such an expansion could increase Bunkerville’s boundary to even more square miles than any of the other towns to 396 sq. miles.

In conclusion, the town boundary adjustments as presented by Clark County on March 12 at the Moapa TAB meeting lack justifiable rationale; as well as shows a disregard to prior actions of the TABs of Bunkerville, Moapa, and Moapa Valley.

The plan will also be presented to the Moapa Valley TAB meeting on April 1 at 7:00 P.M., and then again at the Bunkerville TAB meeting on April 2 at 7:00 P.M. The BCC will probably take final action on the proposed adjustments to town boundary lines the week thereafter.

Guy Doty is a member of the Moapa Valley Town Advisory Board and a licensed surveyor in the State of Nevada.

Minor modifications have been made to Mr. Doty’s original document to fit the newspaper layout.