Las Vegas City Commission Minutes, September 21, 1955 to November 20, 1957, lvc000010-414

12. Chapter 307, Section 3 of the Statutes of Nevada 1951 concern the Water District. 13. Section 11 of the Charter is amended so that the members of the Commission are not eligible to hold the office of City Manager during their term or for one year thereafter. 14. Section 16½ of the Charter deletes the provision that prohibits members of the Commission from holding the position of City Manager, which provision was added to Section 11. 15. Section 41 of the Charter is changed deleting the provision that allows the city clerk to have deputies, assistants or clerks. 16. Section 3 of Chapter II of the Charter is amended to provide for a primary and general municipal election. Mr. Cannon presented two proposals. Alternative No. 1 makes a change so that in 1959 all members of the Commission, the City Attorney and Municipal Judge are up for election and thereafter an election will be held only every four years. Alternative No. 2 makes a change so that there is a primary and general municipal election, but two commissioners, a city attorney and a municipal judge will be elected in 1957; and in 1959 the other two commissioners and the mayor will be elected. The Commission decided upon Alternative No. 2 as the proposed change to this section. There being no further business to come before this meeting, the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: APPROVED: 1-10-57 Las Vegas, Nevada January 16, 1957 A regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Las Vegas, Nevada held this 16th day of January, 1957 was called to order at the hour of 7:30 P.M. by His Honor Mayor Baker with the following members present: Mayor C. D. Baker Commissioner Wendell Bunker Commissioner E. W. Fountain Commissioner Harris P. Sharp Commissioner Reed Whipple City Attorney Howard W. Cannon City Manager A. H. Kennedy Adm. Assistant Robert F. Boos City Engineer George E. Wade Planning Director Franklin J. Bills City Clerk Shirley Ballinger ANNEXATION - Mayor Baker announced that this was the time set for the public hearing on the annexation of Public Hearing portions of Sections 29, 30, 31 and 32 of T20S, R61E, MDB&M and requested the Planning Director to give a report on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Bills explained that this proposed annexation was instituted by petitions requesting annexation submitted by property owners. He stated that the boundaries of the area may be generally described as that property between the East City Limits, East Charleston Boulevard, Nellis Boulevard and Owens Avenue. He explained originally it was proposed to include property 50 feet south of the section line on East Charleston and 50 feet norths of the section line on Owens Avenue. This was done to include the right of way for Owens Avenue and East Charleston Boulevard so that the City could avoid having two major streets with dual jurisdiction. However, due to a number of legal and practical problems it was decided not to include this portion. Mr. Bills stated that according to City Ordinance, property annexed to the City must be annexed with the same or nearest comparable zoning classification which was designated by the County, The majority of the property is presently zone R-E in the County and the nearest comparable City zoning is R-A, which permits farming and live stock raising. He explained that any uses existing in the area would be permitted to continue so long as they ware not a public nuisance. Planning Director Bills further stated that public safety services such as fire and police protection could be more economically provided in this area by the City, and pointed out that a new fire station on East Charleston was nearing completion. Mr. Bills pointed out that the strongest argument in favor of the annexation is related to over-all community development. It is felt that the annexation of this property will have the effect of checking the present trend of City development to the west. He stated that the City could not expand to the north because of North Las Vegas, nor to the South because of the Town of Winchester, and it is more logical to annex to the east because of the accessibility of sewage and water supply. Mr. Bills stated that 204 property owners had been notified and only two written protests had been filed. 1-16-57