ADVISORY BALLOT QUESTION NUM.

4
City of Boulder City

This question is advisory only: Do you support the operation of Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) on City
Streets pursuant to NRS 490.100?
Yes .......... o
No .......... o

EXPLANATION

The City Council of Boulder City is asking, through this Advisory Ballot Question, if the voters would
support the operation of Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) on City Streets pursuant to NRS 490.100.

This is an Advisory Question only and the result of the voting on this question does not place any legal
requirement on the City of Boulder City, any member of the Boulder City Council, or any officer of the
City of Boulder City.

A “YES” vote would indicate support for the operation of Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) on City Streets
pursuant to NRS 490.100.

A “NO” vote would indicate no support for the operation of Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) on City
Streets pursuant to NRS 490.100.

Because an advisory question does not place any legal requirement on the City of Boulder City, any
member of the Boulder City Council, or any officer of the City of Boulder City, the success of an
advisory question does not mandate action or automatically codify the question being asked. Additional
formal steps must be taken by the City Council to codify the will of the electorate in the event that the
Advisory Question is successful.

ARGUMENT FOR PASSAGE

Question No. 4 is strictly an advisory question asking voters if they support the use of Off Highway
Vehicles (OHV’s) on city streets. Question No. 4 only pertains to the use of OHV’s on designated
city streets, NOT to be confused with the use of OHV’s in the desert area throughout Nevada, which is
already legal per Nevada Revised Statute.

Nevada has the highest percentage of public lands of any state (85%). It is estimated that for every mile
of paved road, there are at least 10 miles of unpaved road or trail within Nevada. Surrounding states
have seen a very positive economic impact from OHV recreation; $4.25 billion annually to Arizona’s
economy, $1.8 billion annually to Colorado’s economy, and $58.5 million to Utah’s economy in 2017
directly through the Paiute Trails which is a single trail system within the state of Utah that is only open
4-6 months per year due to weather conditions.
19
OHV users make up 28.1% of the population in the Western U.S., 23.9% of the population of Nevada.
Over half of OHV users are over age 43. Colorado experiences individuals taking an average of 17 OHV
trips annually, typical spending between $446 (from Colorado residents) and $2,352 (non-Colorado
residents) on each trip including food, fuel, and lodging.

Some of the benefits of allowing OHV’s on city streets would be the availability of grant money for
maps, signage, education/enforcement of laws, improved family-friendly recreation and quality of life
in Boulder City, access to Nevada’s existing trail system through designated access points, and a positive
economic impact by making Boulder City a destination for tourism. Increased tourism generates greater
business income and tax revenues which in turn helps reduce the potential need to increase taxes to the
public. Any concerns regarding OHV use on City streets could be addressed with the implementation
of a proactive ordinance.

OHV users would be required to comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to any potential future
approved ordinances. Other Nevada communities have already adopted effective legislation regarding
the use of OHV’s on city streets. Boulder City could simply adopt those same regulations preventing
the need to re-invent the wheel. This also allows Boulder City to create its own legislation rather than
the state legislators deciding for us.

Vote yes on Question No. 4. Help build a stronger economy! Potential for better controls and regulation!
Increased family recreation!

(Submitted by the Ballot Question Committee as provided for in NRS 295.217)

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT FOR PASSAGE

The argument in favor of Question No. 4 provides statistics about OHV use, which apply to public lands
in rural areas of western states. Boulder City is an urbanized community adjacent to a major metropolitan
area, and should not be compared to rural Nevada. At 28%, OHV users comprise a minority of the
population. Proponents of Question No. 4 openly advocate legalizing OHVs on all city streets, which
seems unnecessary for their economic goals. Opponents of Question No. 4 believe that if the OHV
initiative is truly about economic development, only one designated access route would be necessary
between our business corridor and recreation areas. Question No. 4 was conceived by a minority group
of residents who want the convenience of operating OHVs directly from their driveways, so they are not
inconvenienced by having to trailer their OHVs to recreation areas.

Bordering neighborhoods along the desert are already being impacted by the noise and dust generated
by OHVs. Allowing OHV operation on our city streets will not benefit anyone but OHV users, and there
is no evidence this will bring better control or regulation of OHV recreation. Turning Boulder City into
a destination for OHV tourism will not make our community better or safer.

(Submitted by the Ballot Question Committee as provided for in NRS 295.217)

20
 ARGUMENT AGAINST PASSAGE

Question No. 4 asks voters if they support the use of off highway vehicles (OHVs) on city streets.
NRS 490.060 defines an “Off-highway vehicle” as any motor vehicle that is designed primarily for off-
highway and all-terrain use. NRS 490.100 allows a city or county to designate any portion of a highway
within the city or county as permissible for the operation of off-highway vehicles for the purpose of
allowing off-highway vehicles to reach a private or public area that is open for use by off-highway
vehicles. The city or county may also allow for minors under the age of 16 to operate an OHV under the
direct visual supervision of a person who is at least 18 years in age.

Recent revisions to NRS 490 were intended for lower-population rural communities, distant from urban
areas, to allow OHV access via designated paved roads.

Proponents of Question No. 4 have proposed plans to attract hundreds of OHVs to Boulder City to
access services (restaurants, gas stations, etc.) and then return to the desert areas for recreation via city
streets. If OHV’s are allowed to operate on city streets, it will lead to increased traffic, noise, and dust
in our neighborhoods. Opponents of Question No. 4 believe the negative impacts will destroy Boulder
City’s charm.

OHV activity on the desert area trails around Boulder City already negatively impacts air quality,
particularly when OHVs operate in areas known to contain asbestos in the soil.

The Boulder City Police Department has a history of not providing effective enforcement of existing
OHV ordinances. OHVs will not be required to display a license plate that can be used to identify those
disobeying traffic laws making enforcement more difficult. Persons under the age of 16, without a
driver’s license issued by the DMV, may also be allowed to operate an “off-highway” vehicles without
a driver’s license so long as they can be seen by an adult, and that adult is not required themselves to
have a driver’s license.

Our Boulder City neighborhoods are already beset by the noise and dust generated by OHVs, and
discourteous OHV operators that drive OHVs in areas already prohibited from operation of such vehicles.

The presence of OHVs on our city streets will detract from the atmosphere and town character that
attracts people to visit or reside in Boulder City.

(Submitted by the Ballot Question Committee as provided for in NRS 295.217)

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PASSAGE

By voting YES, you are supporting the use of OHVs on designated routes which could provide
convenience and economic benefits for residents and businesses. Current concerns could be addressed
through enforceable laws to keep our roads safe.

21
There is no statement of intent in current NRS 490. Discretion is given to cities and counties, allowing
them to be more restrictive regarding the operation of OHVs including age, license requirements, and
restricting OHV use to designated routes and roads.

Dust is not a factor because Question No. 4 only relates to operation of OHVs on paved city streets.
Having minimal access leading to the trails via paved roads reduces dust around our homes. It opens the
possibility for OHV operators to park trailers away from downtown while still allowing local shopping,
eating, and fueling.

NRS 490.082 requires all OHVs be registered through the Department of Motor Vehicles and display a
sticker as prescribed by the Commission on Off-Highway Vehicles.

The Boulder City Police Department was recently awarded grant money to promote responsible
off-highway recreation including trail and facility studies, planning, mapping, signing, and enforcement.

Vote YES on 4! Passage allows discussion of OHV operation only on designated routes under controlled
conditions minimizing impact, dust, noise, and bringing revenue to our local businesses.

(Submitted by the Ballot Question Committee as provided for in NRS 295.217)

FISCAL NOTE

This question may require an expense that will require the levy or imposition of a new tax or fee or the
increase of an existing tax or fee.
DIGEST
NRS 295.230.2(a)(I)(II)

A. Summary of Existing Laws Related to the Measure Proposed by the Question:

1. Boulder City Code, Title 7, Chapter 5, Public Land Use
a. Section 7. Prohibited Conduct in Public Parks

B. Summary of how the measure proposed by the question:

1. Adds to Existing Laws – This ballot measure may add to existing laws, it will
potentially amend existing laws by amending Prohibited Conduct in Public Parks
found in Title 7, Chapter 5, Section 7 of the Boulder City Code.
2. Changes to Existing Laws – This ballot measure potentially changes existing laws by
amending the Boulder City Code.
3. Repeals to Existing Laws – This ballot measure may repeal an existing law by removing
Title 7, Chapter 5, Section 7 from the Boulder City Municipal Code.

FINANCIAL EFFECT

This question may require the proposal of a bond, tax, fee or other expense. The funding source for this
possible code amendment is not currently identified.
22