LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — Clark County officials have announced they have reached a proposed $80 million settlement agreement over a controversial Blue Diamond Hill housing development.
On Monday, officials announced a settlement agreement with Gypsum Resources, LLC and its owner Jim Rhodes.
The proposed settlement "represents a compromise that allows for lower density development and balances environmental protection in the area," a county settlement reads in part.
Terms include reducing the amount of homes to be built in the area from 5,026 to 3,500. It also diverts traffic from Scenic Route 159 to Route 160, pending approval from the Bureau of Land Management. If the BLM grant is not secured within two years, the county will begin to pay up to $6 million.
Additionally, once the final map is approved, the county will be able to acquire, for $1, 192 acres of the most environmentally-sensitive land located in the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.
According to the county, this settlement "avoids the risk of a potential judgment in excess of $2 billion in damages to taxpayers and the risk of future liability while addressing concerns about population growth in that area and preserving the scenic and natural landscape."
The settlement is the result of a court decision handed down last month "finding the willful destruction of evidence against the county and a Supreme Court ruling on government land use decisions."
How did we get here?
This all began in the early 2000s when Rhodes purchased the land. Litigation has been going on against both the state and Clark County since 2005 because of rules that sought to prevent the development. In August 2011, the Clark County Board of Commissioners approved a concept plan from Gypsum Resources. That was to allow 5,026 housing units to be built.
There were two conditions that were not part of the staff recommendations made prior to the August 17, 2011 meeting. First, there would be "No access onto Highway 159" and second, "right-of-way approval from the BLM for primary access is required prior to approval of Specific Plan."
In December 2016, court documents state Clark County filed a lawsuit against Gypsum and Save Red Rock "seeking declaratory relief regarding the validity of Gypsum's 2011 applications."
On December 15, 2016, Justin Jones, who was acting as an attorney for Save Red Rock at the time, sent a letter to "preserve any and all documents" that were related to Gypsum and/or Save Red Rock. The letter repeatedly references text messages as communications that must be preserved. Court documents state while Clark County received the letter, the county "failed to present any evidence that is actually distributed the 2016 Preservation Letter."
On March 29, 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled when government entities, like county commissioners, used private devices to conduct county business and perform their duties as public servants, those communications were public records. (Comstock Residents Association v. Lyon County Board of Commissioners)
In October 2018, Gypsum asked to waive the two conditions that were originally proposed in 2011.
On November 8, 2018, Jones was elected to the Clark County Commission. Court records state Jones sent an email to members of Save Red Rock a week later saying "The waiver of conditions is the only thing that matters right now and Gypsum needs four votes."
Jones did alert the Nevada Commission of Ethics about his involvement with the project and the agency stated Jones was not required to abstain from votes on Gypsum's applications but was required to make a disclosure of his involvement with Save Red Rock for one year.
On April 17, 2019, the Clark County Board of Commissioners heard Gypsum's applications and on a motion by Jones, the board voted to change recommendation and unanimously deny a waiver. The vote was at 2:56 p.m. and court documents state by 6:09 p.m., all text messages on Jones' phone at that time, which he was using to communication as a Commissioner, had been deleted.
Why does this matter?
Attorneys for Rhodes state the messages could have provided evidence of Jones' bias against the project.
Gympsum was seeking sanctions against Jones for destroying evidence they say he knew, or should have known, was important to the case.
"I don't recall doing it, but I understand from [a forensic data company's] review of my cell phone records that that is what occurred," Jones said. "I have no explanation for that."
WATCH: County commissioner testifies in long-running development lawsuit
What happens next?
The proposed settlement agreement will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at their meeting on June 18, 2024.
The county also released the following statement about the $80 million settlement.
"While an $80 million payment is significant for the county, by re-prioritizing and reallocating funds for planned capital projects and other economic development projects not yet underway, the settlement will not have a detrimental impact on services nor will it require a reduction in staff. The county will continue to identify sources of funding that will not impact the important services the county provides to the community. Without the settlement, a larger judgment could have had an adverse impact on the county and the community."
