City Council decides not to appeal $2 million tennis complex decision - Breaking News

PRINT THIS Popular

Nov. 04, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

City Council decides not to appeal $2 million tennis complex decision

By ALAN CHOATE
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Las Vegas officials decided today to put to rest a long-running arbitration case over construction of the Kellogg-Zaher Sports Complex instead of appealing a recent ruling to District Court.

It was presented as a practical financial decision, given the time and expense that proceedings with Asphalt Products Corp. already have involved, and the likelihood that an appeal would be just as expensive while resolving little.

Most Popular Stories

Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer

Station Casinos posts $455 million third-quarter loss

Two of three suspects in slaying of officer could face death penalty

Man sentenced to 15 years for federal tax crimes

Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop

Escalator accident at Caesars Palace still under investigation

Las Vegas man denied pardon in killing of abusive father

Man pleads guilty in death of girlfriend's child

Visitors authority urges officials to call off mock nuclear blast

Palms agrees to pay $100,000 to settle complaint

“There are no winners in this one,” said City Attorney Brad Jerbic.

“Yes, there is,” countered Mayor Pro Tem Gary Reese. “The lawyers. The arbitrators.”

Jerbic said the city racked up $3.5 million in legal costs during the proceedings, and estimated that APCO spent at least that much.

An arbitration panel ruled 2-1 recently that the city should pay $2.08 million to APCO to settle claims arising from the park’s construction.

Located on Washington Avenue between Buffalo and Durango drives, the complex has 11 soccer fields and the Amanda and Stacy Darling Memorial Tennis Center.

The city's allegations against APCO included cracks in tennis courts that were designed to attract professional tournaments, defective welds in fencing, and missing playground equipment, among many other items.

The city has most of that money available, said Mark Vincent, the city’s chief financial officer. He said $1.1 million consists of final payments that were held during the proceedings, with some surplus funds from the project set aside as well.

Still, $219,300 will have to be moved from a fund for parks capital projects to satisfy the award.

APCO’s original claim, filed in 2005, sought $6.5 million.

The city had the option of challenging $980,000 worth of damages awarded by the ruling.

Jerbic said a likely scenario was that a judge would send the case back for further arbitration, which would cost as much or more than the settlement.

The arbitration panel’s majority opinion said problems at the park stemmed from the city's rushing incomplete plans to the contractor to finish construction more quickly.

In one paragraph, the ruling singles out the office of former Councilman Larry Brown for unduly pressuring staff members to get the project rolling.

It’s a conclusion city officials dispute, saying APCO’s work on the site, not city plans, should be at issue.

Brown, now a Clark County commissioner, visited today’s council meeting to say he treated the project the same as any other and that he had “no apologies for my role in Kellogg-Zaher.”

The legal wrangling might be over, but one issue remains — cracks in the tennis courts at the Darling Center that were a major feature of the dispute to begin with.

“They are still cracked,” said Councilman Stavros Anthony, who inherited the situation when he was elected to represent Ward 4 last year. “We’re just going to have to find a way to fix them.

“Obviously, if money is involved, that’s going to be an issue. The courts are still playable. They shouldn’t have cracks, and that’s all we can do at this point.”

Although conflicts over public works projects will arise in the future, the scenario faced in this case is not likely to repeat itself because of a change in state law.

It used to be a requirement that public works project disputes had to be settled by binding arbitration. Now governmental bodies are merely required to use some type of alternative dispute resolution before taking a case to court.

Las Vegas contracts now contain a clause calling for “nonbinding mediation,” Jerbic said. That process usually is over in less than a day.

Contact reporter Alan Choate at achoate@reviewjournal.com or 702-229-6435.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	10 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. get free asbestos as harrah's wrote on November 04, 2009 10:20 PM: come on down. is apco building the new higher taxes walking trails or any other projects ? wrote on November 04, 2009 10:17 PM: who are the silent recipients of this money ? did larry brown have to refuse to answer any media questions ? Insider wrote on November 04, 2009 05:40 PM: I would say the billing records are public information since the City was the client, and it is a public entity. Ask Brad Jerbic for them, but plan on spending the copy costs to get them. If not make a FOIA request, Freedom of Information Act request. Then, they will have to give them to you. Herb wrote on November 04, 2009 05:37 PM: Their web site lists Kemp, Jones & Coulthard as being listed in the Best Lawyers In America Directory. Best Lawyers? For advising their client, meaning us, the taxpayers, not to spend $3 million dollars in legal fees that go in their deep pockets, fighting over $980,000? And Brad Jerbic approved this, or did the whole idiotic city council, made of of Oscar Goodman, lawyer, Steve Wolfson, lawyer...did they bid this legal work out? Or were they just friends with Will, Randall and Bill? I want to go through those billing records. Does anyone know if they are public records since they were obtained via a public contract? Best Lawyers my A$$. Confucious wrote on November 04, 2009 05:29 PM: Did Brad Jerbic try to negotiate the legal fees? I mean downward. In the County, Clark county paid a UTAH law firm I think it was about $6million dollars in litigation over the elevators. Only an Idiot like Chuck Short could have overseen the monstrosity that is the RJC. And these same idiots complain that Phil Kohn wants more money to defend the accused. I guess elevators and tennis courts are worth more to us than ensuring that innocent people do not go to jail. Robert wrote on November 04, 2009 04:50 PM: Hey Mr. Choate has it exactly correct. The (H)KJ&C firm did the city and its constituents no favors running up $3.5 Million in attorneys' fees to protect $980,000. This to go along with its chunk of the $90 Million Kitec Settlement. Perhaps if (H)KJ&C were told that they were on a contingency fee for the city, they would have done better. Who is getting their balls rubbed? wrote on November 04, 2009 04:29 PM: Obviously, someone is getting their balls rubbed by this nonsense, I wonder who? What a tremendous WASTE of taxpayer's money. Too bad we don't force the morons in City government to pay on our behalf, since the incompetents all the way down the line are constantly screwing the pooch! Say What? wrote on November 04, 2009 04:19 PM: The Las Vegas Sun had a better article, in that they suggested that Larry Brown, then city councilman for the district in which this Darling Complex was located, rushed the plans through. Either way, how can the council approve this kind of legal fee, $3 million? Less money is spent on Death Row defense. And a life is stake compared to a tennis court. Hey Mr. Choate wrote on November 04, 2009 04:10 PM: Who picked the Harrison,Kemp, Jones, and Coulthard law firm to defend the city? Or are they just Kemp, Jones & Coulthard now? They spent $3.3million to defend the building of a tennis court project? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just rebuild the tennis courts? Are Kemp, Jones, and Coulthard's bills now public documents which can now be reviewed for any discrepancies? I mean, that is a lot of money. And it was just Arbitration. No trial. Conserned wrote on November 04, 2009 03:39 PM: So, you spent over $3M to try an save $980K..............makes sense to me!!!