The board is supervisors to order.

Uh, may I have a roll call, please?

Supervisor Jamie, Supervisor White, Supervisor Horton, Supervisor Shooty, Mayor Bagwell.

Here, you got your quorum.

Thank you so much, Scott.

We're now on agenda item three, and we're lucky enough this morning to have our founding pastor from Fountainhead Four Square, Miss Peggy Locke.

Start us off in a good spirit this morning.

Says, Commit whatever you do to God most high, and your plans will be established.

We give you thanks and praise for what you have done for us.

Give wisdom as they make decisions for the good of our community.

We also pray for Sheriff Ken Furlong and the Sheriff's Department, the fire department, and our first responders, our teachers, our children, as well as those serving in harm's way.

Protect them and cover them, dear Lord, with your grace.

We pray in the name of Jesus Christ, our Savior, healer, baptizer with the Holy Spirit, and soon coming king.

Amen.

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate that.

Jack, would you like to lead us in the pledge?

Sure.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Okay.

We are now on to agenda item five, which is our opening public comment.

Um I don't have anyone signed up.

Did you want opening, Denny?

Okay.

Come on up.

Good morning, Mayor and Supervisors.

Denny French, Carson City, Nevada.

I put a public comment up there about uh parks and recreation matter that wasn't able to bring up before.

And I'd like people to take a look at it and consider my concerns.

And also I'd like to say I'm here to be here for the recognition this morning of service and um several other items that I'll bring up later.

But um I'd really like it to be considered that these Board of Supervisors meetings have the similar timing as the other commissions and committees and such, not because I feel it will necessarily bring in more people, but it will allow people to watch during the actual hearing when they're home.

Not necessarily catching it later, but catching it as it happens.

And I would really suggest that people, when they can come, because it's different listening or reading the minutes, which I've been doing recently.

You don't get the feel, the energy, or the vibe unless you're here, personally here.

So I would like to encourage the community.

I speak for myself and I come when I can.

It's important not only to be knowing other people, but to experience the event.

So it's different to hear ball game on the news or read the deal in the paper afterwards, but the energy at that game is what you're really getting the benefit from when you're there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Owens.

Uh Sandra Owens, and I'm a Carson City resident.

I ask that my comment study be entered into public record.

I want to raise a concern that is beyond any single agenda item and speaks to the magnitude of the decisions being discussed and the public's role in them.

A new city hall is not a routine project.

It's not a civic decision.

It is a civic decision with long-term impacts and downtown form, infrastructure, traffic, and character.

It's also a major financial commitment that will obligate this community for decades through construction costs, financing, operations, and maintenance.

Yet neither the planning commission nor the public has been formally presented with the true needs of the city's offices, alternative options, and long-term financial implications of such a project.

Despite that, recent reporting indicates that the city hall has already been cited as justification for other planning decisions, even though the project itself has not been formally approved, publicly presented, or clearly defined.

When a project of this scale is treated as an assumption rather than a proposal, the public is placed in a reactive position instead of being meaningfully involved from the beginning.

Good governance requires transparency before commitment before moving forward with the new city hall.

The city should assess and present the actual space needs of city departments, evaluate renovation or consolidation alternatives, and clearly disclose the full long-term cost.

It is also concerning to residents when public reports suggest that executive recommendations are being made contrary to prior staff findings, and that major decisions may be justified by projects that are not yet on the books or subject to public review.

Given the size and lasting financial impact of a decision like City Hall, it is reasonable for residents to expect a formal process, meaningful input before conclusions are drawn.

Decisions of this magnitude should not advance ahead of public understanding or consent.

This is not about opposing city hall.

It's about assuring the public is informed, engaged, and respected before a commitment is made that will shape Carson City for generations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please, we don't do that.

Thank you.

Um I don't have anyone else signed up for opening public comment.

But let me just in case.

Okay, then we're gonna move on to the agenda.

We're on item six, which is approval of our minutes.

Does any member have any changes, corrections?

Supervisor Giomi, a motion, please.

Yeah, uh there is one correction that I um forwarded to Bree um with the misspelling of a Tom Grundy's name.

So with uh that I will uh move to approve the corrected meeting minutes uh from the Board of Supervisors for the 6th of January 2026, otherwise is presented.

I have a motion and a second for approval.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye, any opposed, say no.

Let the record reflect that was unanimous.

Okay, if you'll join me on the floor, we will do our uh proclamation.

Oops, we need that.

I think this one.

As is always fine, it's money.

Take a look at 20 on page 181, where it says we're supposed to consider evidence submitted to the commission.

Hi.

How are you doing?

Good day.

There we go.

Okay, so this morning it's whereas Carson City's quality of life attracts talented and loyal employees.

Whereas every day, Carson City employees put to use their broad array of skills and expertise with efficiency and integrity for the benefit of everyone in our city.

Whereas we owe a substantial debt of gratitude to the Carson City employees and applaud those who go above and beyond in their loyalty and ability.

Whereas Charlene, who is dedicated to the safety and well-being of individuals in our detention facility, goes above and beyond, demonstrating exemplary commitment in all sp aspects of her profession, thereby contributing to the fulfillment of the city's mission, values, and vision.

Now, therefore, I Lori Bagwell, mayor of Carson City, celebrate the dedicated accomplishments of Charlene Frochler in serving the community and dear do hereby proclaim it.

She is the employee of the quarter.

Yay, come on up, isn't that and it's real.

She is absolutely dedicated, and Kenny will tell you what a great superstar she is.

For both Allie and I, for juvenile and and for the adult side.

Um gosh, what a fresh person.

Always a smile on her face, never a challenge, just pushing forward.

Um so deserving.

I just Allie, come on up here for a second.

Um we are so blessed to have her.

Yes, there's tragedies from time to time.

And when I've seen her and I've witnessed her uh confronting those tragedies, it's just amazing.

But on a day-to-day basis, her along with the rest of this uh medical staff working at uh the sheriff's office and at uh juvenile detention.

Uh this is a phenomenal recognition.

So thank you, Sha.

Anything else?

Right?

And and how does this happen?

We actually uh give you small dollars, but we do give you a few, right?

Who's got the check?

Come on over.

This right, thank you for all you do for the city.

It is so appreciated, right?

You're such a great role model.

Oh, we bring in the dog in.

Oh, of course.

Come on.

Thank you so much.

Oh god.

Everything anymore.

Give it just a moment.

Thank you.

Okay, we're going to uh continue on the agenda.

We're on our consent agenda.

I didn't uh receive a request, so we're good.

Supervisor Gionia, a motion, please.

All as presented.

I have a motion and a second for approval.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

Okay, we're now on to agenda item 13A, and it looks like a huge big number, Sherry.

Um I wish it was unobligated cash, but uh let's talk about our uh budget augmentations moving forward from last year to this year.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Um so yes, it's 187 million, it seems like a huge number.

Um, only 7,177,000 is uh general fund of that big number.

So um this year we've got 1.6 million and restricted.

Um I'm asking for some contingency a million dollars to add to contingency.

There's also um a million dollars we're setting aside for street and highway funds for future years to try to match and make sure we spend the same amount in each region, each district.

Um and then I was asking to set aside um some money for moving Munis to the cloud, but um we've decided it's best to run that through the capital program.

So um I think it was only 77,000 that was going towards that um that cloud program.

Uh so we'll be moving that to my capital recommendation as of today.

Um the weird things, there's always some weird things in the general fund that we're moving forward.

Um there's extraordinary court cases of 75,000.

Um this has been rolling forward for a few years.

It's um a capital burder case that um they're hoping to extradite him and get him back here, and we never know when that's gonna happen.

So um we keep rolling it forward.

Um there's professional services for the municipal code update is 125,000 that came to IFC.

Um there is uh software maintenance for the Civic Plus and Madison AI.

Um that was only 26,800.

The China Springs contract increased um 90,764.

Um, and then uh software maintenance.

Uh originally I was asking 285,900, so that will be reduced by about 77,000.

Umfortunately, when we did the budget, uh we did not include all of the software maintenance that was purchased in the 210 fund and paid for in the 210 fund, and now it's got to be an operating.

So it's about 200,000 that we need to increase that budget by.

Um, and then there was a little error with um fleet management for 4,950.

So those were the weird things.

I am recommending uh close to where's my number?

Um 2.9 million dollars, almost 3 million with that 77,000 added, uh be moved to capital for NICs for 2027 to be able to afford some capital in that year.

Um are there any questions on the general fund?

That's kind of the biggest our operating fund.

Um I will talk about the Capital Projects Fund a little bit because there is 23 million dollars rolling forward in the Capital Projects Fund.

Uh and so there's um quite a bit in the landfill site as we get ready for the transfer station.

Uh and then there is a little bit for the EOC because it wasn't, you know, there's still some costs um waiting to be um finalized at 6.30.

Um the building wasn't actually available to be occupied till September, so there's just a little bit from six to from June to um to September, and then um break fix um from savings on projects, and we earned a ton of interest.

Interest was um 1.4 million in the capital fund.

Um, and then we had some excess, a little bit of excess tax excess taxes that we received.

Um so the break fix um is two million one hundred and thirty-two thousand.

Um I plan to most of that will end up being capital for 2027.

I mean, I'll keep a little for break fix for this year just in case something goes haywire, but um, but most of it will hopefully end up being capital, um, which I'm hoping will leave about a five million dollars for capital.

I mean, as you know, that's kind of our facilities maintenance annual cost, so um that doesn't include equipment or cars or anything, so so that at least gives us enough to do some facilities for next year.

Um, from IFC, there are just some fixes.

There was a middle door at station 51, a main breaker at station 52.

Um, the Mac um sign was vandalized, and so uh we're retrofitting it and getting a new sign in there, and then there was a compliance officer vehicle that was totaled, not the officer's fault.

Um but it was an older vehicle, so unfortunately the reimbursement from insurance is pretty small.

So it's um three thirty-five thousand five hundred for that.

Um our largest one is of course the grants fund, and um you know that's about 13 million dollars, and that's because we're carrying over what wasn't used for June 30th, but we're also picking up the federal grants that ended um September 30th, and we got a bunch of new grants, so we're adding those in too.

And then are there any other questions on this?

I can keep going down my list or just keep going, I'll watch.

Okay.

Um the infrastructure tax fund, uh, that's our for our corridor projects.

Um, there's a raise grant that we keep rolling forward on that, 11.3 million.

Um, and then the carryover on the corridor projects um is um 9.7 million.

The vast majority of that is the Williams Street project at 7.3 million, which should be kicking off here in the spring.

Um, extraordinary maintenance, um, that is 10 million dollars moving forward.

There's a few projects in there that are about a million dollars that are moving forward to be completed, but the uh space needs savings is about 10.7 million dollars.

Um and then we have utility projects, which are pretty standard, and water projects, which are pretty standard.

Um yeah, unless there's any specific questions, the rest of it's pretty standard.

So I just have a question in general.

After we complete the augmentations, are we hitting the target of uh where we anticipated being for the fund balance in each of those or the working capital in those funds?

We're doing yes, we're on target.

Yes, um, especially for the enterprise funds because those fiscal policies have to go to the UF, you know, the um UFOC committee.

And so um so we actually ensure that we make those financial targets and have that that that set aside.

Um for the general fund, uh we definitely are, I believe 15, we're still at 15.2 percent instead of the original budget of 15.5 because we're adding a little bit of expenses to the general fund.

So um, so yeah, we're still meeting all of our financial policies.

And then just for clarification for the mostly for the public, because sometimes a comments made and people might misunderstand.

So in the extraordinary maintenance fund, when you talk about the project that we're saving the money for.

I think it's important that no one misunderstand what the project is.

So for our juvenile facility, correct?

Yes, okay.

I just think it's I think we know it because we're live, eat and breathe the numbers, but just for the public, I think it's good to say we've been saving that money for years in extraordinary maintenance to accomplish this goal.

So certainly there was a contract to get it started, but yes, and discussing it for years, and it is a true need, and there's a PRIA that we're not we are compliant with, but it would be a lot easier if we had separate wings.

Um so yeah.

Thank you.

I just just thought it was important that no one misunderstand what that was.

Yeah, I don't see that anyone has any questions.

Um is there any public comment on this item?

So I will then bring it back up here and accept a motion um to do this uh resolution as amended on the record.

Somebody want to make that supervisor shooty.

I move to adopt resolution 2026-R-4 as amended on the record.

I have a motion and a second for approval.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

Thank you, Miss Bannabu.

Okay, this is one of our fun annual uh projects and reports that we do.

So discussion and possible action uh regarding the historic resources commission.

Come on up.

I see Mr.

Drews and Heather.

Can I give us a overview?

Heather Ferris.

Um I staff the HRC, but I'll hand it over to Mike to do the presentation, and I'm here for any questions.

Hi, Mike.

Thank you, Heather.

Madam Mayor, board here to present the uh historic resource.

Historic resources commission annual report for 2025.

The uh board approved it in their at our January meeting this year.

So uh with that, we've been around since 1982, or since 1981, the district itself was formed in 82.

Uh the commission is is comprised of seven members, uh including uh historic or building design professionals, uh cultural resource professionals, uh as well as the general public.

Um this year we held seven meetings and received 39 applications.

Almost half of those, 19 were approved administratively, which really helps the public with not having to come to meetings and talk about putting a new roof on or something like that.

Um most of the administrative approvals are things that meet our standards, their re-roofing projects, their fences, signs, minor maintenance, um, and things in the historic district that just meet our our standards and guidelines and national register standards and guidelines, and we can improve those without having to go through a whole meeting.

Um we did our preservation awards again this year, uh, thanks to the board's support of that.

Uh this year we nominated uh Jed Block and uh uh Bobby Benson for her house on uh the Maddie Ferris Schultz house on uh Division Street did a great job on that.

And and I can't say enough about Jed.

He's just you see him around town on his scooter all the time now.

He's Mr.

Carson City history and really deserved to be recognized for that.

Uh we did our scavenger hunt again last year and in uh coordination with uh National Historic Preservation Month.

Um this year or last year we focused on front entries, porches, entry doors, and sidewalks and transportation features within the district.

We had uh uh 22 submissions, and John Chamberlain uh was awarded the uh the lunch at Fox Brew pub for uh completing everything uh correctly.

Uh we want to thank the Fox Brew pub again for helping us sponsor that.

Uh we're working with the State Historic Preservation Office for funds for the National Alliance of Preservation Commission's uh forum in I believe it's in Minneapolis this year.

We'll get funding for that.

We'll see how many members would like to uh we usually send two or or three some staff to those.

Um really great training.

It brings together all the preservation commissions across the country.

We can exchange ideas and work on things.

Um, and one of our upcoming work programs, um, kind of ongoing is dealing with historic windows and development standards for those.

That's something that's brought up that NAPC forum all the time.

Every uh preservation commission struggles with that.

So that's pretty much where we what we've done.

We're uh moving forward again this year.

Want to thank you for all of your support that you've given us.

The board can't do it without your support, so thank you.

So, Mike, why are windows such an issue?

Is it getting more and more difficult to actually fabricate them?

Historic measure, or what's the issue?

They're an historic fabric of the house.

And there's not a whole lot.

I mean, there used to be people who would you know have a mill and they would make windows and things like that.

Now with energy efficiency, everybody thinks that dual pane windows are the best energy efficient way to manage your windows.

I mean, old windows get stuck, the panes break, things like that.

Um, there's been a lot of studies that suggest putting a storm window on your door is actually or on your window is actually more efficient than putting in double pane windows.

The materials they use leak more and things like that.

Do you get a double pane or a storm window with a three-inch gap?

You're actually saving a lot more energy.

The problem is nobody wants to touch windows that have lead-based paint on them, and there's nobody around who will fabricate new uh new uh pieces and things like that.

And there's nobody around who will fabricate new uh new uh pieces and things like that.

So it's a balance.

It's how do we, you know, maintain the historic.

How do we maintain the historic and uh still let I mean it's it's private property, and it's just trying to figure out how to balance the two.

Well, and I want to tell you don't let it go to Jed's head, but uh his uh house will be the ornament this year.

So you guys heard it here first.

Great.

Yeah, right.

Finally, I thought, well, if Mike and team can give them an award, I can let them have the ornament.

So I'm super excited to be working on that with Jeannie to design uh with Jed.

So he's in cloud at the top up there.

Yay.

So I look forward to seeing what we can come up with for his ornament.

Great, thanks, Laura.

Thank you so much.

Um Supervisor Horton.

Hi, Mike.

Hey, I just want to take a minute and say thank you for all the hard work that you're doing and your committee.

I I know you guys really put a lot of effort into it, and it means a lot to myself and I know the rest of us.

So thank you very much for all your data.

Thank you.

The commission really enjoys it, they love their work.

So thank you.

Is there any public comment on this item?

Okay, we'll bring it up for a motion to oh, I'm sorry.

Denny, did you want to make public comment?

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

I'd like to add my appreciation to the um historical uh preservation individuals.

Um I've been to their meetings and the involvement that's there, the historical understanding and the building and the materials and the timing and all of that.

The coordination is amazing.

I appreciate it very much.

They're they're a fine team, and and I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Just one last chance in case there was someone else.

Okay.

Um, a motion, please.

Curtis, you want to make that one?

Sure.

I move to accept the annual report.

I have a motion and a second for approval.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

Thank you again, Mike, for all your hard work.

And your whole team.

Please let them know how much we appreciate it.

Thanks.

Okay, we're now moving on to agenda item 15A, discussion and possible action regarding a recommendation from the planning commission to deny a request for a master plan amendments, change the master plans, text of policy for DTMU 1.6 by removing the reference to the state office complex expansion and text of policy 6.3b by removing the state office complex from the downtown character area, and the exhibit of the uh downtown character area map by removing the state office complex from this map.

Boy, got that one out.

Uh Mr.

Martell, your presentation, please.

Thank you, Mayor, and good morning, board.

For the record, Glenn Martell City Manager, as stated in my staff report, I believe there was enough evidence on the record to support the required finding finding three.

Based on this belief, I am recommending that this board decline the planning commission's recommendations to deny the amendment request.

This belief is partially founded on the following.

The state of Nevada's long-term planning efforts throughout at least two legislative sessions.

The site's connections to the city's existing and proposed pedestrian, walking paths, bicycle lanes, and public bus stops.

A walkable mall that provides internal connectivity while supporting gatherings that encourage community interaction, the protection of the historic gym and a landscaping pallet that is supportive of the city's goals.

Additionally, I believe the further development of this public-public partnership and the retention of 1200 jobs in Carson City adds to Carson City's economic stability and prosperity.

Assuming that even a portion of the employees working on the campus are residents, the direct overall economic impact to the city approaches 30 million dollars on a yearly basis.

Approving the master plan amendment request with the underlying zoning and engineering requirements remaining in place, has no appreciable bearing on the quality or safety of the proposed campus or its positive contribution to Carson City.

If there are no immediate questions for me, I would like to introduce Jack Robb and Brian Walker from the state of Nevada, the real proper uh real party in interest.

Thank you.

Okay, I don't see any questions.

So Mr.

Rabb.

My name is Jack Crowba.

I'm Chief Innovation Officer in Governor Lombardo's office, and I want to go over uh why this project is important and why now.

I don't think a lot of you realize the state has 71 leases in Carson City right now, totaling 706,000 square feet.

We have 2,906 employees and leased office space.

50 of those leases come due prior to September of 2027.

So now is a good time to really start making some moves.

On a statewide average, I haven't calculated it for Carson City loan, but on a statewide average, over 50% of our leased property is owned by non-resident owners or corporations.

So the second we pay that lease payment, that money leaves the state of Nevada to never recycle.

It doesn't flip back around.

And another key point is every year that we lease a building if we lease the entire every eight years we lease a building.

If we lease the entire building, eight years worth of lease pretty much equals the full value of that property.

And if you look at some of these leases we've been in for 40 plus years, we bought those properties multiple times over.

So we're trying to do a shift of the state of Nevada into owned facilities.

How did the city and state get to where we are today?

I can tell you both the city and the state have gone through long public processes.

Both the city and the state want to do something better for the citizens and the employees of the state.

What happened was these two ideas ran in parallel for a long time and they didn't intersect.

I didn't even remember the meeting until I was reminded I was at the meeting.

What I'm going to say is there's communication, but a lot of times the communication does not come understanding.

What was communicated is not what I understood in that meeting.

Had I known the long-term ramifications where we'd be and end up in a meeting like today, we would have further discussion at that point.

The state has been planning a Capitol Mall for decades.

The Bryan building was built over 20 years ago and it was supposed to be the first and many to come.

I can tell you the state does understand cooperation and trust with counties and cities.

The state has done something about those.

Normally did we do something about those?

We worked with the local fire department with first responders to conduct drills there before we demoed them.

That's cooperation.

We are also looking to get uh more components back on more properties back onto your tax rolls.

Uh we have bought a few properties, and that has an impact on your overall taxes.

Uh, but we're looking to put 12.272 acres stilled armory property back on a tax rules, uh, dispose of that property.

So it can be on the tax rolls, and you can get a commercial development in there to gain taxes for here into the future.

Uh we're working for land exchanges and sale of land for open space and trailheads, help with construction roundabouts that I heard this morning.

We're we're neighbors, but we rely on each other.

We have land, you guys have land.

There's things we need to get do together to help both parties.

Uh the state is committing to over 100 million dollars in downtown.

As Mr.

Martell mentioned, uh, we have this project that is in front of you today, but we have a project coming right behind it that's in the planning phase.

It's been funded for planning.

We're going to go to the legislature to get funding for build next time.

We're looking to have four buildings downtown, approximately 1,300 or plus employees downtown Carson City.

Uh so it's a major commitment we have now.

100 million dollars first project, uh, probably equivalent second project.

So it's a big commitment, a commitment the state has now made in Carson City for over 20 years with the Bryant building.

As Chief Innovation Officer, uh my job is to provide quality buildings to house our state staff.

A quality work environment and work location is key to recruitment and retention of employees.

And that's one of the major things that my job is supposed to do.

My job is to spend tax dollars wisely, build economically feasible and long-lasting buildings that are easy to maintain into the future.

And above all, safe locations for employees and the people to come for service to state Nevada.

A lot of our design was centered around crime prevention through environmental design.

The world we live in is not the world we grew up in.

Uh building design is paramount for the safety, building setback, firms, other things associated with it, provide government offices that add a level of security.

The state is building something we can all be proud of.

This is your town, your home.

It's our state capital.

The buildings we're putting in place will be a place of visitors and residents can walk and enjoy.

It will be a true capital mall.

With that, I'm gonna turn over to Brian Walker and have him do anything that I may have missed.

Mr.

Wacker.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jack.

Thank you, board.

Um, good morning.

I'm Brian Walker, deputy administrator for the State Public Works Division.

So, yeah, I'm I'd like to follow up on Jack's comments with some additional information to tie into our agenda item.

So uh what I want to start with uh first is uh you know some things that were in your staff report just to kind of recap you know kind of the history and process that we followed to get to today.

So uh you know the state of Nevada has a a capital complex master plan.

The last update that we've we did was in 2022, and you know, a key recommendation from that plan was to transition state employees into state-owned buildings.

This 2022 master plan is is not a new document for us, it's something that we update periodically and and really the the capital complex uh vision in that plan follows really decades of planning that the state has had to have a capital complex uh buildings with a with a central mall, essentially.

This this vision I I know has been shared with Carson City in the past.

Uh, like Jack said, the last building was 2005, so it's it's been a minute since we've done something, but it it is a plan that we have shared, shared in the past.

Um as a result of this plan, uh state of Nevada took action.

Uh there was a capital improvement uh program request or CIP request in spring 2022.

And as a result of that, the Nevada legislature um funded this project that um we've been talking about in spring 2023.

Uh we we've been working on this project for a little while, uh design stop started and actually changed and was changed uh in at in at the interim finance committee, which is uh a body of the legislature in uh September 2024.

The project that uh we've presented over the last couple months is uh something we started design on in spring 2025.

So I wanted to reiterate that timeline, and and it's important uh because it shows the length and the public process that the state takes before bringing something to to Carson City.

Um, on the Carson City side, uh Carson City has a master plan as well.

We appreciate it, and it was adopted in in May 2025.

Um kind of the conversation we're having today about it is we did not understand how the city intended to apply that master plan to our project until we submitted our SUP and first have it had public meetings in in November 2025.

In December, we also learned the city intended to amend the master plan text to adjust how the term jurisdiction is handled in that master plan.

And it's I think in many ways rightly so.

Um, in response, the state requested to be removed from the downtown character map.

So I went over that again because we believe that is really the foundation on the change in conditions report that the planning commission struggled to make in finding finding three.

So I also want to say what we're doing.

This this is not intended to be an end around and around for the process.

We uh very much believe in the public due process, and we want to be a part of it.

Um, you know, both on our side, on our state side and our state process, and you know, as a partner with Carson City on your process.

I think uh what is a key takeaway is we have not built a building in Carson City, a large building since 2005, and so that is something you know, I'm looking thinking 21 years, so it's it's been a minute, and so uh this is a little bit of a result as it's coming back together and trying to understand how our two public bodies work with each other and how we interact.

So the requested master plan amendment helps clarify this process for us, we believe.

So removing the capital complex from the downtown character map provides flexibility for the state to develop the area as outlined in the state master plan.

Um also like to remind remind the board that the Carson City Master Plan Section 6.3D recognizes and encourages support of the state master plan.

So it is something that is pointed out explicitly in the master plan.

Um we believe that removing the Capitol Complex from the Carson City's master plan acknowledges the state's unique role as a separate public body with our own own authority having jurisdiction or AHJ in contrast to other private property owners and developers.

So at the state, we have our own state building official.

When we build this project, uh we issue our own permit.

We we don't come to Carson City for a building permit, which is a different situation.

Um it's a position that the downtown character uh requirement prevents the state from developing the capital complex as identified in our master plan.

So this is why when Carson City proposes to change how the jurisdiction is handled, um, we respond by requesting to be removed from the downtown character map.

Not and I say not the entire master plan, not the entire process.

We're just talking about the map.

And so uh we we still want to be part of the process.

Um, you know, it's it's our intent to work collaborative collaboratively with Carson City on this and future projects and ensure compatibility with Carson City's needs.

Um as Mr.

Rob outlined, the state has a vision for the capital complex in Carson City.

And you know, I believe this vision provides a centralized pedestrian-friendly environment for state workers and Carson City residents that I I do think does conform with the intent of the Carson City Master Plan, um, especially with this amendment.

It and for the good of Carson City.

Um I guess I guess with that, we're ready for your questions.

Thank you for your time.

You're welcome.

Um so I want to just um step back just a little bit because you're asking us to make a finding for um condition number three.

And so in my mind, I I need just some date issues because I also feel that potentially it's not really fair to hold you accountable retroactively.

That's something that happens, I know at the state, and many things that we do.

You don't it's hard to hold someone accountable to design a building or something, knowing where we were gonna go in the master plan.

And one of the things I just need a little bit of evidence to tell me that you were already in the stage of planning and doing this building.

And so one thing that was I think you touched on it slightly, but very important to me.

And I'm pretty sure the governor's office will tell you that the mayor was pretty adamant that we were going to eliminate those lovely cottages that had been a blight on that property for I don't know, 16, 15, 16 years.

And so can you tell me when you got the permit to demolish or or when that process began?

Because I think that will help provide the evidence that this was already on its path before we adopted the master plan, unless I've got dates wrong.

But yeah, no, thank you, Mayor, for that question.

And and uh so that the demolition of those cottages is uh it's actually a separate project that was funded by the 2023 legislature, and so the timeline to demolish those cottages actually started back in 2022, funded in summer 2023.

Uh, we uh you know, because we have our own building permit process, we we went through that process, and it it's a funny thing to say.

Even though we're demolishing buildings, we have to design the demolishment.

I'm not sure if that's a word.

That's okay.

But it's it sounds right when I say it.

Yeah.

Demolition, I know.

But you designed the demolition.

I like demolishment.

But um the uh we did start that process, and that process, you know, started ahead of the of when we even saw the the final Carson C to master plan, and we did that that project in preparation for for these buildings.

That was something that uh we uh really started and obtained our final kind of permits and bids in uh spring of last year, spring twenty five, and finished that uh this this last fall.

I think it was about the September or so time frame that a lot of those cottages you you initially would see those coming down.

Um it is something that we've you know really maneuvered and set up to many of our different processes and fundings to get ready for these buildings over the last several years.

Okay.

I I just again think that's very important for me to understand processes and determine um whether or not there were things unknown at the time that we did the master plan or things that you weren't aware, right?

Because we're trying to determine if we can meet a condition, which is what changed.

And so I think it's important that we get those types of things on the record.

And so I want to talk a little bit about I'm trying to get through comments that I've been reading, and I think it's important that things get on the record so that the entire public has an opportunity to understand the methods and the ways and the reasons.

And so when you talk, um, so I'll just do it plainly.

The planning commission was concerned that you were not um giving them the master plan, and they wanted the detail.

And so I think that they were expecting to get a document like the city produces for a master plan, right?

That you can go online and I can go to the 2022 master plan of the state, and I can hit the button, and there you go, you're gonna see here's the 19 properties in cars.

But you don't have that type of document.

Is that correct?

Jack group for the record.

Uh I've come from utilities, municipalities, walls utilities, municipalities, cities, states do a ton of plans.

They spend more time doing planning than action.

Uh my governor ran on one thing and it's get stuff done.

We could spend time developing a plan and spend years doing that or get something on the ground.

I can tell you when I came into the role of director of department administration in 2023, January 2023.

I was over the public division and multiple other divisions.

They had a standing master plan of Capitol Mall going from 515 Musser Street down through the Bryan building down to the endos building.

Multi-story buildings lined with an internal park.

So that well predated me.

It was the type of plan you speak of.

Uh when Mr.

Walker talks about the plan changed, we were looking at a five, six-story building right behind 515 Muslim old Kincaid site.

When we looked at value of that and timing and uh multi-story building construction, and there was some discussion about having something that tall adjacent to the Capitol, it may overshadow the Capitol from different viewpoints in town.

We elected to change location, still stay within what was the old master plan that had been presented to me in 2023 of a Capitol Mall internal removing some old buildings and making things happen to have a Capitol Mall.

So there is a plan, but that plan has been updated, but we spent the time in getting stuff done instead of developing a new plan.

No, I really appreciate that because again, I think it's important.

Um because you know, we answer to the public too, right?

And ours are pretty used to our process.

How does the Board of Supervisor deal with things?

And so I think there just was expectations, and when those weren't met, I don't think they understood that that's not the way the state presents.

You you really go through a CIP process at the Nevada legislature, and oftentimes have to take projects back several times before they even can get funded.

And more of that is with maps or schematics, things of just uh the few the future and saying, okay, we're going to house so many employees.

Can you talk to us about the number of employees that you're anticipating?

Is there phasing of the project?

Because I think it again, as much as we can get on the record, I I want that for the benefit of the public.

Many of us spend many, many, many hours pouring through documents and looking at public meetings at the legislature, and we participate in those types of things, but they don't necessarily do that.

So can you walk us through?

And I'm not sure, because is there we can put it up, the the map, what they're gonna do on the screen?

No?

Yes.

I I just think what I what I'm interested in is because the first one you gave at the planning commission level was just the two buildings.

Correct.

The middle.

And then the planning commission asked you to present the fuller master plan.

So you came back and provided, and I think that's where I think the word might be sideways.

I I I'll use one word too, right?

How did we get a little bit sideways on what people thought?

So you submitted what you thought was a master plan with the other phases for that parcel.

I'm not sure everyone understood that was the new master plan.

So I'm just asking you to kind of walk us through that what the plan is for that parcel.

If we can't get it, then we'll imagine it with you.

But um, is it four four buildings in the end?

I I'm trying to get for the public to understand the importance of the project, how you are a partner with the city, and what what your long-term goal is for that parcel.

Jack Grove for the record.

Uh the first two buildings that are in front of you today, uh, not the next two that are in planning right now.

The first two, each one of them is 64,000 square foot apiece, so we're 128,000 square feet of building.

Each building uh we've done the furniture design for an office layout, furniture design, and in total, each building fits 401 individuals.

So it'll be 802 in the first two buildings, the third build and then a parking garage, adjacent parking garage.

And then the third building that will be uh down.

I don't know your streets as well as I should, but Roupe and Little Lane.

Uh-huh.

That will be a mirror of the two buildings we're doing now, approximately same size, same floor plan.

So you're looking at another 400 to 410, depending on how the new building lays out.

And then we're going to have more right behind where the fire station is.

Uh more an executives type office for leadership of different agencies to be in.

It uh is slated to be a three-story building with a parking garage between the existing Bryan building and uh the third building to be constructed.

So there will be two parking garages for total office buildings.

Uh I want to talk about parking here for a second.

Parking is a major component.

Uh I think we all recognize Carson City, we have a parking deficit in a lot of locations.

And we're putting 802 people in the first two buildings.

Right now, our parking component is designed for 734.

Any change to the maps that we have, we start losing parking.

Uh we bought the McCarron campus in Southern Nevada.

We've watched how the parking performs down there.

And I don't need one for one.

The state needs about 80 percent because you have vacant positions, you have vacations, you have sick leave, you have other things going on.

People off site for doctor's appointment.

If we can get to an 80 percent, we're pretty good.

We go below that, we're in parking deficit.

And that was one of the major robes in this whole process is how the parking was designed.

And we cannot lose parking, we're 800 and two, 734.

And when we build the next ones, uh we're gonna be right about that same ratio.

Uh I've heard discussion will just make the parking garage bigger.

My job is to do things economically also at a minimum uh parking space and a parking garage cost of 35,000 to build.

I've seen some costs in other places go to 50,000, depending on soil types and other things.

So they get quite expensive fast per parking place.

So the more we can utilize this site in an economical fashion, the better off we are.

And the more product we can get on the ground, the more office space and more people we can house in that location.

When when you talk about the leases that are expiring, many of them.

Where can you tell me where some of those are are located?

Because I'm kind of interested in where existing employees will leave, which buildings they will leave to come into these ones.

So each agency gives a few.

So when you grow incrementally like that, you get into a seven to ten year lease, and then you're given more people and you're stuffed in that building.

So then you go get another lease and then you stuff that building.

We have agencies operating out of four or five buildings in different parts of town.

Our goal in what we're doing here is to co-locate agencies.

Uh and work with landlords and leave space.

There's no way we can build our way out of this situation.

We don't have the money or the time to replace 700,000 square feet in Carson City.

So we're going to have to continue to work with landlords to co-locate or slating first Department of Health and Health Services or Human Services.

They've changed their name lately.

Apologize for that.

But do two twin buildings off technology, we're going to relocate them into this location.

They have some stuff, some staff down off of Fairview that they're all timing out at about the same time.

So we're going to take multiple locations of one agency and put them into one location.

We've done this uh multiple times now when we bought the Arrowhead building.

If you look at 1550 College Parkway, it was a building in disarray that taxation and cannabis were in, and they need it out.

They needed out bad.

That building was not in a good good place.

But to the landlord's defense, it's hard to do a major upgrade on a building when staff is sitting there, and we had no place else to put staff so they could do the major upgrade.

So we moved cannabis and taxation to the new Arrowhead building, the old Hartley building.

Worked with the landlord.

They put a million and a half and tenant improvements in there.

Five different buildings of the aging and disability services are no now co-located in a 40,000 square foot building.

The agency that moved out thought it was the worst building in Carson City.

The agency that moved in eight months later thought it was the best building they've ever been in in Carson City.

So we have some hopscotch.

We're not abandoning the landlords.

We're giving the landlords the ability to make proper repairs to their buildings.

And like I said, we can't build our way out of this.

So it's it's a phased approach we have to do.

We've done it in 1919, uh College Parkway.

We continue to move people around to co-locate and make ourselves more efficient and allow for the upgrades to the buildings that need to be done.

Okay, thank you.

Does anybody else have some questions they'd like?

Want me to take some public?

Okay.

Thank you so much.

I'll call you back up if something something jumps off uh after public comment.

Okay.

I'll take uh let's see.

Um I have Kathleen Beasley.

That's the requested uh public comment on this item.

Good morning, Kathleen.

So my name is Kathleen Beasley.

I'm a resident of Carson City, and I've already submitted my written testimony uh regarding this item.

So my verbal remarks are gonna focus on the city manager's report.

Um and mostly about finding three and why I believe that nothing has changed and that the planning commission made the right decision.

It's actually depressing to read his report because I've I've heard a lot of interviews with him and read a lot about him, and I know he's a bright, capable man that wants to do good things for Carson City.

However, I was going to recall his report specious, but specious means that it has surface plausibility and is false underneath.

And I don't even find surface plausibility here.

As I think Mayor Bagwell's questions have made pretty evident is that everybody did know.

Actually, the the plan to build that state complex was released at least in March, because that's when they went out for bid on the demolition, and that's when news stories hit.

And you knew about it well before then.

So this whole idea that there's some failure on the city to understand what was going on, and that somehow impacted their decision on in May of 2025 just doesn't make sense.

And in fact, what makes it kind of worse is why would that impact the language that has been in the master plan for a long time that the city and the state will work together.

So why do they need to be eliminated from this?

The wording was there.

Everyone knew this project was moving forward.

It's kind of silly on its surface.

We'll just use silly.

That's a nice non-persjorative word to pretend that the city didn't know this was happening, and therefore they would have done something different.

Okay, then he gets to an argument that this is better than vacant land.

This is kind of a meaningless argument.

Nobody is suggesting that the land is going to stay vacant.

The state has just said it's not going to pick up and move.

It's not going to pick up and take those jobs somewhere else.

And then finally, there's this little meaning to this idea that we're adding to the workforce.

It's a consolidation of jobs that already exist.

And if there are new jobs, to be quite frank, that won't be surprising, right?

I mean, that's what state government does better than anything.

So I just have to say that the city manager uh seems to have struggled to write something that would allow the supervisors to reach a decision that doesn't make sense.

Look, politicians manipulate.

All that I ask is that you do it with a little bit of finesse.

This shows absolutely no finesse.

I feel like Dorothy when Toto has pulled back the curtain and there's nothing but humbug there.

It's it just doesn't make sense, and I encourage you to stick with what the planning commission said because what they did was rational.

Thank you.

Ms.

Owens.

So at the Planning Commission meeting on the 28th, the word trust came up repeatedly.

One commissioner uh compared the situation to a bad relationship, even joking as like, put a ring on it.

You know, that comment stayed with me because even though it was said lightly, it the issue underneath is serious.

Trust matters.

In any relationship, whether it's personal or civic, trust isn't built by asking someone to accept partial truths and promises of clarity later.

When information comes in pieces, when justifications rely on projects that the pro that the public hasn't seen, and when explanations change after a vote is taken, natural human response is to ask why.

Why won't this be fully shared?

Why now, not before?

Why does it feel like we're not being um asked to why we're asking to commit without the full picture?

This questioning isn't hostility, it's instinct.

Right now, many residents feel like we're in a relationship with our own government where we're being asked to trust, but we're not giving the transparency that trust requires.

That's a difficult place to be with people we agle to represent us, regardless whether they are term limited and not up for re-election.

We live in Nevada, Carson City is in Nevada.

This is our town.

We pay for the taxes that support the infrastructure, roads, and services that make large projects possible.

We accept the impacts, we live with the outcomes, and because of that, the voices of Carson City residents and the rules that we put in place to protect our community should not be treated as obstacles to work around or standards to relax when they become inconvenient.

I've been told that the person running this project is too powerful, that these decisions are already made, and that showing up to these meetings is a waste of my time.

I don't want to believe that.

It feeds that perception.

That perception is dangerous.

Because when residents begin to believe that outcomes are predetermined, that influence outweighs process and that the perception no longer matters, trust doesn't just erode, it collapses.

That working collaborating with the state doesn't mean sidelining the public and weakening the protections that we rely on.

The remaining supervisors are accountable to the voters.

The residents of Carson City are watching.

We want to know that the rules are equally applied, and not only when they become an inconvenient.

Overriding a unanimous vote without evidence of error undermines the purpose of the planning commission altogether.

When a unanimous planning commission vote can be reversed without new facts or errors, the question is no longer about the amendment, but whether the public process itself has meaning.

Thank you.

Thank you for interrupting me.

You get the same as everyone else.

Certainly.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Mayor and board.

My name is Maita Sanchez.

I am a Carson City resident, small business owner.

Want to reiterate some of the public comment that has already been given here.

I want to say on the onset that this comment is not in opposition to state plan or planning.

I just wanted to offer a reflection on process.

So I believe that Carson City to take the time to develop the master plan to approve it to place the planning commission in place for review of those plans.

And I believe that today if we were to move forward in such a way that we could override process within our community, again, eroding trust somewhat of the public comment before me.

I think it's important that we recognize that this may be a governance problem.

Those of us who step forward to serve, we do that with a responsibility that decisions are not going to be easy, they're complicated, tiered, but to make we have to make them fair.

We have to make them transparent and worthy of public's trust.

It's uncomfortable, but that is exactly the responsibility that we accept, right?

So understanding that the state does have unique needs.

Those needs should be addressed through transparent negotiation within the framework that was adopted, not by carving out an exemption.

Negotiation says that we respect the process and we're willing to do the work.

Exemption says, hey, the process applies until it doesn't.

And once that line is crossed, it's very hard to explain to the next applicant why they have to follow the rules that others were allowed to bypass.

And to clarify by what I mean by negotiation, I believe that already exists, correct?

In our planning system.

So projects submit designs, they get feedback, planning commission, right?

And if they can't be met, they request specific variances or project level expectations within public findings.

I know it takes time, it's not easy.

Local projects go through this all the time, and exemption would skip all of that.

So we have we may create this two-tiered system, right?

And at that point, Carson City is no longer the steward or driver of its own plan.

So what I'm asking this morning is just to reflect on the governance issue, the process issue, not to reject collaboration, not to reject growth, but just to affirm that Carson City, we negotiate, we don't exempt, and we have to honor the process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do I have anyone else?

Ms.

Peters.

Paula Peters.

Paula Peters, Carson City resident.

Okay, so I understand how the meeting's going, but still, the bottom line is the report found that the state failed to meet finding three, which requires that a proposed amendment addresses changes in condition since the plan's adoption.

So all of this that went on before the adoption is irrelevant.

Nothing has changed.

So finding three still is not met.

And also from a personal point of view, being a property owner, we talk about all the jobs that come to Carson City with the state.

A lot of these people don't live in Carson City.

So maybe the state should consider building some of these buildings and other counties and let those folks pay for the infrastructure.

Anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

Danny, are you our last one?

Come on up.

I hope not.

Thank you.

Mayor and board.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

And looking back at the minutes from December 16th, there's a request for a temporary dropping of our suggested downtown character policy.

And I'm I'm still not given an answer as to why they feel they have to not be included in that suggestion.

You know, Hope Sullivan, the Planning Commission, and I don't always agree, but I know they did their due diligence and they weren't given the same presentation that you received today from Mr.

Lewis and Mr.

Walker.

And had they, maybe something might have changed.

I don't think so.

My direction, no matter what I've listened to, still poses the fact that the pre the speakers before me have already said, so I won't go into those, but I did oh, ditto ditto ditto.

This state has the right to use that property.

What height, what design, what exterior, all matter.

Also, what I fail to see in any of this is an environmental impact consideration, not only of avoidance of creating heat spots or islands from shadings to the height and loss of our uh natural resource uh is our our view.

And um, of course, when you build a building, it is going to block something.

If you're closer to it, it blocks more.

If you're a little further away, you can see better.

But now to be able to see some of the the hills, the mountains, etc.

is going to be an issue.

So I'm on that side of this, but I also think that they have the state has not come up with an answer that gives me any better understanding of why they need this.

Is it that they're going to go wild with the height?

They're going to go to twelve feet, or if they're going to go this.

But the consolidation of staff means consolidation of traffic.

It's going to take infrastructure, it's going to take more electricity, it's going to do all sorts of different things to our community.

And I don't think we've uh had those proper answers, or at least it's not been covered.

And I'm really sorry, but I think a lot of what was dug into as far as this map and stuff is sort of minutiae, and it's covering the real fact that cooperation takes two parties in a two-person thing, and then this is state and city, and I don't think that they've provided that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, Mr.

Le Pierre, were you gonna make public comment?

Okay.

Am I just one last call I want to make sure?

Okay, then I'll bring it back up here.

Um, what we're gonna do is, because yep, that's okay.

Sometimes that happens.

We're gonna take a brief recess so uh we can use the facilities.

So we'll be back in about just as quickly as we can.

So we're in recession.

Um, so I just want to start with a clarification with this board just so that we're talking from the same point.

Um, are we all in agreement that we're just gonna concentrate on finding three because finding one, two, four, and five have been met and we're already um done.

You wanna talk about those?

I believe it's our job.

I I'm asking the process that you would like to.

So if you don't want to just concentrate on three because you want to discuss the other ones, um I I have some comments.

Supervisor White, go ahead.

Go ahead.

Oh, you want me to go first?

Well, you you had more than finding three, so go ahead.

Well, I have a a number of questions uh regarding procedure, uh not just question or finding three.

Uh my first question, if you take a look at uh page 179, right there at the top of the page number five uh it lists three different types of amendments.

What sort of amendment are we even talking about here?

Um revise the land use map map, uh revise the text of an element, and obviously we're not talking about adopting a new element, but what what amendment are we talking about?

Ms.

Sullivan, did you want to discuss your answer?

Uh Mr.

The subject request is a text amendment B 5B.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh if this master plan amendment uh is not approved, can the state in some manner build this project without the master plan amendment?

Depends.

I'll stay up here for a couple minutes.

Um the subject property has a zoning of public, um, and pretty much all public land has a zoning designation of public.

When you look at the public zoning, essentially everything over a certain threshold size, and my recollections that size is 2,500 square feet.

Yeah, um, will require special use permit.

When you look at a special use permit, you then look at your findings of fact.

In the findings of fact, and I believe it's the first finding of fact, you have compliance with the master plan.

So what will happen is when the state pursues development of any land, honestly, then we have to look at the special use permit and findings of fact.

We'll open the master plan and we will apply the standards of the master plan to that project.

In this case, we are currently applying the standards of the downtown.

I think it's called the downtown concept plan.

And um, so if they were removed from the downtown, then the standards associated with the downtown will no longer apply to the development of that land.

They'll still get special use permit.

So essentially what we're looking at in in the state, I think spoke to it, and I think Brian Walker talked about the need for the flexibility.

And in the record at the Planning Commission, um, Will Lewis talked about, I think he was talking about the need as part of and and Jack Rob alluded to it, as part of their safety program, I'll call it, they're seeking a certain type of design, and they find that that design is inconsistent with the downtown standards.

So I think what the conflict is is they have certain design standards based on safety that are in conflict with the what the downtown is requiring.

So could they build and still be in the downtown?

Yes.

Does that create a conflict?

I think what you heard today was an allusion, uh they alluded to, I think Brian said it, that the dead the state's this unique creature, a little bit different than other other creatures.

And that and based on their safety demand, that's that was part of why they're seeking to be removed from the downtown.

Did that answer your question?

But with the special use permit idea and cooperation of the planning commission, they they could build what they want to build, right?

From a land use perspective, they can if the seven findings of fact are finding found in the affirmative, yes, they can build, and any appeal of the planning commission's decision comes to this board.

Okay.

Um page 181 at number 16.

Planning commission shall refer a report to the Board of Supervisors.

Um where are we at with that?

I haven't seen in the packet something that looks like a report.

The report you received from the city manager was the transmittal of the planning commission's recommendation to the board.

We traditionally don't have the commission literally write their own report.

What we have traditionally done, and and this has come up in the past as well.

You've asked similar questions, is the board or I'm sorry, the staff will identify for the benefit of the board what the recommendation of the planning commission was and provide that to the board of supervisors, and that is essentially the report of the planning commission.

We don't care, we carry forward to you what the planning commission reported out.

Also on page 181 number 20 there.

The Board of Supervisors shall consider what is submitted to the Planning Commission.

Now I I realize this is not the same thing as an appeal.

This is us uh reviewing a recommendation from the planning commission, but I wonder with all is all of this new information we're considering today uh appropriate to have a look at.

Um per the code, the board of supervisors is required to conduct a public hearing on this matter.

There are are there are some matters where the planning commission may have a public hearing and the board does not.

You are having your own public hearing.

So you are collecting a bet a bigger data set than the planning commission had.

I had to publish in the newspaper, as you know, because we we communicated last night about the publication.

And so, yeah, that was and the um DA's office called me.

Did has this been noticed, and and we noticed this for a public hearing.

So you are collecting your own data in addition to considering the data that was presented to the commission.

Okay.

Um I just want to put out there the idea that people have insinuated today that the city did not know what the state had in mind for that property.

Perhaps not any specifics were known, but I I know that uh a few years ago, the city uh did get some funding to build a trail across that property.

Uh that I understand uh the state rejected that plan because they were coming forward with this building uh master plan.

Um I think for now that's all that I have as far as questions on procedure.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

So um I'm gonna go back to my original question.

Does anyone want to speak to any of the findings besides number three?

Does anybody want to?

Is everybody okay with one, two, four, and five?

The planning commission did Can I ask you what the harm is in just not shutting that discussion?

I'm not shutting it down.

Okay, I just asked if somebody wants to take those first.

I see what you're saying.

Okay.

That's all.

I'm not shutting any down.

That's why I'm asking the question.

I don't personally have any, but it doesn't mean something won't come up.

Okay, we at this point.

That was my only hesitancy in saying that that's fine.

Okay.

Well, um, so do you mind?

Oh I just have uh sure.

Don't mind at all.

A couple of things I wanted to uh comment on.

Um, there was there's been quite a bit of comments about sending it back to the planning commission, and I understand that, but normally the the planning commission's hearing on this was not a decision, it was a recommendation.

Ultimately, it's the board's decision to make.

So what the planning commission did was recommend to us.

And there have been instances in the past where the planning commission has recommended things and we've accepted them.

I probably the majority of the time.

And there have been times when that hasn't happened, but just as a point of order, that um, you know, uh, that's just a comment.

Um, you know, I've heard from some folks, not necessarily here today about cost to the city and infrastructure cost to the city, and that's really not a factor.

This is something the state is paying money for.

It is taxpayers' money, um, to be sure, and and I get that, but it isn't local money that's going to any part of this construction.

They'll still have to connect our sewer, they'll still have to connect our water.

Um, so I just I I want to mention that.

Um, the the relationship between the state and the city has always been odd and it's always been awkward.

Um to kind of shoot off one of the comments that I've heard, it's uh you know, it's a little like dating your cousin.

It just it it's something doesn't feel right about it, but we still do it because we're obligated to do it.

Um, you know, uh I you know I have some experience um uh as the fire marshal here in this community um and it's it's an oddity that the state doesn't have to come to us for a building permit.

Um they don't.

They can issue their own building permits to themselves.

Um and that's that's always felt odd to me.

It's difficult as a regulator when you're a code enforcement person like Pope and her team or me as a fire chief uh or fire marshal to say something to them and they say, well, yeah, great, good idea.

We don't have to do that.

Um so I I you know I don't want to lose sight of the fact that um this relationship between the state and the city is not like any relationship that the city has with private developers.

It is not the same thing.

And I I don't know that that changes things.

I don't know that it doesn't.

I guess I'm just stating the obvious.

It it that it's it it's it's it's not a normal thing.

Um hence my dating your cousin sort of thing.

Um I just uh the the question I have um and I've just I want to go through a couple of elements of the master plan because I I don't quite understand where the state isn't already meeting the mixed use requirements.

And I'm just I mean, obviously I'm not reading the whole thing, it's eight or nine pages, but as you look at it, um it talks about vertical mixed mixed use, and uh in there I'll highlight parking facilities are often shared and um integrated as parking structures.

Uh parking facilities are centrally located and lots are shared.

Um connections to adjacent neighborhoods and commercial uses should be provided.

Um street parking should be discouraged.

Um it's in uh you know, the downtown is designed to encourage an urban pattern of development, an urban pattern of development, uh large infill development projects um that involve multiple blocks.

Uh the downtown area can have it says significant visual and physical impact.

Uh incorpor incorporating clear pedestrian connections to surrounding areas, establishing relationships between buildings, which it seems like it does, and minimizing the impacts of parking, um public art, gathering spaces, outdoor plazas, um should be incorporated.

Um can someone answer what yes, I get the fact that the plan says, and let me find the parking component because I get that's um part of an issue, but um you know, discouraging surface lots, I I think is part of it.

I I understand the fact that the state has a concern about safety.

Um having worn the hat that I've worn before, um, I can appreciate that in a government building, it shouldn't be right up against the street.

Um you can see all of the work that was done at the legislative building um, you know, to protect vehicles from getting close to that building.

Um so I I I can appreciate that.

But when I look at the at the master plan, the existing master plan, I don't see where they don't where it doesn't fit.

I don't see what they're designing.

And I I believe did the SUP not come forward for a hearing at one point?

Twice or was it just twice?

Yes.

And and they're in doing that, what did couldn't you find almost all the elements that were met?

I mean, I what what am I missing?

Why do why do we even need to change it?

That's what I don't get.

The planning commission has not taken action on the special use permit.

The special use permit came before the planning commission, and they did have concerns about master plan consistency.

I I hear what you're saying, you're reaching a different conclusion than they did, and that's okay.

Um what happened based on the conversation at the planning commission, is the state uh the annual report was coming before the planning commission.

So the state said, well, as part of the annual report, let's just take ourselves out of the downtown.

And I don't I I don't believe it's limited to just what's subject to the special use department.

That's a bigger area than that.

So again, what consistent with Supervisor White's comments and consistent with what you just said, what is before you is not a recommendation from the planning.

I mean, it's a recommendation from the planning commission.

It's up to this board to make the decision.

Ultimately, it's your master plan, you interpret it.

And however, a majority of you interpret it is is what it is the interpretation.

Okay.

Did staff not find that it was in substantial compliance?

With the special use permit?

Yes.

Yes, I believe that was the recommendation of staff.

And I'll tell you what I told the planning commission, in fairness to the planning commission, they get a different they get a bigger data set than the staff does.

So the planning, the staff is a I always I've said this like a million times in the last month, but the staff is a launching.

I'll say it again.

So I apologize if I've already said this, but the staff's a launching pad, and I've said this to you all many times.

The staff, we do the best we can.

We try to come up with everything we can think of, but we don't get the benefit of public comment.

Then it goes to planning commission.

They have the benefit of public comment staff, there's a couple of us.

So then they they do the best they can and they make a recommendation to this board.

At the end of the day, the board, the master plan is your document.

You get to amend it, no one else.

You get it's your interpretation that I have to follow on a day-to-day basis.

So if I'm interpreting it in a way that's not consistent with the expectations of this board, I have to change and do what this board expects.

Okay.

Um my last comment is related to some of the public comments that we've gotten and the people I've heard from.

Um I will just tell you that there's um a bit of a fear in some state employees who I've spoken to that are worried that um the state is gonna decide to not keep buildings in Carson.

And those employees who are our citizens, our residents, and people who own our businesses, um, I guarantee you will suffer.

Um I have already heard from people who are now having to commute to Reno because the state bought an office up there and their office moved.

So I I am very torn by this because um on the one hand, I respect all of the comments here today by the public.

They were well stated.

Um, I believe they were articulate.

Um I am the state and the city, um, us, I'm putting myself in here, could have done a better job of working on this before it got to this point.

Um if um yeah, it this this really got to a point that it shouldn't have gotten to.

So I'm I'm sorry, I'm not usually that critical, but I just I it um I don't feel good about the way that we as government handled this, uh state or city.

I just I had to put that out there because it bothers me enough that um I felt like it bears stating.

Um I I don't know where I'm gonna come down on this um yet.

I I I um I really don't.

Um but when the time comes, I'll make a vote.

So I want to agree with uh what Supervisor Giomi has already stated, and so uh I really um take all the comments that people have made, not just on this project, but over what we want our community to look like.

And one of the major things that everybody keeps saying is they love that we're historic.

So when you go way back to our plans and we had maps and we had people with clickers that were saying design element one or two or three, and we were doing all of that.

I think one of the most important things that struck me was that we are a government town, and that the history of all of that mattered.

It mattered greatly to the public.

And so I am very proud, and I don't know any residents that have ever told me that they don't want us to be the capital.

So I have to look at every decision that I make on the goodness for the entire community, right?

It's for everybody.

And so when I look at Carson City, and I and I think about all of the buildings that are government buildings on Stewart Street, right?

And you start looking at all of that, and that's where we really intersect.

How does the city and the state intersect with one another?

And that's the history, and that's that we're the capital.

And so I also want to echo some things that reading through every comment is why would you treat the state differently or make them comply or make them do this?

And whether we like it or not, they are different.

They do have different legislation, they do have different public processes.

They do.

They go through open meetings just in a different format in a different way than we do.

Um we also, when we adopted the master plan, we I believe we made the statement and the offer to everyone that we might not have got it all right.

We said that on the record.

So I'm not gonna, I'm not treating the state any differently.

We knew that it was a huge undertaking, that we had updated massively the maps and things of that nature.

And so we gave everyone the opportunity to say, this isn't quite right for me, and to come in, and we have indeed made master plan amendments since the adoption of the master plan in May.

We have made, oops, we didn't get this quite right.

So I'm a little bit, I'm a lot with Stacey in did we get it all right?

And you know, is there an if sometimes that's what you do?

An amendment is an opportunity for a do-over.

They're allowed, amendments are allowed.

So when I read public comment is don't let them amend, everyone has the opportunity to amend.

So I just want you to know anyone can come in with the text amendment and request an amendment.

So they're not getting special treatment.

Now, for finding three, the discussion for us is what changed.

On page 58 of our master plan, the state was told they were not within the city's jurisdiction.

It's as simple as that.

That's what we said.

Later, it's determined that wasn't correct, that what we wrote in the master plan was an error, that they really or the city has jurisdiction based on a building date.

So to get upset with the state and say, you should have known, no, they don't have anything else in state law about a master plan but what we wrote in the master plan.

So they relied upon that.

So when they're doing their design, they don't think they're in conflict.

But I also agree with Stacy.

I think they pretty much met it.

And what I'm upset about is here we are today through all of this process about a parking lot.

That's the reality, people were arguing about a parking lot.

That's it, right?

The planning commission or the component that they couldn't make, but Heather Ferris did as staff.

She made the findings because like everybody, when you can't meet a particular issue, you mitigate it.

Again, the state's not treated any different than every other developer or anyone else that comes in.

So they are doing landscaping and buffering and things of that nature to mitigate that.

And so I'm perplexed the same as Supervisor Geomi.

The findings should have been met.

They were met, and the word is substantial.

So now I'm faced with the state's trying to continue to be a good partner and say, okay, the planning commission doesn't think we're meeting it.

So they won't give me a special use permit because they think the parking lot is substantial noncompliance.

So do we go the through the process of them getting turned down for the special use permit?

Because the state's already made it clear for safety reasons, they're not going to change the parking lot orientation.

They've made that clear.

So now it's okay, the planning commission, are they still going to say, sorry, state, you won't cooperate.

Then they appeal to us, we're back here in two months, we're doing this again.

Or do we look at this and say, what are the two things we were unaware of when we did the plan is the safety plan concerning parking lots?

I don't think the city was aware of that, and the state relied upon page 58 of our master plan to indicate there was no jurisdiction.

So I don't know what they should have known to fight about.

I also, though, along with Supervisor Giomi, agree that they've met it.

I think they are a good partner.

I think investing 11 million dollars into a Carson City building is substantial.

It puts our workers to work, which is always what we're after.

It maintains employment.

I'm not saying it brings new jobs, but it certainly maintains them.

I heard a comment today that, oh, let them go somewhere else.

I am here to tell you that your master plan that talks about the vibrancy of a downtown.

If we don't have those employees, they don't have business in the restaurants and things.

I think that's just not good process.

Our job is to maintain the vibrancy of the community.

And so it's a difficult decision is to we wait to overturn the planning commission on a special use permit.

Do we take care of this today and end it and let the state go on and build this beautiful building that's going to come to Carson City and help actually lift the downtown because it's going to concentrate the employees there?

And that's gonna absolutely help the vibrancy of our downtown.

I asked on the record on purpose where are some of these coming from, because I want to be honest, I'm concerned about the whole city, not just the downtown.

So I'm like, where are these leases gonna stop?

And so when you're telling me it's technology, I think that those are good buildings that can get rented.

So that that impresses me that I'm going to help the downtown vibrancy, but not really hurt another area of town.

Because that always is a right, a trade-off that we're always making is I don't want to hurt another area to help one, but I think the downtown is there.

I think the state has cooperated.

Um they still have to meet the zoning.

I had some calls or some questions on, well, they don't have to do anything.

Well, that's not true.

They have a building official that does the same thing, runs through codes, and does it, but I think it kind of falls along with Supervisor Giomi.

It's just a weird relationship.

I guess that's right, it's just different.

It's weird, but it doesn't mean they don't have to comply with rules and meet standards.

You can look at the other buildings like the Bryan building, even the state, which is not this group, the legislature that just got all remodeled and redone.

I I hope you all agree it's beautiful.

I think it I'm actually I'm honestly surprised how good it turned out.

So I'm not concerned that we don't have a good partner or a good neighbor.

I think on the record today, they were very clear that they do have the motivation to put up a good building in Carson City to be a good neighbor and to have a good uh working environment for the employees.

So I'm not concerned about that building.

Like I said, what I'm just the most concerned about is somehow we got hung up on a parking lot.

And that's the real truth.

That's what happened at the planning commission.

I watched the meetings, I attended the meetings, and I'm like, and maybe I'm wrong, but most of the public that I've spoke to, because I want to let you know, I even talked to people that wrote in the letters and I called them.

And I said, So would you deny this project over a parking lot?

And they're like, what are you talking about?

I don't think they had the whole story, right?

People read um documents or newspaper articles.

I didn't say everyone, I said some.

Um they don't want to lose the jobs.

I think exactly what Supervisor Giomi said.

If we don't do this, the state's not gonna redesign that building.

All those jobs are going to Reno.

We fight super hard to be a proud capital.

We need to maintain those jobs in Carson City, I feel so that the legislature continues to invest in Carson City.

I'm already concerned that, right?

We asked the governor to prioritize this, or I I'll speak for myself, because I definitely wanted the children's home blight, I thought I called it.

Get rid of that.

It's not right.

It's not right that the state's leaving that mess in our city.

And so now I feel like wow, they invested 11 million dollars coming our way.

That's a lot of jobs, a lot of economics, which is also an integral piece of our master plan.

So it's a it's a which way, I do not think when I think of a downtown, I think of retail and um visitors wandering around and looking a draw, a downtown is a draw.

I am sorry, but I do not think a DMV, a Brian building, a health and human services building are draws in any way to be part of the downtown.

So I don't have a problem removing them.

I think they're adjacent to the downtown, and I think that they offer the economic vitality for that downtown.

And so I can make finding three based on the safety plan for the parking lot, and for page 58 for our error in saying that there was no city jurisdiction over your state capital complex, which obviously we're having all these discussions, and so I guess we did have jurisdiction.

We told you we didn't, but we did, and so I can make finding three, and um I can live with uh removing them from the downtown uh mixed use.

So Supervisor Horton.

Thank you.

I've served the city for 40 years, and in my 40 years, I have met with the state on numerous occasions, state land, state public works, NDEP, and numerous other agencies in my service to the community, and never once have we gone into one of those meetings with the argument that we're gonna fight and we're gonna win, we're gonna we're gonna get our way no matter what.

We've always gone in there with the thought that we will work together and we will come up with the best solution to the problem.

And I'm sure that Mr.

Robb would come up here and tell you that that's their goal as well.

We want to do what's best for the state, that's his job.

He wants to do what's best for the community as well, just like we do.

I think it's important that we consider all the facts, but we look at the bigger picture as we move forward.

We can't just focus on hey, we're gonna get our way or they're gonna get their way.

That's not how you solve problems, it's not how we've ever been successful.

And I can tell you, we've been very successful over the years working with the state on numerous projects.

So I think we need to open our eyes and think this through.

Okay, supervisor shooting.

Some of the questions that um that I had, and quite a few have been answered, so thank you.

A lot of this comes down to should the downtown policies be relevant to this project, and why or why not?

And we have spoken to that, or those have been addressed in the comments, you know, the the safety issue, sadly.

Um that's the world we live in.

Would I like personally to see less surface parking?

Absolutely.

And perhaps that's something that's as this project moves forward, perhaps there could be some compromise.

I understand the need for ample parking, excess parking, if you will.

Perhaps one of those rows of surface parking could be removed to lose some of the capability, but maybe you're talking 50 spots, 40 spots to be able to move that building a little bit closer to the corners to perhaps better align with part of or the genesis of why we're here today.

I also though getting back to should these policies be relevant for maybe maybe they shouldn't because as has been discussed by uh several folks up here, the role of government is quite different than the role of downtown.

And when I think about the historic nature, that also came to mind.

Our history is as the state capital.

And so a capital complex is historic.

While not historic in terms of old buildings, it's historic in terms of the role of Carson City as the state capital.

So I think that is incredibly important to keep in mind.

And I will come back if anyone else has any other comments because I I lost my train of thought for a minute.

Okay.

Anybody else?

No.

I think we probably well, I think we've talked a lot.

So I'll give you a moment or yes, thank you.

All right.

So in terms of the the um the SUP and the state master plan and what has been presented.

Candid question.

In the event this were to be removed from the downtown mixed use, does that change in any way the design of the mall, the master plan that has been presented?

Because I think that that is a fear that people have.

One public comment person said, Well, now can they build 10 stories?

Right.

Can they suddenly now change everything?

So that is a concern.

So regardless of where this regardless of the where it is located on the map and in what, you know, whether it's downtown mixed use or in a different area, does that change the master plan?

Just to put it on the record.

I I I think that was a great question, and and again, something we got from the public that they're misunderstanding that if we take you from the master plan suddenly you get willy-nilly.

It's like, no, they still need a special use permit that meets a bunch of conditions.

But if you could put that on the record, Jack, I'd appreciate it.

Jeff Grove for the record, uh to talk about 10-story buildings and everything.

We're proud of being the Capitol as as you guys are proud of being the Capitol.

We we want to have stuff that fits in.

We're not gonna go ten stories.

We talked about a six-story building in the original design.

And that was one of the last things I wanted was to overshadow the Capitol that close to the Capitol.

There's I I love coming in Morning I Live and Reno, and you come down the hill, you can see the Capitol building, get over by Home Depot, you can see the Capitol building.

Anything that would distract from that I wouldn't be in favor of.

I don't see as going off the rails even into the future because what we're putting in motion now is a design that's economical, functional, it works, it's safe, it meets all the criteria we need in the design.

So I think what we're taking forward is going to be the blueprint.

We have the next four years planned out with the first two buildings and then the next two buildings and two parking garages.

Once we get that done, it's going to be a model to go north up towards Muser and take out the two old schools, take out what's the mail room and department of education now and rework that whole area.

But once you start with something and you prove it works, it's easier to go forward.

I can tell you if there's one thing that's the vein of my insistance as the job I have and my prior job is elevators.

Elevators are the biggest pain as the state.

We're going to avoid things that everybody's fearful of just because ongoing maintenance, entrapments, safety issues, rescues.

You were in the fire department.

You know how many.

Just to remind the governor that he controls business and industry.

Maybe we can get some elevator.

Elevator relief.

A lot of these fears uh aren't aren't going to come to bear.

And we want to have a Capitol Mall.

That's a walkable space.

Uh it's connected.

And then connect to Friends Park right there across from library and archives, and all connect you to your downtown.

Jack, I forgot one question.

Um, when do you envision this project actually going out to bid or starting construction?

I think that will eliminate fears.

If we get approval today, we're coming out on the ground in March.

We're ready.

It's bid.

We have all the subcontractor bids out, everything.

We're ready to come out on the ground.

Uh I've set a diet deadline.

I didn't ask when it could get completed.

I tell them when it needs to be completed because we have all these leases coming due.

Uh we are planning on having ribbon cutting on the first building May of 27.

The building that fronts uh Stewart and Fifth.

So that building will do a ribbon cutting May of 27 while the legislature is still in session.

The next building and parking garage right behind that.

And then we have the planning out for the two additional buildings and another parking garage.

They'll be right behind that.

So the plan's not going to change.

Like I think that's a good question.

We're we're coming out of the ground.

Okay.

We're ready to come out of the ground.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Anything else?

Do you have more, Lisa?

Well, I just wanted to again ask that as this proceeds, regardless of the decision today.

Um please be mindful of the concerns expressed and those areas that are flexible.

Um, whether it's uh parking landscaping, um, real grass, you know, that kind of thing, to please really keep in mind that um, and I think this whole process, you've seen our community and the the residents really love Carson City and really want to protect it, and we want to be good partners.

And so thank you in advance for for keeping that in mind because we're all in this together.

Okay.

Anybody else?

Okay.

Um, then we're ready for a motion.

Yes.

You guys want me to do it?

Somehow I knew that was coming.

Okay.

Um I move not to accept the planning commission's recommendation to this board to deny the requested master plan amendment and further move to approve without modification the original request for amendment based on the record of the planning commission meeting on January 28th, 2026, including evidence on the record, as well as the ability to make all the finding as discussed on the record today.

Oh, super wait, I need a second, then we can go on discussion.

I second uh but with some discussion.

Yeah, we'll go on to discussion.

Supervisor White.

Thank you.

Uh I'll need some clarification on the motion, considering that the notice of public hearing for the Board of Supervisors was substantially different than the notice of public hearing for the uh planning commission.

Board of Supervisors has been noticed uh as a first reading for a municipal code change.

Um to this point, I don't see any draft uh code.

And so uh I guess we'll need clarification from uh council uh where we're at with this motion.

Certainly.

Mr.

U.

I'm happy to try to shed some light on that.

And this was a discussion that we had last evening, you know, for the record, and I did get on a phone call with uh both Ms.

Sullivan and with Supervisor White with respect to your concerns on this published notice.

Um, you know, I did get a res I did get a copy of this, and I was taking a look at it this morning and last evening, and you're correct.

There is a defect technically in this notice that was published.

It does reference for today's action as part of today's agenda on this particular hearing and the introduction of a proposed ordinance.

That's obviously incorrect.

The mechanism here is not to introduce an ordinance, but rather to take an action on the motion that was just presented by this board.

However, I would say as I had analogized last night, we're really talking about the same cargo here, just different vehicles, and really what I mean by that is substantively all the information that was released to the public was accurate.

So, in my perspective, in my view from a legal angle, I think that there was proper notice in the sense that substantively all the information contents and putting the public on notice with respect to what was going to be discussed on the record today and the potential effectuation of an actual matter being presented today.

I think that was all accurate.

Um technically, yes, there was a defect.

I would say that was not a material defect that would otherwise make it an issue today if this board were to proceed.

So I think that substantially we're in compliance with that notice requirement.

Thank you, Mr.

Hugh.

And I would like to apologize for interrupting your dinner date with your children last night, but I thought that was when I made that discovery, I thought that was pretty important.

That was absolutely fine.

It actually gave me a little bit of a break of uh having to entertain my 11-year-old daughter.

So thank you for that.

Uh visor shooty has uh asked for further discussion.

I would like to hear that um in light of we always talk about how do we get to yes.

Um before I talk about where I'm at on the findings, I would like to hear the rest of any discussion that's available.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Um earlier uh Hope Sullivan had mentioned about the process and how um city staff they're given, you know, they have their information, and then like the planning commission then has the benefit of more information.

And then in our case, as supervisors in this process, we even have more information.

So speaking of information, I wish in the December Planning Commission meeting, I really wish the state had presented what they presented today.

I think that the outcome could have been different.

I I don't know, but I believe that the information that was presented today is helpful, and it does provide that added um whether it's reassurance or that added uh you know insight into why these findings can be met, and because they weren't presented, we ended up getting a different outcome than perhaps what um the state had hoped and what could have happened.

So in light of that, I do feel comfortable with this process.

And quite frankly, yesterday, I had my questions.

I was making phone calls.

I was revisiting the meetings a couple of times.

I had my earbuds, I'm taking my notes, I'm back and forth.

I printed out the commission or the planning commission um agendas, and so please know that this process has been very helpful, and it is important to keep in mind that as information is presented, it's important that we listen to that.

So thank you.

Anyone else?

Supervisor White, are you coming up coming up the back end?

Go ahead.

Yeah, I guess um I I guess the the whole thing here for me is uh agreeing with what you said earlier that we told the community, we know we didn't get everything right.

Yes, that there's going to need to be some adjustments.

I I do not perceive uh that acknowledgement to be extended to such an extraordinary ask, well beyond what a minor amendment might be.

And so uh I would also like to point out uh while we're looking at this municipal code on page 180 number 14.

Those findings are listed as A B C D and E.

However, when when it gets to the Planning Commission, they're listed out numerically.

So there's a there's a disconnect there that I I think can be a little problematic with uh people trying to put all of these octopus arms into one place.

Uh so uh at this point uh rather than one, two, three, I'm gonna I'm gonna address it right off the municipal code.

So at a uh the proposed amendment is in substantial compliance with the objectives and policies and action programs of the master plan.

Um what's being asked today is a major amendment is not what the community told us they wanted in the master plan, and it's not what we put in the master plan.

Uh the B, the uh proposed amendment will provide for land uses that are compatible with existing adjacent land uses and will not have an adverse effect on the health safety and welfare of the public.

Um while I think intuitively we know that that really hasn't been discussed here today.

Um with the proper uh discussion I could find on uh item B.

Um item C.

The proposed amendment identifies or addresses changes and conditions that have occurred since the master plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and the amendment will represent a more desirable land use.

I I would say that the only thing that I can find that has changed since the master plan was adopted is that the state has realized they should have been more engaged in the master plan process.

In fact, Mr.

Robb said that today.

Um item D.

Uh the proposed amendment will promote the desired pattern for for the orderly physical growth and development of the city, it will guide development.

It goes on for several lines there.

Uh I I think again intuitively, I I think that's a yes.

That wasn't discussed either at the planning commission or uh here today.

Um item E.

Uh, the proposed amendment does not violate any provision of NRS or CCMC.

Um with all due respect to council, and I mean that sincerely, Dan, uh, but I have to say I don't know that we are comfortably in line with the intent of the various NRS and municipal codes that I have read.

And and on that I I cannot uh accept that finding.

Okay.

Anyone else then we'll we'll proceed to vote.

All those in favor of the motion, uh please say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no.

No.

No.

Let the record reflect it was three ayes and two no's.

So the ayes have the motion.

Thank you all for uh good meeting and discussion.

Thank you.

Okay, we're now on to agenda item 16, which is our non-action items.

Are there any um updates or statuses uh, Mr.

Martell?

Or we're good for today.

No, Mayor, thank you.

Okay.

Then we will move to oh, let me just double check.

I'm sorry.

Is there any member that wanted to share anything with happenings or going-ons or yeah, I thought, wait a minute, where's my uh starting Stacey?

Sorry, to these Thursdays starting tomorrow in Mills Park, Carson City Lights.

Um it's uh an event sponsored by BAC and CTA.

Um Art Center and Convention Tourism Authority.

Try not to use acronyms.

Um I I I don't really know what to tell you what it is.

I can't really tell you what it is, except to say that it's uh sort of an interactive display of art where you uh walk through uh a series of panels that are displaying art in light.

Uh sorry, which it's kind of vague, but I think movement in art yeah, movement in art.

I mean, I think the idea is to, you know, um uh go on the CTA website.

There's a link to uh to to get a uh ticket.

Um sorry, I don't know how much house of mayors.

No, I won't it's not uh no, you won't be running into walls and uh it's not that I know honestly, I don't I don't know what it is.

I don't know what we have to check it out.

And CTA was sp, you know, um uh at our meeting was I think purposely Eric was purposely vague because I think the idea is to experience it and to get out and experience it.

So it starts uh Friday night.

We're we're blessed uh with uh well, we're cursed with um no snow, but we're blessed with nice weather to be able to walk through um and take advantage of that.

So that's what I would encourage uh folks to do.

Great.

But they share.

Okay.

And we will move on to our final public comment.

Do I have any final public comment?

Danny.

You're welcome.

Danny French, Carson City, Nevada.

Not to say that I'm a little disappointed.

I'm very disappointed after having new information come in that even uh Supervisor Shuty brought up would have helped inform them.

What do you think it's done to us?

What do you think the lack of informed ability to be here today with information that we could at least have it not just being thrown up against the wall and sliding down?

And then every time we get information, it changes, or we're better informed.

How can we come and make statements or be involved if those type of things keep happening?

And I've seen it over and over again.

You're informed after the fact by a telephone call that I'm not involved in.

You've talked to an individual that's a uh voter, and you get this different gym of information, and it changes your mind or helps resolute your present thoughts, and we're not there.

And I think I think you missed the point.

What is making them so anxious to have it change?

What are they suggesting that we couldn't have done in a special use meeting to make corrections or suggestions to?

What the heck is the situation?

They have not made that clear in their statements of the uh, well, we just want a temporary for safety considerations.

I don't care about a parking lot.

I think we do probably need them.

I do care that they have no substantial drawing or sketches or anything of their proposed structures, let alone uh the specifics of what that will do to traffic, what will it do to the environment?

And I I think that was all missed by y'all.

And I hate seeing that about us.

Our environment counts.

Those things are important, and I'm really sort of disappointed.

And in Lisa, I appreciate that you've got new information that had you ever better informed, it helped inform me that we are actually not being informed as a community.

It helped inform me that I'm not the only one that felt like oh, new information.

But the public didn't get to respond to that, didn't get to ask the state questions that we would have liked to.

I couldn't promote to you what I was thinking.

I couldn't encourage you to ask this question, but you had the opportunity, and I think the fact that Supervisor White was pretty straight on.

Help me right.

The fact that I don't relate to my cousins very much.

For the record, I don't know.

And it's not because I don't love them, but I don't expect that I'm gonna have my rooms or my building or my yard determined by their wants instead of by my innerput.

And without discussion, they're more respectful than that.

And I don't think the state helped.

Thank you, Mr.

Franch, very much.

I'm angry.

Thank you.

Miss Owens.

Sandra Owens.

Um, so I really hope that the gentleman that is uh was sitting here uh lives forever and is in that position forever because we only have his guarantee now.

That's the only thing we have now because now they can do whatever they want.

That's we don't have that input.

But they it should have gone this whole process, it should have gone through special use permit.

It should we all of this information should have gone back to the planning commission and it should have gone through instead of exempting them from our down because we spent time on that.

We spent a lot of time on that.

I went to those meetings, we spent money on that.

Our city was highly involved in that.

And it was important to us.

And we gave away all our rights today.

We did.

And then we have his guarantee that he's not going to build 10 foot buildings.

And I don't think that they will.

But that's all we have.

We his guarantee.

So hopefully that guarantee will like follow through 30 years from now when none of us are here.

And you know, but our our kids are, and they're we're trying to keep Carson City and the history of Carson City alive.

So that's all I have to say.

But I think y'all messed up, except for you two.

Thank you.

Is there any other final public comment?

So just for the record on that.

I'm not sure we reiterated, but the state is still subject to a special use permit.

That has not changed.

They are they're not subject to a downtown rule, but they're still subject to the building heights, setbacks, all the things that you're talking about, they are still subject to that.

So I just don't want the public record to have an error, or people assume that they're not subject to it because they are.

So okay.

Um there's no other final public comment for the Board of Supervisors.

So if there's no objection, we will adjourn as the Board of Supervisors.

Does anybody need a quick break and we'll come back and do redevelopment, or you're ready to go?

Everybody's good.

Let's go.

I'm gonna call the redevelopment authority together.

May I have a roll call, please, Mr.

Hohen?

Uh Chairperson Bagwell.

Here.

Vice Chair Geometry Member Horton.

Here, Member Shuty.

Here, Member White.

You have your quorum.

Thank you so very much.

Is there any opening public comment for the redevelopment authority?

Redevelopment authority.

Okay, I'm just making sure that you heard.

Directing my deal to you as a redevelopment program, you are facing a redevelopment.

And I hope that you will keep us informed with the most direct and well-known and understood, agreed upon total programs.

Don't bring me a half baked whatever and then fix it on telephone calls or in back rooms.

Let's make it public.

Redevelopment is what you're about, and you're involved with a great deal right now.

And I want you to really realize how hard and frustrating it is for a person like me that wants to be uh doing my due diligence.

So keep us in post and keep us in thought and considerations to the public statements in the master plan considerations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do I have any other?

I don't see any.

Um, so we'll move to agenda item 22A, the approval of the minutes of January 6th.

Does any member have any changes?

Seeing none, I'll accept a motion, please.

Move to approve the uh redevelopment authority meeting minutes from the 6th of January 2026 is presented.

Second.

I have a motion and a second for approval.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

We're now gonna move to agenda item 23A, discussion impossible action regarding the resolution for augmentation of the Carson City Redevelopment Authority uh budget for 7.5 million.

Uh Miss Benaboo, would you give us um a few highlights of that if needed?

I will.

Um, good morning or afternoon, is it afternoon?

No morning.

Still morning.

All right, good.

Um so uh this is three different funds.

It's um our little budget that we have to do separate from the Carson City budget, and um I will note there is one error on the explanation of augmentations.

Um at the very bottom, there's um North Carson.

Okay, sorry.

You have a page number?

I do not have a page number.

That's unfortunate.

It's the are you talking in the staff behind the staff report.

It's right behind the staff report.

It's the explanation of augmentations, it should be the first one behind the staff report.

Yeah.

Oh, maybe it's right behind the resolution.

The spreadsheet's a spreadsheet the spreadsheet.

Yes, there's a spreadsheet.

It says explanation of augmentations at the top.

Uh 197.

There's a hole right through mine.

I got you.

That's why I can see it.

Okay, go ahead.

Sorry.

Um, so on the second one, redevelopment revolving fund.

It's kind of toward the bottom.

There's two North Carson complete streets.

Right.

And one of those, the 1.6 or 1.7 million, should be the courthouse.

That's the design of the courthouse.

I just noticed we must have accidentally copied down when we did the spreadsheet.

So apologies on that one.

Uh, but that is the largest project that we're rolling forward, so I wanted to make sure on the record we can we fix that.

Um we have some sidewalk and ADAs.

There's the um Roop Street improvements.

That's the the other large project, and the rest are just little little things that they didn't complete last year that are moving forward.

So they've probably already been completed this year, or they're working on them.

There's any questions.

And thanks for putting that on the record because again, just like we did on the other one.

I think it's important, and we are trying to be transparent and always inform the public.

But this is the fund that we are utilizing to save for the courthouse improvements.

The redesign and so, right, we did juvenile in the other account, and we're doing the courthouse here because again, we're trying to pay in cash as much as we can to get these projects done.

So just thank you for that.

Okay, is there any public comment on this item?

I'll take a motion, supervisor Giomi.

Move to adopt resolution number 2026 dash R A R1.

As present, oh excuse me, it's corrected on the record.

Sorry.

There's a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

Okay, we're now on to final public comment for the redevelopment authority.

Hearing none, if it okay.

You're not on to press the button.

Thank you.

I just want Carson City resident Denny French.

I like to change that up just to see if I'm thinking.

Um, the deal is that um that I appreciate the budget people, they have been one of the more clear and direct of our agencies and departments, and I appreciate their efforts, a lot of work.

I don't do numbers, I actually don't spell either, but that's another matter.

The main thing is um thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, no further public comment.

Okay, no objection.

We are adjourned.

Thank you for a good meeting.

I know it was hard on everyone, but thank you.