So I'm going to call the Board of Supervisors to order.

Mr.

Hohen, may I have a roll call, please?

Supervisor Jomey.

Supervisor White, Supervisor Horton, Supervisor Shooty.

Here.

You have your quorum.

Thank you so much.

I'm so excited this morning.

We have someone new to help us start the day off well.

If we can have our invocation by Pastor Michael Herlbert, um, from the First Christian Church.

If you'll pray with me, Father, we just thank you, and we pray for grace in this time.

We we thank you for the beautiful day in the wonderful community of Carson that we get to live in and serve.

We Lord, we pray for this community that you strengthen the families, guide those who work in it, and Lord, that you stand among the vulnerable.

Father, we just pray right now as we uh gather that you help us to remember that leadership is stewardship, and that you help us to be good stewards of what you've entrusted us with.

Father, it's in your name we pray.

Amen.

Well, thank you so much.

We look forward to future opportunities.

If you'd all uh help join in the pledge, Mr.

U will you leave, please.

And to the Republicans, one nation under the visible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you so much.

Um opening public comments.

Um see which one you want.

Uh, Miss Preston, you put one dash to, so I was like, Yes, I was like, did you want one?

Okay.

Today, my hat I'm wearing is as the representative of Rocky Point Properties, a property at 1340 South Curry Street.

And sometimes I know that the agenda gets changed a little bit, and I wanted to verify that I got this on the record.

I apologize for the late material.

And I apologize that some people got a colored packet, and some people got black and white, but there's only so much ink in the world at my house.

So what I wanted to bring forward is I would like to speak on the uh item number 18A when it comes up.

But I did want you to know that there are people that are looking for options.

And just want to put that on the record.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um I have next that asks to speak at the beginning is Mark Costa.

Good morning, Mark.

Good morning, Mark Costa, Carson City resident.

Um, what I'm speaking about today is that I would ask the board to please vote against authorizing continued work or study of this new city hall down there.

There's a number of things that has to be concerned about it.

Um $36 million price tag, 2.3 million paying in interest over 30 years, comes out to now like closer to 70 million dollars.

Um we've had long-term warnings about the budget.

The budget may be okay in the upcoming year or so, but there are warning signs.

Mr.

Martell was kind enough to present some of those at our bill to win meeting in February for that.

But we're, you know, concerned about, you know, as examples of the employee insurance fund.

Um personnel costs maybe approaching close to 70% of the budget, which I understand is a tipping point.

There's many other capital expenditures needed that this money could be used for.

Um, the roads is one example of that, and other buildings, other types of activities, certainly that you've all seen requests for.

Um concerned about the complications of this program.

Um lot of question marks.

We're paying them back with redevelopment funds, but the general fund is on the hook, as I understand it, if redevelopment funds are unavailable.

Um, I'm not sure why we're spending redevelopment funds on uh government, another government building.

They should be used for other types of activities.

Um creating a nonprofit that you know was gonna be another entity that would complicate the situation involved with this that we would have to deal with as a state.

And um this could there's further discussions of possible off-ramps built into the problem, built into this project, which we don't know enough about.

And so um, and finally, finite resources, staff resources that um the staff is gonna spend a lot about time on this, possibly going down into another rabbit hole and other things that they could be doing.

So I don't think this is a good option right now, and we should explore other ones.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Costa.

Um, Jennifer.

Jennifer, come on up for next.

And then it'll be Kathleen.

Oh, two Kathleen's.

Sorry.

Hi, my name is this good.

My name is Jennifer Varivi, and I'm here to comment on item number 18A, and I appreciate being able to speak to you now as I can't stay, so I look forward to the recording.

Um, I concur with about the funding that the previous speaker just said.

I feel like with number 18A, you all are in a bit of a the middle, right?

It's critical as part of your role to work with staff, but you were elected to represent us, the public.

And as I think you are well aware, uh many, many of us, to be frank, don't like the downtown project that is proposed by the Hop and May Adams Foundation.

We have reasonable concerns.

We're concerned that it might harm the historic character and walkability of our city, that it will burden the roads and infrastructure of downtown, and that there seems to be little if any evidence for the proposed economic um outcomes, the positive economic outcomes.

So this is my request.

During your discussion, might you please clarify how you will have our backs when you have a horse in the race.

Voting yes on the recommendation will provide you with what feels like an unfair yet seemingly justified way to dismiss our concerns and our voice.

I hope that during your discussion, you will keep in mind that several groups and individuals in town have presented modifications to the proposal and alternate ideas.

Many different kinds of alternate ideas.

And they deserve to be discussed as part of a good faith negotiation.

The outcome should be a win for the foundation, the city, and the public.

The outcome should focus on what works best for all of us, not you, not them, but all of us.

I believe that the process will be far more successful and have the positive intended outcomes if it's a collaboration rather than yet another adversarial battle.

What seems more effective and what residents across town have been calling for is for the city to lead a clear, more public vetting of the foundation's proposal.

And then when the public's concerns have been addressed, agree to discuss how a new city hall might be part of the proposal.

Thank you.

Appreciate you listening.

Thank you.

First, the proposal to use redevelopment funds depletes the city's ability to use incentives that attract real economic opportunities and address truly blighted areas.

It also gives you the ability to hire Mr.

Metcock, Mr.

Metcalf to build your city hall without competitive bidding, to buy land from Adams Foundation without using the free market to get the best price, and to sell the current city hall directly to Mr.

Neighbors without accepting bids from other buyers.

All this is because of an obscure section of the Nevada redevelopment law and your willingness to declare your own property blighted because of your failure to address deferred maintenance.

This is not only a subversion of our resources, but also a backroom deal that is clearly not the best use of taxpayer money.

Number two, as the prior speaker just said, all of this is made worse by a lack of transparency for two years before February 2025.

The Adams Foundation worked with the city to create and refine this plan.

Now for more than a year, residents have been asking for public hearings and sharing of all relevant information before decisions are made.

There have been no hearings.

Even now I cannot get anyone to give me a number of how many people, uh employees will be housed in this building, or how this expansive uh building will be used, space, why the city will participate in building a 400-space garage, other than to provide Mr.

Neighbor's leverage to get his Ormsby House 2 project built.

It is a farce to pretend that the information put out on this agenda item gives any resident a clear understanding of what is under consideration.

I also object strongly to supervisors directing the city manager to be the single person to negotiate with Tom Metcalfe.

My understanding is that they go back to high school years and that Mr.

Metcalf backed Mr.

Martell for his current job.

This is a conflict of interest on its face.

Four, there are other alternatives not listed.

I already heard someone mention 1340 South Curry Street, uh pretty comparable size to what you want.

My understanding is that it has a new roof, almost new HVAC, spectrum fire already installed, three acres of parking.

Will it be your dream of a palace near the other government buildings?

No, but it will be a heck of a lot cheaper, and residents may possibly be encouraged to support it.

Finally, this is not only bad policy but bad politics.

I do understand that you think you are very clever and too powerful to be crossed.

However, you ought to be embarrassed.

You have broken trust with voters, and they will not forget when your white elephant project becomes a fiscal disaster and their property taxes soar.

Okay.

Um Sheriff Furlong.

Thank you.

Good morning, Kenny.

Well, come on over here.

Oh I'd like to take this opportunity to um endorse and and invite folks of Carson City to uh the attention of the training that is coming up on March 30th at the Orange Bay Room of the Sheriff's Office regarding suicide prevention and safe talk.

This is a tremendously uh important um um endeavor that we've been uh pursuing.

Um folks that will be there will include our 988 representatives from the state.

You can meet our our most team, learn how they support the community through compassion and coordinated responses, connecting individuals and families to crisis intervention, stabilization, and ongoing mental health resources.

The training will begin at 4 30 and an introduction to our most team uh and the safe talk follow-up uh workshop.

Um if you folks have been uh folks in this community have been uh keeping an eye on the media, I would like to commend uh the Nevada appeal and the author of a story that was printed this weekend.

Um, probably in my opinion, one of the best um impacting stories I have just I've seen forever, and he sits in this room all the time, monitoring government affairs.

Um Scott did just a uh an amazing job at bringing this this highly critical item to the attention of this community.

We've lost so many people needlessly and recklessly, and we want to turn that that table around.

And so uh Jeannie and I um with the uh with help of the human services, our board of health, all of us encourage everyone to uh at least make an attempt.

It does take reservations to attend.

Uh, you can make reservations uh on the suicide prevention.

NV dot gov website.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I have Kathleen Lee.

Here we go.

All right, my name's Kathleen Lee, and I am a resident of Carson.

And I think the Board of Supervisors have proven they don't follow the principles stated in the Lincoln's Gettyburg Address.

This is government of the people by the people for the people.

Your voting records have proven that you are all autocrats.

You have no morals, you continue automatic be our autocratic behavior is disgusting.

And I I don't get it.

I mean, you've checked out the minute you got re-elected, you checked out.

You don't care about the city and what we want.

I have called you on a situation, you disregarded it, and then you never call me back.

We have money that can be spent on our roads.

You build house after house after house, they get nice roads, but yeah, we that lived here 20 years are dealing with crappy back street roads and but you want to spend money on a new city hall, you want to build new buildings.

Why?

What for?

What purpose?

We have how many empty buildings sitting around here that you could be using, but instead you want to spend our money, our money that we put out to build these frickin' buildings that you keep going on and on about.

It's a waste of money, it's a waste of time, and you have not proven to anybody yet, and we've all keep telling you we don't want it, but yet you keep throwing it down our throats.

You're wasting our time.

We have to come to these meetings to keep telling you we don't want it, we don't want it.

But yet, here we are.

You're still pushing it, still saying we gotta build it.

We don't have there's three frickin' hotels on the north end of town, all next to each other.

Three of them.

What for why do we need another one?

Why do we need a new city hall?

What's wrong with Orangeby House?

They have a parking garage.

You could turn that into a city hall.

It's already been sitting there for 20 frickin' years and not been used.

But yet you want to build something new and waste our money, our taxpayer money that you want to raise our taxes for.

I think it's wrong.

You've all checked out, and when election time comes up, we're gonna remember.

Okay, I have I'm sorry, I can't read your writing for the last name, but hopefully there's only one Richard.

Okay, is that you?

Okay.

Uh good morning.

Good morning.

Supervisors.

Uh, my name is Richard Chang.

I'm a Carson City resident.

I'm here to oppose this proposal, and I want to be very clear why.

While this is presented as a $36 million project based on the proposed financing structure over 30 years, the total repayment could approach 70 million when interest is included.

That is nearly double the cost.

If this was a private investment, no prudent decision maker would accept those terms without serious scrutiny.

Yet here we are asked to move forward using public funds, taxpayer money, without the same level of discipline.

Because make no mistake, this will be paid for by the residents of Carson City, whether through higher taxes, reallocation of the general fund, or reduced services.

At a time when our roads need repair, infrastructure needs investment, and public safety must be prioritized.

We are considering a large non-essential government building.

The numbers don't support it, and neither does the growth.

Over the past 20 to 30 years, Carson City has grown modestly, about six to eight thousand residents.

Recent growth has been largely flat, and there's no justification for a project of this scale.

Even more concerning is that the project does not appear to be fully funded.

There are clear gaps in the long-term financial picture, yet it is being advanced under the label of due diligence.

But due diligence comes before commitment, not after.

I also want to share something I heard from a fellow resident.

When I spoke with a neighbor about this issue, he told me he no longer believes in this process, that the public comment doesn't matter, and that decisions will be made regardless of what residents say.

Whether or not that perception is accurate, it should concern all of us because public trust is critical.

In decisions like this, either strengthen that trust or erode it.

This raises a fundamental question.

Are we exercising true fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers?

Are we moving forward with a predetermined outcome?

Because once this is approved, the financial consequences will not only be temporary, they will last for decades.

Other cities have taken this path, approving large projects without full accountability, and the result has been higher taxes and long-term financial strain on residents.

Carson City should not follow that path.

Thank you.

My name is Doreen Gerlani Mack.

I'm a third-generation Carson City resident.

In 2018, I received the Sierra Nevada Top 20 Most Powerful Women Award for the work I did as president of the downtown 2020 group for the seven-year downtown renovation project of removing the freeway, fence, widening sidewalks, landscaping signage, as well as the development of Telegraph Square.

All to make a more business-friendly environment.

Once again, I'm here to speak about strengthening our downtown core and building a more connected community and install the city and state construction.

One of the biggest opportunities we have is City Hall that could serve as a central hub, not just for government but for our community.

Imagine a downtown mini market, a small health food store, a bank kiosk, a simple services like a parking ticket kiosk that recently a tourist asked me, where do you pay for your parking ticket?

It would all be accessible in one area.

These aren't just conveniences, they bring people together, support local businesses, and create daily foot traffic that benefits everyone.

At the same time, we need to address parking in a smart practical way.

By converting parallel parking to angle parking where possible, we could significantly increase capacity without overwhelming downtown with new structures.

We already have a space near the legislature, Oranzipee House, and other surrounding areas that could support this approach while preserving the walkability and charm of our historic district.

Downtown should remain walkable, welcoming, and business friendly.

We have already taken steps in that direction by removing the downtown fence to create a more pedestrian friendly environment.

Now we have the chance to continue that progress.

Places like Bog McPadden Plaza, Kama Coffee, and other gathering spots show us what works.

Spaces where people naturally come together and preserve history.

Let us build on that and focus on community accessibility and smart growth that reflects on who we are.

In our last meeting, Jed Block brought up the topic of more ADA access.

This could be applied in this next renovation after more public meeting discussions that would benefit be beneficial to everyone.

Thank you.

Okay.

Hi Cheryl.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Cheryl Rookwood, and I'm a resident here of Carson City.

I want to speak about item 18A, and I echo what a lot of people have said about the issues and our concerns.

I oppose the potential public-private partnership with the Hop and May Adams Foundation for a new city hall.

There are cheaper alternatives and places for construction, like the Ormsby House and maybe the Kmart building.

A 45,000 square foot city hall with expansive executive offices and a new boardroom does not seem that it is needed.

And a costly expense that the tax base in Carson City cannot afford.

Also, we are now at war.

We have no idea of what's coming the next few years.

That uncertainty, along with all the costs that are rising, making a commitment to a huge long-term debt, I feel is irresponsible.

The Hop and May Adams Foundation can finance their buildings on their on the land that they own.

Thank you for your time.

That's all.

I have signed up for oh I'm sorry, you put it for item 18A, so I thought you were gonna do it at the item.

You're more than welcome to do it now.

Heatherco, and I'm really tired of coming here when you only answer to Tom Metcalf's and to Mark Turner's, the people that help donate to your campaigns.

I would love to see you guys just for once hear the people and put what we want first.

This is one of the most irresponsible projects ever.

Um you're going to put us in debt.

This will fall on the taxpayers.

This is something that should be going on the ballot and voted for.

This should not be a decision made by you guys when it's a want and not a need.

All she wanted from you guys was some extra added lighting.

And not one tear was shed by any of you, which really says everything.

But you told her you didn't even have money for that.

But you're very happy to spend our tax dollars when it comes to someone like Steve Neighbors and cater to all the developers that donate to your campaigns.

You guys really need to rethink this.

This is going to be a burden on not just the people right now, but our kids.

This is a very bad decision, and I hope you rethink it, considering it is a want and not a need.

Thank you.

Okay.

I don't have anyone else.

Oh did you want to come?

Sandra.

Sandra Owens, excuse my voice.

I lost it.

Ironically, we probably all feel like we've lost our voice through this process.

But I just want to say, like, I want to echo what Heather said when the city asked voters to approve a half percent tax increase.

It was put on the ballot, so I'm struggling to understand why a project involving tens of millions in long financial obligation is not being treated at the same level of public approval.

This is truly, if this is truly a good investment for our community, then what bring it to the voters and make that case transparently.

Instead, what we're seeing is a complex shifting of funds, layering financing, and a proposal that appears to support a larger private development that the public has not been fully shown and asked to weigh in on.

That raises a fundamental concern.

Are we solving a clearly defined public need, or are we being positioned to financially support a broader project that demands on public dollars to move forward?

Because when the public carries the risk, the public should have a voice before that commitment is made.

And right now that opportunity does not appear to exist.

If everything about this is above board, then it should be strong enough to stand in front of the voters.

Thank you.

Do I have any do I have anyone else?

Go ahead.

He likes to be last.

It'll be a long.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Leanne Saruman.

I'm a native resident of Carson City and many generations.

But I I just have to say I send in a late submission, so I apologize, but I'm going to try to summarize some of it here.

I'm shocked, to be honest.

I'm I'm really shocked that this agenda item of such importance is brought to a vote so quickly without a single public hearing.

We learned about this first last February, where many of us spoke, and we were extremely, and it has been iterated over and over in consistent requests for public involvement in this decision.

I mean, and we we are always told it's like we come to meetings and we we want to speak with something.

Oh, you're too early.

We haven't made any any decisions, we're not finalized, we're still looking at the data, we're still doing our studies.

We even at a at Mr.

Martell at a at a meeting just a few weeks ago said, you know, we're not ready to present all of the space needs details and everything yet.

And yet it were immediately put on the agenda for an approval.

It's just it's it's extremely frustrating and very disheartening.

You know, we, as people have said, we elect you to represent us, you know, not just the stakeholders and the experts, which we discussed at the little uh we were talking, Mo and you guys were saying it that some experts have agendas, you know, and and but we need to talk and listen to the ordinary people, you know, the retirees, the young families, the small business owners, they need to be brought to the table on such a big decision like this.

Our voices are equally important to those people.

We are taxpayers and we deserve a seat at the table.

You know, it's so troubling that we're pressing forward in spite of being able to analyze the data and look at the studies that you've that you've done.

We deserve, you know, to study that, you know, convince us if it is truly the best decision to do this, which maybe it is, you know, maybe it isn't.

But convince us.

If it is, you'll you should be able to easily bring us to the table.

You know, consolidated offices are not a necessity.

We need to talk about the the density of the downtown that's coming in with all the developments that are being proposed right now.

I prefer to go to a single office to get my my city business done with the parking space that's close by where accessible people and elderly can get right in there rather than a massive parking structure and a busy downtown with paid parking that's gonna now I think impact the vitality of downtown and small businesses.

Um this is just too soon, and a motion at this time is at minimum rushed, you know, and we need to host some and and bring us to the table so we have transparency and collaborative attitude.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Danny.

Board.

Today's testimony by the public has shaken up my little let's bring up the fact that we're gonna pay hundred thousand dollars for a 69-foot spike piece of art, or my concerns about the suicide and the suicides that continue to raise the count in Carson City as far as deaths, or the homelessness, or even the affordability to those that have finances of housing here.

Corporations and different big money people are being brought into this community without our being able to stop them.

I mean, this is an economical situation, and we are capitalistic after all.

But is growth really helping us as a city?

And are we managing what our needs are with what we have, or are we a little bit out of our boxes for suggesting that we should take on such financial and emotional situation like this, needs much more discussion and much more clarity.

The situation with the state and the cities, master plan was a clear indication to me, there was no understanding that was clear set on foundated facts.

It was a muddle of I called it a well, I don't want to say it, but it it's a mud fed to me.

When something comes up and it's so unclear that all the ingredients went in, but since it's mixed, you can't see any of them specifically.

So I feel this 18A, which I've I've looked into, it's not satisfying with what it's suggesting.

But in the paper, and I really appreciate the appeals article on this.

It didn't say it was or it wasn't.

There were several other options, which aren't necessarily even haven't even been brought up today on 18A.

I appreciate your time.

I also want to thank the city for having expanded on their calendar.

Activities that are not, but I missed a strategic plan meeting because it wasn't on the calendar.

And it's not like I don't check on occasion because I know this is fluent.

But when I see a yellow spot that had something in it before that doesn't, and it doesn't say it's canceled.

Did that mean that the airport meeting wasn't gonna be yesterday or the cultural meeting won't be this next day or on Friday?

I'm concerned that communication on the most basic level, and if I'm the most basic level as an example, it's not getting through to me.

And I don't think it's because I'm a nud FUD.

I'm not.

I can read it.

I have questions, I can ask.

But at these, you suggest there's going to be discussion, and there is not.

Some of you will actually let us know where you stand on something and why you got there appreciated more.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey, I don't have any anybody else.

Sure.

Hi.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mayor Bagwell.

Can you hear me?

There we go.

Good morning, Mayor Bagwell, Supervisor Geomi, Shudy, White, and Horton.

For the record, my name is Jeff Sudich.

I'm the new CEO of the Nevada Builders Alliance.

I'm a sixth-generation Nevada with deep ties in Carson City, Virginia City, Dayton, and Spring Creek.

I'm here today to represent our 116 construction, development, and industry-related businesses right here in Carson City.

Here today to express our strong support for locating a new consolidated city hall in the heart of downtown Carson City.

This is about civic identity.

Historically, cities place their civic centers downtown for good reason.

It's where community life began and where it continues.

For Carson City, our state's capital, a downtown city hall isn't just practical, it's a visible symbol of accessible, transparent government.

It's where City Hall belongs.

This is about accessibility.

Downtown is already the most connected part of our community.

Major roadways, public transit, and pedestrian infrastructure.

Consolidating city services there means every resident from every part of the city can reach their government in one place.

That matters.

This is about efficiency.

Carson City's downtown already houses courts and key administrative offices.

Putting City Hall there improves coordination across agencies, streamlined service delivery, and eliminates the inefficiencies that come with fragmented facilities.

For our members, builders, contractors, developers, that means a more predictable permitting and approval environment.

And a better permitting environment benefits the entire community.

And this is about economic growth.

Civic investment anchors private investment.

A new modern city hall sends a clear signal that Carson City is committed to its urban core, attracting businesses, supporting walkable mixed use development, strengthening the tax base, and creating the conditions for long-term economic vitality.

This is a general generational investment.

One that will serve residents, businesses, and visitors for decades to come.

On behalf of our 116 member businesses here in Carson City, we respectfully urge you to move forward with placing Carson City's new city hall downtown.

We stand ready to support this vision and to work alongside the city as plans progress.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Last last call.

Anyone else?

Sure.

Come on up.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Um push, you have to push the button.

Thank you.

My first time.

I'm Tony Thompson, uh homeowner here in Carson City.

I love this town.

It's so charming.

And I have to say that I understand that y'all feel a need and probably have a need to have a new city hall.

I think the price tag is just unconscionable.

I really would appreciate if y'all would consider doing something a little more fiscally responsible and still at least try to get there more gradually than a 70 million dollar bang on the head.

It's it's just too much.

I can't I can't bear the thought of this project.

But I know you have needs, and I think you should your needs should be provided for, but not at that price.

So thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Have anybody else?

Okay, I'm gonna close the public comment and we're gonna move on to the agenda for approval of our minutes.

Um, did any member have any changes or corrections to the minutes?

Seeing none, supervisor geomi, a motion, please.

Move to approve the Carson City Board of Supervisors meeting minutes from the 19th of February 2026 as presented.

I have a motion and a second for approval.

All those on in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

Thank you so much.

We're now on to our special presentation.

So would you join me on the floor as we um celebrate our employees?

It was always all right.

Okay.

Okay, we're getting 20 years.

Wow, Daniel Jones, the deputy sheriff.

20 years.

Come on.

Had to sit outside.

I'll force them in.

I want to force them in.

Gosh.

Twenty years.

You're old.

Thank you so much for your service.

He's so appreciated.

And then oh, he snuck around the corner.

It was a bust.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Oh Lord.

Congratulations, Dan.

I appreciate this very, very much.

You know, um, Dan is uh an advanced um certified officer here in Corson City.

He does much of the training for the new officers that we hire here.

He's also a veteran of the United States Navy, right there, and a jiu-jitsu expert.

Very, very proud of him.

Uh Dan actually started as a reserve deputy.

How many of the folks have brought been uh have come into our organization?

I couldn't be more proud of you, and I hope for another 10 years.

You got this?

All right.

Congratulations.

But did we get a yes?

Did we get a yes?

Oh, you're going anywhere, buddy.

Okay, we like that.

Okay, how about Lauren Essenger, Deputy Sheriff?

Five years.

So we get to say 25 more.

She's gotta keep up with Dan over there.

Thank you so much for your service.

It's so appreciated.

But you didn't hear you, right?

You get a 25 years because you gotta keep up with Dan over there.

Yeah, we are we're getting yeses, you guys.

This is good news.

Deputy Eisenger worked everywhere every place in the department and actually works in one of the most critical uh areas that we we have officers assigned, and that's our school resource officer program, just a fantastic uh mentor and and relationships with the the kids in this town, and that's such a long-term investment.

Not only that, where's your dad at?

He's at home.

Um, we enjoyed um uh a father-daughter um officer relationship with Douglas County.

We couldn't be more more proud of Lauren.

Thank you.

Did I do that right?

I I told you it was the yes.

I was like, well, we must have had a hiring slew at one moment.

How about Jonathan Tripp?

Five years as a deputy sheriff.

You kind of got the pattern now, right?

Of the yes, you're going to stay for many more years.

A lot of years.

Hey, good.

We're on a roll.

Thank you so much for your services.

So appreciated.

Oh Lord, there's lots to talk about here.

Started as a reserve with us.

13 years with another agency.

Back over to us.

He's he is uh one of the key players on our special enforcement team.

He's the president of our association who is growing beards for charity causes.

Um such a tremendous leader.

Um, he has done an outstanding job in supporting this community, the kids, and everything else.

On top of that, he's one of our leading canine officers.

Which dog do you got?

Cash.

Cash.

Um, thank you and congratulations very much.

It says five, but it's 18.

All right.

Oh, talking about dogs.

How about Warren Batino?

Come on up.

You're a senior center resource advocate.

15 years.

I can't even believe that.

Where has that gone?

Really bad.

15 more.

Actually, I will be retiring in about a week.

Oh I should not have asked on that one.

Well, Warren, thank you for all of your help and being there at that center helping people because that's what it's all about.

So thank you.

Courtney.

So Warren, I don't think he's ever met somebody he didn't enjoy working with.

Uh, just had an incredible compassion and incredible heart.

Um, didn't matter what challenges or problems they brought um in front of him.

He was a problem solver and took above and beyond in terms of helping people.

He truly cared.

He has an incredible heart.

We're sad to see him go.

Um, we can't get another 15 years, Mayor.

I tried.

Um, but we're getting can't even get a year.

We got a week.

We got a week.

Um, but we're honored to have you for 15 years, and you've made an incredible impact to our senior community and all of that you've served.

So thank you, Warren.

Okay, how about Brian Marino Bravo, a senior instrument tech?

10 years.

Are we getting the yes out of you that you're gonna be here a while?

Doable.

That's actually kind of a not sure about that comment.

Doable work for this.

Thank you so much for all that you do for us.

Thank you.

Yeah, good morning.

Uh Brian, congratulations, 10 years.

Uh Brian works in the background for public works and uh in the control system, he's a cornerstone of uh making sure that our utilities are running uh based off of our controls.

So all of our operators are just dependent on Brian's work to uh make sure our water gets processed properly and delivered, as well as our wastewater.

Any major projects that we've done in the last 10 years, Brian's got his fingerprints all over them in terms of the controls of that.

So if you think of somebody working in the background, you're not gonna really see it, but it is critical to uh keeping our utilities running and functioning.

So that's Brian.

Thanks, Brian.

Congratulations.

Okay, and then we have David Thomas.

10 years.

That works good though.

There's a lot of color in this one, so you guys are always fun to have to the meetings.

And David, are are you leaving us in a week, too?

No, July 30.

Oh, I can a little longer than a week, not much.

Thank you for all the work you've done for our community.

It's noticed and appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

Um Dave Thomas, on behalf of the Parks Department and the staff, congratulations on like 10 years.

It's actually 10 years full time, but he started as a seasonal for us for a couple years.

Interesting story how he came about to us.

He had a friend who worked for the city, and I got to know his friend.

He came up to me and says, Hey, I got a guy looking for like work.

We had an opening as a seasonal, and I'm like, okay, what experience does he have?

And he's like, Well, he's been selling cars for 20 plus years, and he's been the top like salesman, and he's also in my band.

And I looked at his friend and I said, I don't need a lead singer, I need a park maintenance worker.

However, he said, You're gonna like this guy.

So we hired him, and every team, every department kind of has their own like beat, has her own like rhythm.

DT is our rhythm.

He shows up every day with the biggest smile, the biggest grin since day one.

I remember coming up to him and saying, how is your day to day?

And he's like, Oh, boss, it was awesome.

Every day you ask him that, and he says, It was great.

It was awesome.

He's got a tremendous attitude.

And as you can tell by our staff who was here, they respect him.

They admire him.

He knew nothing about field maintenance, park maintenance, and now he's one of our top operators that we have.

He's also a great ambassador for the parks department.

Oftentimes you'll see him talking to the public.

And uh, he's just been outstanding for us for these past ten years.

So congratulations, Dave.

All right, now you see the other uniform.

So you'll understand this one.

How about Joshua Adams, firefighter paramedic?

Five years.

Okay.

Please tell me we're getting a yes that you're gonna be.

Okay, we're on we're finishing on a high note, though.

But thank you so much for your service.

It is so appreciated.

Right.

All right, Kevin.

Tell us about his breakfast.

Uh, well, first off, we don't have a a Josh Adams, so uh, this is chip for everybody in the room.

Uh, no story, just this is chip, just so you know.

Um, but uh the awesome thing about Josh Chip um is that just if you look up in the dictionary, happy go lucky, this is the guy.

Um, and that personality just spills out to everything that he does and to his crews.

Um, and that is demonstrated because right now on the fifty-one station fifty-one kitchen table, there's a fresh plate of cookies that were baked and uh from a patient that he took care of as a thank you.

And that is routine for this guy because it spills out to what he does every day, taking care of people.

Um, and he just has that compassion and that positive energy that just helps to comfort people that he's taken care of in their emergencies.

Um, he's a fantastic firefighter, a great addition to the crew.

He also um is still actively serving our country in the guard.

So um just a multi-talented.

We're very, very happy to have you, man, and proud you should be proud of the five years you put in so far.

Okay.

Well, we're gonna have to figure out how we squeeze a little bit and everything, because I'm seeing uh, yeah, some to go behind, but we also at this time love to invite family and friends and co-workers that want to share in the joy of their uh friends, I guess, right?

Family, everything.

So come on up and get in the picture, come behind.

We love to post these.

Come on.

Come on and do it.

It's worth it.

They might be as tall as me then.

I can see this massive.

Okay, we should look in this way.

So much.

Okay, we're just gonna take a small yeah, we're gonna take a small recess to let the room reset.

So we'll be back at night.

All the Board of Supervisors back to order.

We are on the consent agenda, and item 10A will be removed from consent and discussed as regular order.

That's the only one I had.

So Supervisor Giomi a motion, please.

I move to approve the consent agenda consisting of item eight A 9A, which includes resolution number 2026-R-7, 9B, 9C, 11A, 11B, 12A, 12B, and 13A.

All is presented.

I have a motion and several seconds.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

We're now going to hear agenda item 10A.

This is a proposed resolution accepting the dedications.

And I feel like I need to maintain my no vote on this particular project.

Okay.

Anybody else?

Did anybody have any questions or anything we need to bring?

Steph up on.

Don't see any.

Do I have any public comment on this item?

Okay, I'll accept a motion then.

Supervisor.

Yeah, I move to adopt resolution number twenty twenty-six-r-eight.

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 the uh four yeses and one no by supervisor white.

Thank you.

Um Stephanie, would you ask IT to uh fix the thank you.

Um I'm not Corey.

Okay.

The other Corey.

Well, you'll state your name for the record.

You talk to us about this, please.

Yeah, uh, I'm Steve Takas, Airport Council.

You've seen me before, you'll see me again.

Um, this is our uh annual uh airport capital improvement plan that we file each year with the FAA.

Uh it's a result of a number of meetings that we have with the FAA outlining our next five-year construction program.

Um, and we request the FAA allocate funds for our construction.

As you know, um the airport grant process is the airport puts up about 93% of the funds, and we put up the remainder, and that remainder does not come from Carson City's budget, it comes from the airport's budget.

And so this plan that we have presented before you is the one that we've worked out with the FAA.

Doesn't mean they're guaranteeing us the funds, but we'd use this plan to file our grant applications, and then they allocate money among a variety of airports, and hopefully they allocate the money that we've asked for for ours, and then we go forward with the projects.

And so I guess the key thing here is we've got four projects.

They're scheduled for next year for 2027, and they're relatively modest, but they involve an environmental assessment uh at the west end of the runway and 25% of the engineering cost to do design, um, repairs and resurfacing of the North Apron, and then a reconstruction of Taxiway Bravo, which is the North South Taxiway in the airport.

Um, and so I'm here to answer any questions you have, but um as I said, this is something that uh the airport pays for, it doesn't come out of the city's pocket.

Thank you so much.

Does any member have a question?

No questions.

Is there any public comment on this item?

Mr.

French.

I can't find you in my list of people.

Sorry.

Related to the airport, first off, I'd like to congratulate uh Corey Jenkins.

I think they gave him a raise, and he well deserves it in my opinion.

But um, if you could find yourself one here, I looked up uh the projects and one that I had the inquiry about what I wasn't able to get to the meeting, so I will take this opportunity.

Denny French Carson City.

Um the microwave that was going to be uh added to the building facility um Verizon request.

I like the way they worded it in that they said they would like it.

Do they need it and will it interfere with the communications that you have at hand?

I'd be happy to talk to Mr.

French outside the action that was taken last night at the airport authority, meaning it really doesn't impact the city at all.

I wondered if it was one of those projects, though that you said of six.

It is not one of the projects that's on this this list.

Thank you so much.

Is there any other public comment on this item?

Okay, seeing then I'll bring it back up here for a motion, Supervisor Horton.

I move to approve the 2027 through 2031 airport capital improvement plan as presented and authorize the airport manager to submit FY2027 FAA grant applications for the project.

I second.

I have a motion and a second for approval.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

Thank you.

Well, thank you, Corey.

I hope that you have a beautiful day.

See you later, Steve.

Okay, we're now gonna move on to agenda item 16A.

This is discussion and action regarding a recommendation from the planning commission to approve a request for master plan text amendments dealing with condition 57B of the LOMPA Ranch North Specific Plan and text related to the Lomper Ranch North Specific Plan and the Gold Dust Westway Connection alternative.

Um, Miss Manzo.

Can you take us through this item?

I'd be happy to.

I'll see.

Um, however, uh so this project or uh master plan amendment was initiated by the uh board in January of this year during the annual uh master plan review, uh and the planning commission reviewed the master plan amendment itself uh in February and is recommending to the board approval of it.

What the amendment uh entails is an amendment to the Lomper Ranch North specific plan and conditions of approval of approval related to the plan.

Um because uh the SPA boundary on the west side of the freeway um is separated from William Street by private property that's outside of the SPA.

So because of that, um there is a requirement in the SPA and the conditions that were approved for the SPA to require a full public access to William Street from the S from the specific plan.

Um, however, that property is not a participating uh member of the SPA, and so with that, uh when the board initiated the master plan amendment, um discussion was had at that time that while um some sort of access is really something that's important to the city, uh it was acknowledged that full public access may not be possible due to limitations in the uh roadway width that's there as well as uh that private property participation.

So with that, the amendments would include a change to the language in both the condition and the specific plan to remove the public right of way requirement and include a requirement for access.

With that, it doesn't preclude full access if that's something that can be achieved in the future.

However, through discussions with private developers that have been looking at property within the specific plan, the private property owner that's not participating in the specific plan has entertained the notion of a form of access, just not full public access.

So that's what's before you.

I didn't receive any public comments on this item.

And the planning commission is recommending the board approve the amendment.

Do you have any questions?

Supervisor Giomi.

Heather, so this uh just to be clear, this in your opinion, the way it's written is sufficient to ensure that there's for emergency services at the very least, there's ingress and egress.

Is that is that a fair statement?

That that would not preclude that the ability to provide emergency access.

I don't want it to preclude it.

I want it to include it, which is what I'm asking.

So it would be allowed.

Yes, it would.

Okay.

And the requirement of access is something that has been included as part of the language that's before you.

Just wanted to get that on the record.

Thank you.

I don't see anyone else on the board.

Is there any public comment on this item?

Okay, I'll bring it up here for a motion, please.

Supervisor Giomi.

I move to accept the planning commission's recommendation to this board to approve the master plan text amendment and further to move to approve without modification the original request for amendment based on the record of the planning commission meeting of February 25, 2026, including evidence on the record as well as the ability to make all the findings as discussed on the record today.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

Thank you so much.

Okay, we're now on to agenda item 16B, discussion and possible action regarding a recommendation from the planning commission to approve a master plan amendment for policy 6.3b downtown character areas.

Thank you, Heather Ferris for the record.

Um, I too have a presentation, and it looks like we might be getting this up here shortly.

Um, like the last item on the agenda, um, the board considered the master plan annual report in January of this year and initiated this request at that time on January 6th.

So let me see if I can.

It's still working.

Computer's frozen.

So as currently written, uh the master plan policy 6.3b incorrectly states that the city does not have jurisdiction over state-owned properties.

Um RS 278.580 states that the state and its political subdivisions shall comply with all zoning regulations except for expansion of any activity existing on April 23rd, uh 1971.

So we do have zoning authority over state properties.

The master plan amendment um would modify the text of policy 6.3b, recognizing that the city does not have zoning jurisdiction over those uses that did not exist on April 23rd, 1971.

The planning commission considered this request at their February 25th, 2026 meeting and recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors.

Um with the let's see if I can get this to work now.

It's frozen, right?

So as shown here, um the struck through language would be removed based on the planning commission's recommendation, and the language that is um bold and underlying would be added.

Um again, that's based on the planning commission's recommendation.

Um since the planning commission meeting, uh staff has given the proposed language additional consideration and is recommending not including the proposed additional language.

Uh, since the capital complex is no longer entirely uh surrounded by the downtown with the removal of the state office complex from the downtown character area.

So the state office complex is that area that's outlined in red that um is no longer part of the downtown.

So staff would recommend essentially removing the additional language and simply striking while it is not under the city's jurisdiction.

So it would read the Capitol Complex is the is a defining feature of downtown Carson City.

The Capitol Complex serves as a draw for visitors and residents and contributes to the character and vibrancy of the downtown plans for properties that are but the capital complex should be coordinated with state facilities, staff, and planners as appropriate.

And then with the recommended modifications, I do have a modification to the recommended motion.

And with that, I'm available for questions.

Does any member have a question?

Nope.

Is there any public comment on this item?

Mr.

French.

The ripple down effects from the R decisions as they have been put forward for us by the board was that we gave up what it sounds like we did have a say in to turn things over, change the wording for the state, and that ripple down is happening in this order as well.

I don't think we should give up any of our language.

If we can't define it well enough to include cooperation, we shouldn't have put it there in the first place, but I think it had a reason and it was put there by community uh authorization or at least input.

And so this is unfortunate in my mind.

But if it's just a clerical change, then I'm fine, but it's more to more to my point is that this is not a good uh start.

I mean, it's a start of a denigration of our rights and our positions or our community's feelings.

If this is a community's feeling overall, I'm fine.

I just it hurts every time I see we change our wording of our master plan.

It's flexible, I get that.

This shouldn't be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do you have any other comment on this item?

Sure, Miss Beasley.

I must be failing to understand.

I thought you said the planning commission recommended to this body that the wording be changed to be that the city does have jurisdiction over the state.

And now, even though that's what the planning commission recommended, you're recommending as staff that the supervisors not follow that, but instead just strike the wording entirely.

Does that capsulize what you just said?

The questions that all come up here, I'm sorry.

We sure right.

Um, no, the recommendation is to clarify that it is under our jurisdiction based on the date.

That was the original air that was in the master plan.

And so this is correcting that and saying those buildings are under the jurisdiction unless it was prior to 1971.

So that's what the statute requires for the date for jurisdiction.

The part that they're saying to strike is because after the planning commission did this, we removed the um property, a subject property from the downtown.

And so to be consistent with that, so yes, the buildings would be under our jurisdiction based on the date, but we're striking the part that says associated with the downtown, because that's not consistent with the prior action we took.

Okay, so you're telling me that somewhere else it still says that the city has jurisdiction, not in this particular little area, but you're you're telling me somewhere else in the master plan, it does say the words the city has jurisdiction over by removing while it is not we're taking that out, so it is subject to the jurisdiction.

Because somewhere else in the whole master plan, it says it is subject.

Just taking it out just doesn't address it.

It doesn't turn it around.

So I'm not sure why you aren't doing what the planning commission apparently approved, which is saying it is under the city's jurisdiction.

What am I missing?

We're removing the not.

That is what the planning commission recommended.

You're removing the whole phrase.

They did.

They recommended that part that you're talking about, the planning commission.

Uh okay.

Yeah, I'm just saying they did.

The part that's changing from the Planning Commission is just the very last sentence, the bolded part that says it was subject to downtown.

But we already made that decision.

It was just aligning it to match both activities.

But they will be subject to the master plan, just not the downtown rule.

I hope that helps.

Made it.

I don't know, maybe it's Denny's, it's clear as mud.

But anyway, they are subject.

Unless the bill isn't it 1971 by statute?

I think I remember.

April 23rd, 1971.

Yes.

So if it's older than that, the revised statutes lets them off.

They can't, they don't come to us.

Is there any other public comment?

Okay, I'll bring it up here then for a motion, which is on the screen.

Supervisor Shuti.

I move to accept the planning commission's recommendation to approve a request for a master plan text amendment subject to the removal of the recommended additional language based on the record of the Planning Commission meeting on February 25th, 2026, including evidence on the record as well as the ability to make all the findings as discussed on the record today.

Is there a second?

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

Thank you for that.

Okay.

We're now going to move on to agenda item 17A, discussion and possible action to adopt on second reading bill number 104, an ordinance revising various provisions of the utility ratepayer assistance program.

Mr.

Hone, may I have the title, please?

An ordinance relating to utilities amending various provisions governing utility payment assistance under the utility ratepayer assistance program to revise the amount and method of assistance and providing other matters properly related there too.

Thank you so much.

Mr.

Razor, have we received any uh potential changes to this?

No, for the record, Andrew Razor, Carson C.

Treasurer.

No, madam mayor, no change.

No changes have been recommended.

Okay.

Um any questions?

No.

Any public comment on this item?

Supervisor Giomi, a motion, please.

Uh I move to adopt on second reading bill number 104 ordinance number 2026-6, with the notation that the text of the bill itself incorrectly identifies it as ordinance 2026-7.

So we got the ordinance number 2017.

Right.

Sir Second.

I have a motion and a second for approval with the correction of the ordinance number.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

Uh it was unanimous.

Thank you so much for your work on that.

And thank your staff.

I know she worked hard on it too.

I voted late.

I got you.

Oh, clear ya.

Okay, we're now on to agenda item uh 18A, discussion of possible action regarding direction of the city manager on the initiation of due diligence.

Uh considering a new city hall.

Um, who's going to start us off?

Is that you, Stephanie?

Thank you, Mayor.

I will if that's all right.

Sure.

Mr.

Martin.

Thank you, Mayor, and good morning, board.

Um, for the record, Glenn Martel City Manager, just a slight correction on some comments that were made this morning.

Tom Metcalf and I did not go to high school together.

Uh, for those of you that know me, I I've been here in Carson City since 1977.

Uh I am a proud Carson High Senator.

Um I won't speak to Tom Metcalf's high school career, but I know it was in the state of Hawaii.

So on that, uh, the team is here today to follow up with you on the direction you gave us or gave previous staff last February when the Hoppe and May Adams presented their white paper.

At that time, you directed staff to progress and look at options regarding that particular white paper and any opportunities that might exist with the partnership of some kind with the Hop and May Adams Foundation to include potentially a new city hall.

And again, just for the record, anything we're talking about today is subject by all applicable NRS.

There is no getting around any prevailing wage.

There is no getting around any competitive bid recognitions or anything like that.

We've worked very closely with the DA's office to make sure that everything we're talking about today meets every uh dotted I and cross T with NRS.

I believe that this exploration that we've proceeded on since the eight months I've been here has found a solution that meets three three strategic goals that this board has set out.

First and foremost, centralized services for residents and business owners that engage with you and other members of its current government.

Investment in the city's own infrastructure.

And I believe most importantly, this investment shows confidence in the city's own downtown and supports additional synergistic opportunities, which may include new businesses or expansion of downtown businesses.

Going back in time, this all began as far back as May of 2015 when a previous uh board had the foresight to establish the extraordinary maintenance fund.

This fund has since helped with critical repairs on larger items such as roof repairs, major HVAC system upgrades, and even elevator repairs and up or replacement and upgrades.

And this fund is currently supporting the expansion of the juvenile detention facility and the associated TV movements acquired required with all of those activities.

In a broad sense, this project concept consists of preliminarily three 45,000 square feet in a three-story building, initially housing approximately 100 team members across Team Carson.

This includes HR, the assessor, the treasurer, the city manager's office, and the public guardian office, and finance.

All of those teams are currently housed in your city hall.

The city offices that per year direction and in the strategic plan looking to consolidate within this concept include the clerk or quarters office, the development engineering team, and economic and community or development, which we commonly refer to as the BRIC.

Stephanie and Robert and Sherry are here to discuss the history, research, and financeability of this concept.

Finally, everything presented here today is a result of a lot of hard work from your team.

That being said, we are here today to get your direction to proceed forward or not with all preparatory tasks associated with any necessary agreements, and it is subject to change based on findings and information that may come to note or be presented in the process of that due diligence for the benefit of Carson City and its residents.

I'd just like to note, Mayor 2, for the record, as I said earlier, there is no getting around prevailing wage, and there's no getting around the non-competitive bid process in this proposal or any other proposal we would bring to you as your staff.

I would also like to clarify that there is no preset deal to sell City Hall to Steve Neighbors, the Hopp and May Adams Foundation, or other entity or any other entity at this time.

That is your city hall.

That is to be discussed if we and when we have to look at moving out of that particular facility.

So with that, I'll hand it over to the team.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Ms.

Good morning.

For the record, Stephanie Hicks, Deputy City Manager.

I'd like to start out our presentation this morning by providing you a little bit of background and history on our city hall discussions.

As Mr.

Martell expressed, these conversations have been in the making for well over five years, and even longer than that if you go back to extraordinary maintenance.

But as we discussed last month at the board retreat, the Board of Supervisors approved the Carson City Strategic Plan, the 2022 to 2026 strategic plan in September of 21.

And we're currently embarking on updating our plan for the next five years.

At that time and during the planning process, there were discussions about citywide space need assessments, relocating the clerk recorder, and acquiring or leasing new office space to create a centralized customer service center.

This is where discussions about the new city hall began, and specific tactics were developed to guide staff in pursuing them.

In July 21, staff explored a potential opportunity to acquire property at 600 East William Street, with all or part of that purchase being offset by an exchange of other city property.

The office space at East Williams Street is significantly larger than the city property, and the idea was that additional space could offer new opportunities for growth and improve public service by consolidating the city's most visited offices into one central location.

Robert will go into a little bit more detail about some of the properties that we that I reference here, but also others that we looked at through this five-year process and why those properties ultimately we aren't bringing those forward to you for discussion today.

In 2021 and 2022, we were staff pursued an owner's offer to acquire 3850 Arrowhead Drive, and that is the old Harley Davidson building.

At the February 25th board retreat, 25th, 2022, the Board of Supervisors and staff again discussed our real property and space needs, the need for relocating various departments and elected offices, and whether we were going to expand the current city hall, lease property, or build new.

And that included conversations regarding the 3850 Arrowhead Drive, as well as several other properties.

The direction that was given at that time by the Board of Supervisors was that they felt it was very important for City Hall to remain downtown.

At the September 1st, 2022 board meeting, the board was presented with an update of the city's space needs and options for addressing future space needs at the courthouse.

Staff continued in 2023 and 2024 to explore other potential options, including the potential to build a new city hall and parking garage along East Musser Street.

That proposal from the Hop and May Adams Foundation was brought to the February 21st, 2025 board retreat for discussion.

And as a result, staff was directed to start meetings and discussions with both the foundation as well as the state of Nevada to explore whether that proposal was feasible.

Over the past five years, five to pardon me, over the past five years, we've come to the board five times to discuss these different space needs and different conversations, not including those that were specific to the courthouse.

We've had several other conversations that were specific to the courthouse space needs.

So as I said before, the conversation regarding this has been well in the making for over five years, and that brings us to this meeting today.

So going back to the February 2022 when we had the discussion with this board about the possible locations for the new city hall, the board made it very clear that downtown was the preferred location.

I think Mr.

Sedich from Nevada Builders Alliance actually brought up some of the key considerations that I wanted to discuss with you this morning about why downtown, why is that an important location for our city hall?

The existing city hall is currently located downtown, and that puts us in close proximity to the state capital, the legislature, and other state buildings, which makes coordinating with those entities easier.

City Hall should be placed in the heart of civic life.

It is its civic center.

The new City Hall is also envisioned as a cornerstone of downtown revitalization and designed to enhance economic vitality, attract visitors, and improve lifestyle amenities among our Carson City residents.

Downtown areas are usually the most accessible parts of a city with public transportation, major roads, and pedestrian infrastructure.

And being downtown allows City Hall to be close to businesses, cultural institutions, and public gatherings.

It will consolidate city administration, increase our operational efficiency, and provide modern, accessible space for public engagement and city services.

There's also a symbolic importance to placing a city hall in a prominent central location, which reinforces its visibility and importance.

A city hall serves as a symbol of local government and civic pride, and we are the state capital of Nevada.

City Hall being downtown directly supports Carson City's strategic plan goals, including economic development by being the cornerstone of downtown redevelopment and revitalization, efficient government by consolidating our city services and increasing our operational efficiencies, quality of life by improving lifestyle amenities for all residents, fostering growth in our businesses downtown and providing accessible space for public engagement, and sustainable infrastructure.

We often talk about we're not planning for today.

The mayor has said we're planning for 10 years out, but in this case, we're actually planning out 30 to 50 years for our future generations.

And that's an important consideration to make as far as having sustainable infrastructure for our future.

One other thing that I just wanted to touch on was in a in addition to being in alignment with the city's strategic plan, City Hall, located in downtown is in alignment with the recently adopted master plan.

Chapter 6 of the Master Plan states that the downtown Carson City is the heart and soul of the community.

It also encourages us to seek public-private partnerships for catalyst projects and prioritize downtown revitalization as a key community goal.

Goal 6.2, facilitating the revitalization of vacant and underutilized properties really is exactly what we're looking to do here.

And 6.2C encourages infill of vacant properties and the redevelopment of underutilized properties when adaptive reuse is not feasible.

This goal supports opportunities to consolidate smaller lots where necessary to increase the viability of redevelopment.

And it also encourages collaboration with property owners, developers, and the community to define the desired mix of uses and the parameters for larger redevelopments.

Goal 6.2F encourages seeking opportunities for public-private partnerships on individual projects with the potential to play a major role in or serve as a future model for revitalization efforts.

In addition, Chapter 5 of the Carson City Master Plan states that the city will continue to approach economic development opportunities, using a collaborative approach that leverages available state resources and encourages cooperation between public and private sector and with other agencies and jurisdictions as appropriate.

Goal 6.4 promotes revitalization and reinvestment in underutilized areas.

And 5.4D promotes providing public services and public facilities necessary to sit sustain a high quality of life and attract business investment.

Good morning, supervisors.

For the record, Robert Nellis, City Asset Services Manager.

If I could direct your attention to your board packet on pages 232 and 233, there's a two city hall options tables.

Um, in particular, the checklist table that shows uh 10 criteria across eight different facilities that were considered at one time through the history that Stephanie just went through with you.

So I'll just walk uh through that really quick.

So what we're comparing here is the potential building a new city hall to an existing facility in Carson City.

And some of the criteria we're looking at is proximity to downtown, whether it has the optimal square footage that the city needs for the time horizon that Stephanie referenced, we're attempting not to undersize something that we quickly outgrow and then need to come back and ask for more square footage.

So we also don't need something that's too big for our needs to where we're a vacant space and need to lease out space.

Deferred maintenance is also a big consideration.

Anything that we're looking at uh that would be an existing facility, it's unknown deferred maintenance.

So we'd have to do extensive research and reports to see what that may cost.

In certain cases, we may be talking of tear down to the frame of a structure, which could result in you know, remediation and all that potentially could be more expensive than building brand new.

Does the new facility have a possibility for a new boardroom?

So instead of being here at the community center, could we be in a new facility?

And when we say new, it doesn't mean larger.

It may be the same size, it just may be a different, you know, maybe slightly larger.

You know, it's not we're talking extravagance here.

Is it within the redevelopment area?

So is the city willing to invest its own funds into our redevelopment area to encourage other development?

Does the option presented to us in another facility provide the potential for private financing?

So the city isn't fronting the whole bill to construct up front and make a large payment, but can we somehow make payments over time?

And then does it meet the construction timeline to move the clerk recorder out of the courthouse, get them in this new facility, whatever that may be, whether it's a new construction or an existing facility somewhere.

Will we be able to get the clerk recorder out in time to begin that construction on the courthouse without having to make several moves of moving the clerk recorder out and then move them into a new facility and creating all that disruption?

The last three are italicized on purpose because those are strategic plan tactics that I want to draw your attention to.

Uh so taking in close consideration whether whatever option might provide a centralized customer service center for the city, and whether again it accommodates the clerk recorder, public administrators' office in that design, and is there sufficient parking?

That that's a big one that's not thought about a lot.

Um we we look at it closely.

Do we have enough for not only the employees but the public as well as if there was some emergency, could we run elections out of this new facility if needed?

And we didn't have access to the community center for some reason.

So why a new city hall?

Uh the current city hall is undersized, it's functionally outdated, and it's insufficient insufficient to meet our future operational needs.

As most of you know, it was a former bank building that we essentially retrofitted to turn into a city hall, and this worked fine for many years, but now we need to look to the future.

The board has approved the courthouse renovation project and the relocation of the clerk recorder's office, so we're on a time schedule to move forward with that.

And right now, what we're looking at as far as the renovation work to begin it needs to happen at the beginning of fall of 2027.

So that's our drop dead date.

We need to be moving the clerk recorder out prior to that date.

So any option we're looking at needs to meet that.

Hoppin May Adams Foundation has provided a build-to-suit option for us, so they'd be putting up their own own land, own money to do that.

And it does provide for a design for the centralized customer service center that we that's a strategic plan tactic.

It also consolidates city administration, increases our operational efficiency, and enhances our civic infrastructure.

So with an option like this, we would be building or investing in our own long-term ownership of infrastructure, not lease space where we never recoup those funds.

If we receive your approval today to move forward, there are several movements that would happen with other agencies that are critical to success.

Beginning with at the end of this calendar year, uh Vitality would need to vacate the health and human services building on the second floor.

And we plan to bring an item back to the board at the next board meeting if that's approved today, which would then allow the Health and Human Services Group to vacate the annex on the corner of North Rook and Beverly Drive.

What this does is it opens up that annex for public works to get in there to retrofit that annex for the Department of Alternative Sentencing that's currently in the courthouse.

That way they can move out.

We can begin construction of the of the courthouse in winter of 2027, and then complete the construction of the new city hall by March of 2029.

So you see, it's a very tight window.

If we begin today, we have a three-year window for completion.

In the spring of 2029, the clerk record and a brick offices would then move to the new city hall, which would then allow the public defender's office, currently in leaf space, to move into the brick building, which we would retrofit for their needs.

Lastly, we come to October 2029, where we can complete the first floor of the courthouse, which is where the clerk recorders currently house the district attorney's office would then move into the first floor of the courthouse by then, which would then allow us to complete the second and third floors and courtrooms at the courthouse.

So we'd be completely done by January of 2030.

So last but not least, um Sherry Russell.

I'm the chief financial officer for Carson City.

And uh so I first want to say these are very preliminary estimates.

Um that is not to say that it will come in much lower.

We haven't done bids.

This is a very preliminary estimate.

Um I believe it's very conservative, so I do believe it will come in lower.

Um we plan to own the land and the building.

I saw some of the public comment were concerned that we would be leasing forever.

At the end of whatever happens here, we will own the land and the building.

And there are no new taxes expected as part of this proposal.

So those are some of the things I read in the comments that I wanted to make sure to address right off the bat.

Um, and again, as we're looking at this, we don't have any any any estimates or um bids coming in yet.

So um so for financing, it's all um just can we do it and how can we do it?

And so we looked at a geo bond and a revenue bond, those are obviously our cheapest uh methods of financing.

We get very good rates and we have flexibility in the payment schedule, so we try to use those most times.

Um, however, there's also the lease option purchase, which has its own benefits because this is a developer, they currently own the land and they're fronting all the money.

It's easier to do the lease option purchase for a few years, and then have off ramps so that we can get out of that as soon as possible, bond and use the cheaper option.

So that's what that's what we're looking at is kind of a blended, but again, nothing is set in stone.

When it is set in stone, we will be back before you with um an approval.

Um I wanted to, oh, and I also want to mention that both um both of these options, either a lease or a bond, they will impact the city's debt ratio.

If we pay money for something and we own a building at the end, it is debt one way or another.

So we will that will impact our debt ratio.

And it will have to be approved by taxation, the debt management commission.

It has to go through all the steps for either of these processes.

Can I ask you a question?

Where are we on debt ratio right now?

Can you just uh we are like 50%?

I mean, I think we're actually under 50%.

Very favorable.

Yes.

Yes, very favorable.

Um so now I want to direct your attention to the last page in your packet, 234.

Um, it is a um schedule.

You saw this during the 2025, February 2025 presentation.

I have updated these numbers.

Um, but the top section is our potential revenue, the potential funding for all of these projects, and then the potential expenses.

And so I'm gonna focus on the revenue for just a second.

Um, as discussed by Mr.

Martel, the um extraordinary maintenance fund is the first on the list there.

Uh, we do have quite a bit of savings in there, which we've been anticipating because we knew we were gonna have to remodel this courthouse at some point in time.

Um, and so money has shifted a little bit, but I'll explain that in a moment.

And then every year it's funded by a little over a million dollars.

We fund it by five cents of property tax.

Um, this is NRS 354.6105, is how we have to spend these funds, which is all facilities, maintenance, and equipment in excess of five years.

We cannot spend this money on roads.

We cannot spend this money on salaries, it has to be spent on once we put it in there, it has to be spent on facilities and um capital over five years that the city owns.

Um the next funding source is the redevelopment revolving fund, and um we have been saving a little money in there because just recently the courthouse is in the redevelopment district.

So we've decided to spend this money for the courthouse and use the extraordinary maintenance fund to fund the juvenile facility.

So they kind of just swapped, which is fine, we're allowed to do that.

Um so the redevelopment fund, we are focusing a lot of that money on, like I said, the courthouse, and then as we do the city hall, the purpose of that money will shift.

Um, but I have here undesignated, which is projected for the next several years.

Again, this is very very conservative.

I expect those numbers to come in a little higher.

Um we have a little bit of general fund, and I will well let me talk about that now.

So the redevelopment districts are going to sunset in 2031, the first district, and then the second district sunsets in 2034, meaning the money will be allocated back to its normal tax base.

It'll go back to the general fund, it'll go back to the capital fund, senior center, the normal distribution for our property taxes.

Um that carve out rate will be gone and it'll go back.

And so as it is sunset or dissolved, um, there will be extra money in the general fund.

And so we're proposing that whatever payment we're making is going to be split between the general fund and redevelopment for a couple years until both sunsets, where that payment will come all out of the general fund.

So let me let me just stop there.

The last thing I have here is the $36 million bond or whatever that bond will be based on the cost.

Um, if you go down to the expense section, there's two 18 million dollars for building it.

So that really offsets the project um bond will be spent on the city hall.

Um it's just an in and and out.

The debt service payment is where we'll we'll get into that in a minute.

Um but you can see here I have expenses for the courthouse split over three years, uh, and then um, and then I've got all the vitality moving and alternative sentencing, um, all the movement there, the juvenile facility project is already in development right now in design.

Uh, and so I've got that money potentially being spent during construction next year in 2027.

Um, the public defender's office, again, it was mentioned that is leased right now, and they currently need more space, so we're looking at a second lease, which is gonna be about 110,000 a year.

Um, now this is reimbursed by DIDs to be fair, but still that's still tax money.

And so um, you know, I don't think it's a good idea to lease anything for a government for the rest of our lives.

So I think it's a good plan to try to get them in a city-owned building, the brick, um, which the financing will be complete for the brick in 2028.

It will be 100% ours.

We will have no more debt on it, just maintenance.

Uh so now getting to the debt service.

So I do have here 30 years at 5%.

That is really conservative.

Um, right now I think we can get 4%.

So it's a whole basis point higher than we would ever expect to pay.

But again, we want to be conservative in this.

I don't want to put a low payment in there and then have something higher come to you later.

So um we'll also get the best deal we can get if we can get something for 25 years, that's gonna lower our interest total interest paid.

So um, so that'll get us the lowest, the best deal ever, or as the best as we can get.

Um so I want to draw your attention to the little red boxes at the bottom.

It says the C tax pledge revenue.

That is our current debt right now for CTAX.

And that debt paid for um the sheriff's facility, it paid for the EOC.

It pays for a lot of our our facilities and capital improvements.

There's a lot of capital improvements in there as well.

Um, but you'll see in 2031, um, it drops to 2.2 million dollars.

Now, usually this C tax pledge that what comes out of the general fund for debt service is about three to three and a half million dollars.

And that's been consistent since I started working here over 15 years ago.

Um, and so when it drops to 2.2 million, that's when we can take on that um that one million dollars or half of what we expect the debt to be.

It could it actually can it's weird that it it lines up with the um with the dissolving of the first district, but it does.

So we're gonna have increased revenue in the general fund and we will still be below that three to three and a half million for debt service, which is great.

Um, and then in 2034, you see it drops again to 567,000.

So then the whole debt service would be able to be funded through the general through the general fund C tax debt service, like we're doing right now, and we have done with all of our buildings.

This this is not increasing any taxes, it's just we are paying off debt, and so we can't afford to add new debt.

Um, I will also say one more thing.

Um, underneath the total expenses is I have an ending balance there, and that's kind of the cushion.

So of all of our expenses and revenue that we have, there's kind of an ongoing what if the bid comes in higher?

What if there's something that is we're not anticipating that pops in?

We have a little bit of cushion.

There's extra money just in case something happens.

Um if it doesn't, obviously we have plenty of deferred maintenance to spend it on and other buildings and um things throughout this.

What number is that, Sherry?

Sorry.

It's right here.

So it's the ending balance each year has a different um number.

So the first year, obviously there's a lot.

It's 21 million.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, it's above.

I got it.

Thank you.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

I know the team is happy to answer any questions as well.

Can I ask one question about the redevelopment authority?

I just one of the comments that I had from people is a misunderstanding of the redevelopment funds.

Um, so I just I I wanted to clarify or have you confirmed that um you know, those redevelopment taxes are not something that would go away.

They're they're they're no it's not something that has to be reissued.

It's just the dissolution of a district is already collecting taxes, and the plan with a redevelopment district is the funds generated in excess of what was collected when the district was formed, have to stay in the district.

Yes.

So if it's a little carve-out rate, so of your current property tax rate, if your property is in that deck district, we take a little piece of that and we say this belongs to the um the redevelopment.

And so everybody in that district pays into that, but it's a normal property tax rate, it doesn't change.

Um, so the city and all of the departments in the city and even the school district, we all give up those tax rates in order to have that redevelopment district.

Right.

But there's no increase that that's there's no increase, it just goes back to the normal distribution, which would include the school district would get additional money with their additional money, the water substitution service, they would get their their money.

Um, and the other thing about the redevelopment district is we we are allowed to fix roads, but within the redevelopment district, we can't do the neighborhood roads and and citywide.

So we've done a lot of sidewalks and and road projects within those districts, what we can do, but it's it's not it's not sufficient for for citywide roads.

So Sherry, when I'm I'm looking at this um spreadsheet here, unless I'm missing it.

Um we also could add to the bottom line of available potential dollars, the sale of our existing city hall.

That is not reflected in here.

It is not.

I do have a little comment at the top that our sale of currency halls approximately 4.2 million is what we might get for it now.

Again, like Glenn, like um Mr.

Martell said it's not in the works.

I mean, we it's in the works, but we have no idea who we're gonna sell it to.

We have to just go.

We have to do the process.

So um, so that's the amount we're estimating right now.

But it's not included in any of these numbers.

So that has an opportunity to um reduce some cost in other areas here.

We can use those dollars to mitigate it does, you know, it does.

I'm not sure.

And I the reason I didn't include it is I don't know when we're gonna get it.

If we're gonna wait until we're moving to sell it, if we're gonna sell it and with a contingency to stay in it till we move.

I mean, I I don't we don't know yet.

So well, and I and I think that's why I'm I really do want off-ramps and payment options that let us reduce the debt.

So just because we started a certain level, I would like bonds and things structured for the opportunity to reduce those loads.

Absolutely, right?

Because that that's just a good prudent thing, right?

Any time you can reduce interest expense.

Absolutely.

We certainly want to avail ourselves of that.

So I wanted to make sure that's the same.

You know, um refunding options to decrease debt as much as possible.

And we've done that often.

We have done that often, yes.

To get the dollar down there.

I think the one of the most important um discussion points for me today is to understand, because I well I I think there's two different things.

The public says, do you listen versus do we read and comprehend what you've asked for?

And those two things do not always necessarily align in their minds versus our minds.

I read every single public comment that comes in.

I listen to every single ounce of testimony that is provided, but then it's our job to take those comments and summarize those into um actionable points of view, right?

To say, all right, these are the nine things that I could glean from reading through um their public comments.

And one of them for me is always can't help myself being the money person, I I just can't help it, right?

So tell me the difference from the cost center for a remodel, right?

Because there's a there was a lot of proposals and had deferred maintenance and things of that nature.

And so I'm really interested in because how do I know I'm getting the best deal for the people?

Because in the end, it is about getting the best deal for the people.

We're not gonna all agree.

I wish that we could get 100% of everybody agreeing, but we know that's never gonna happen.

But I'm most interested to help make my decisions is so how much per square foot is new construction, and I don't know if we have all the answers.

I'm just hoping that, and what's the benchmark for taking a 50-year property or a 40-year property and rehabbing it?

Do we have asbestos?

Do we have to put in new mechanicals?

I I'm looking to say, is it I don't know.

I thought when we built the fire department, I was going to uh the new fire station that that was the top of all things, and I thought those were empty bays.

So I had a hard time understanding the price per square footage.

But Robert, do you have is there any benchmarks or anything that would help us up here knowing should we be is it in the best interest to build something new that's good for 30 years, or take a 30-year-old building and invest in it, and will it last 30 years?

Is that make sense what I'm trying to get to?

Uh certainly, mayor, for the record, Robert Nellis.

Um I hesitate to give, you know, whatever today's number is, you know, it's just today's answer.

It's just today's answer.

Yeah.

You're not tied to it forever.

Right.

And each structure, each facility is an unknown.

Like the board would have to give us direction to pursue a certain facility, like we did for a good example would be 600 East William.

We pursued that facility.

We were able to get appraisals.

We're able to get uh experts in there to give us an assessment on remediation that may be required and such.

you know oil prices and such uh it's just today's answer yeah you're not tied to it forever right and and each structure each facility is is an unknown like the board would have to give us direction to pursue a certain facility like we did for a good example would be 600 east wheel we pursued that facility we were able to get appraisals we're able to get uh experts in there to give us an assessment on remediation that may be required and such so depending on what those reports inform us then the cost per square foot could drastically change so it's hard to say you know what that might be you know it's on a per facility basis you know new construction you know could easily hover around you know 900 you know 400 to 900 per square foot um it really just depends what you're putting into it you know how you know are we putting marble you know floors and you know those sorts of things we're not doing that yeah sorry yeah we're not reasonable reasonable construction since you brought up 600 east Williams can I can I ask it my recollection was and and this is this is one of the things that I I was really concerned about when we were looking at temporarily moving the clerk recorder there wasn't the cost around two million dollars is wasn't that the number for a rehab of one floor correct yes we were looking at one floor there and the first floor yeah we originally thought hopefully we can just get away with one million but as we dig in further you're really looking at almost double that like you're saying so and so that would have been two million dollars that we would have invested on a TI tenant improvement for a building we don't own correct that would have been pardon the French pissed away right you within three or four years right I mean I mean that's and did not the appraisal of that building when we looked at it come in under what they were asking it did so that's a great point because there's no guarantee that the seller of the building is going to agree with our appraisal so we can go down several months.

Well they wouldn't even agree with our lease terms.

I mean they were they sat in here wouldn't even agree to our lease terms let alone a purchase term um so I just I you know I mean I think a critical component of this is us as we said uh and I've said I've the whole time I've been on the board and this board has said even before I've been here is that if if we're gonna do something and spend money it should be money that is invested in the community as opposed to money that is going to a property owner that doesn't live here um and we will never see again.

Yeah we get use out of it but the use out of it is is is short term.

And in this case that's two million dollars that would have been gone.

One other question about um if if we were to look at rehabbing a building outside of the redevelopment area those funds no longer become available.

Those funds cannot be used outside of the redevelopment area right so unless we're rehabbing a building within the redevelopment area whatever funding that is set aside there is is off the table.

Correct.

Okay thank you and I could bounce off of that just for a minute uh probably somewhere around 2015 uh Randy Munn through the district attorney's office opined that it is appropriate to spend redevelopment money outside the specific borders of a redevelopment area so long as you can provide a direct nexus to the redevelopment area um I want to talk about I'm just running through in my mind the public comments that that we received and so there was a a comment that somehow this is a favor to a particular developer particular contractor or are those issues and I I want to put that to bed it simply isn't true.

One of the things if we were to do this for negotiation and I I don't know if um the project owner is amenable to it but it is imperative that the public and I think us as a board know that the project is bid it is taxpayers dollars so it will not be granted to a friend or somebody that went to school with somebody or any of that.

So I would like the condition Carroll acres is the city's um contract that ensures that we follow the law at all times.

And so if we were to approve this I would like a a condition that Miss Acres participates in the review watching opening whatever it is in the bid process because we also want to be able to certify that the rules were followed right it is the public's money and so I just I can't see me approving this without the bids being reviewed and and done with a city staff I had I had the same concern in my and this my understanding is this has already been discussed and the developer has agreed.

I just um I'm putting it out there on the record.

Um it was a concern of mine as well.

And my understanding is that um is that Carol will be involved in the bid opening and it's already been agreed to by the developer.

So I I wonder how that works when the proposed motion says that you're gonna enter into negotiations with Happen May Adam Foundations or its partners for the design construction and eventual purchase of a new city hall.

I that doesn't sound like we're going out to bid to me.

No, yeah, it does.

Well, I can.

So there so they're the developer, but they will be going out to bid, and we are going to um I guess oversee or make sure that it's done appropriately.

I I think I think we should require the developer to bid it.

I think that's what the whole point I'm trying to make is.

And if we don't think the language here is strong enough, uh I want it to be.

Um and I don't think he has an issue with it.

But he's let me make myself clear on something else or in my mind.

The park, the parking garage and the city hall is the start of a project.

The city hall will belong to us.

And so the city itself, right?

It'll get a lease option to buy, whatever methodology during construction, but at the end of the day, we'll sell a bond when it's the cheapest that we can and get in there and we'll own it.

We'll parcel that out and it'll become city property.

The parking garage.

Is it am I correct in my understanding that that is a joint venture on the parking garage?

So it will be owned by the umprofit or whatever that they're recommending, and that will be a shared we're 200 spaces of responsibility, their 200 spaces of responsibility.

Correct.

Um the charges that will happen, the city's portion.

Um, people will not be charged to park to come in and pay your water bill or whatever.

You may be given a little chit ticket, whatever voucher, whatever that you slide into the thing and gave you your free parking.

Um, but that the profits from the 200 spaces that are done for parking events and special things on the weekends or at night or things of that nature will be then used to maintain the parking garage, and then any excesses would be put in the plaza.

Do I have that?

I I just want it on the record of where you're going in negotiations.

Is that our starting point on the parking garage, Mr.

Martell?

Yes, madam mayor, that's correct.

And and again, that that is the rough outline that was discussed in last year's white paper, right?

There, there's no new news here today.

Again, what we're requesting is the ability to go forth on your behalf and work on those details, even as Supervisor White just said, what does that agreement look like?

Who is responsible for what?

What is the bid committee look like?

What is the ultimate ownership of that parking garage potential partnership and this town square look like?

All of that is yet to be determined, pending your approval to go forth and look at all that today.

You're not approving any of that today.

That's not what we're requesting.

We're just requesting your authority to go out and negotiate with this particular landowner and work out a lot of those details and bring that back to you and be able to say, here's what we've been able to do.

Does this meet your intent?

And you can adjust and and we can move forward as necessary at that time, should you approve today.

Okay.

Uh Supervisor Giomi.

I I you answered a lot of the questions that I had.

I I I guess uh just because the you know, I I realize that when you prepare a staff report, you have a suggested motion, and we we can either follow that or not follow that.

I I get that.

Um so I'm not I'm not totally locked into that, but um the the suggested motion is just a little bit loose to me.

I just I'd like to make sure that there's language in there, and I'll I'll work on this in my head if if I make the motion to uh to just direct staff to to come back with a formal plan or or you know, detailing uh extensively detailing the financial components of it because I there's not enough for me to just um you know bless this and say, you know, bring the bulldozers on.

Um there needs to be more obviously a lot more because the off ramps are hugely important and how that works with the timing and we rely a lot on you, Sherry, with with that and and the financial component here makes sense.

Um so I I appreciate you saying that, and I think that's that's a critical part here.

I appreciate that, Supervisor Jomie, and that is absolutely our intent.

Again, as as Robert mentioned and Sherry as well, we're using numbers that go back to when they were planning this white paper a year and a half ago, right?

They're a year and a half old.

So anything we talk about today is relative compared to costs, and and that is a key component, but I cannot go out and negotiate.

Staff cannot go out and negotiate or even talk about details on your behalf until we have that authority.

Again, everything you're seeing today is based on historical research in the in the white paper that was presented.

So if you choose to move forward today, we're looking forward to bringing those numbers back and showing you what you get potentially for the taxpayers' dollars and the and the additional benefits of that.

But again, from a time perspective and certainly a public perception transparency aspect, we certainly want to move forward under your authority.

Supervisor Shuti.

Thank you.

And so if we could briefly just discuss uh the costs, and I'd also like to include uh the what was brought up by the Curry Street, some of the background and the why uh through looking at the different options, why a new building is considered the best option.

I think it would be helpful for everyone to have a better understanding.

So with um expanding city hall, and it shows 37 million um to add the floors, then the cons, it talks about um the dated construction, the insufficient parking, um what third floor is available, but also the 37 million, if if I'm not mistaken, there is still added expense to that, right?

A bond, that kind of thing.

So if you could just briefly speak to each of those kind of pros and cons.

Uh certainly, Supervisor Shuty for the record, Robert Nellis.

Um I think one of the first things to point out is or the city manager, Mr.

Martell pointed out that you know, these a lot of these numbers were at points in time, you know, and Stephanie went through the various stages of their you know since 2021.

So a lot of these numbers may be more by now.

So they're they're placeholders in the sense that yeah, we look at okay, that's what it could cost, but you know, we haven't you know, we'd have to thoroughly analyze everything, you know, bring bring back studies on each and every one of these.

But the intent here is to look at the eight options that were essentially brought to us by different means at different points in time, just as a way of comparing to a new city hall.

It's not to say this is an exhaustive list.

If you went out in Carson City, compared every single available building, how would it compare?

That's not the intent of this.

So again, it's just the intent is these different opportunities were brought to the city at these points in time.

We looked at them.

Uh they didn't check all of the boxes that we needed them to check, so we did not pursue them further.

But yeah, walking through, I can walk through certainly some of these, uh, like expanding the existing city hall.

The footprint we see on the existing city hall is an expanded footprint.

It's not the original footprint of the Bank of America that was in place.

So there was it was built at the time to conceive of going higher.

But since then, there's been new building standards and such.

So there's substantial cost in trying to go higher on existing structure.

Not to mention, I don't think we're including in here costs.

I yeah, I don't see it for we'd have to relocate everyone in the existing city hall to a leased facility somewhere else, retrofit that facility as we're kind of walking through with supervisor Xiomi just on the clerk recorder as an example, you know, spending potentially millions of dollars, relocate staff to another facility while we're working on an expensive two or three stories in addition on the existing city hall, still not achieving the square footage that would be the long-term square footage we need.

So by the time you start looking at all that cost, then the question becomes why not build new at that point.

You know, that's that's really probably the best example, and all the others are examples of yes, you maybe you can get in for an initial per purchase price, but that that's listed there.

However, until we were directed by the board, like we were at the Bank of America building, like get an actual appraisal, see if it number one, is it worth worth what they're asking?

Yeah, do all the due diligence on the studies, you know, to make sure there isn't some extensive remediation work that needs to be done because we're talking about some facilities that especially if they predate 1980, we can just guess that there's likely to be extensive costs there.

So by the time you start doing going down that road, our timeline for moving the clerk recorder out in time, you know, to wait for appraisals, studies, and then maybe get to the point where we don't have a willing seller at the end of that.

We we would just keep chasing a new new offer, you know, and never get to the point where we're actually settling on what's actually affordable.

And and by doing that, as time goes on, then the cost of actually building new continues to creep up on us.

So that affordability starts potentially getting away from us.

So I don't know if that answers your question thoroughly on what you were looking for.

It it's it's helpful.

Um I just, you know, looking at the cost and price, and then looking at the cons.

I I've heard uh a few times today about the once the bond is paid off, we're looking at 70 million potentially, which I understand was very conservative, and so it's likely to be less.

Very likely.

Does that mean that even if other options were considered?

My understanding is there would still be a bond, and there would still be the payments.

And so the numbers that we're seeing here for cost and price doesn't represent the true cost and price because they aren't um it's not reflecting remodel, it's not reflecting remediation, it's not reflecting all the the other variables that we don't know what those variables are.

We don't know the conditions of some of these buildings without an assessment, that kind of thing.

So what we're seeing for cost and price doesn't really reflect the true cost and price to the city.

I is that correct?

Yeah, yes, Supervisor Shitty Robernellis.

I think that's a fair statement.

We we can't get at the true cost until we would actually go through the process of studies and then get contractor bids, that sort of thing to really understand what we're looking at.

So all we have here is asking price, potential guesses on what might need to be remediated, and it's enough to say, well, if it's not checking all the boxes, by the time you're not checking all the different boxes, we could be getting very expensive.

We're already behind what we're looking for.

One more question.

Uh the this um office space on Curry.

Can you speak to that a little bit?

Has it been looked into previously?

Yeah, so my understanding is the Curry Street uh may have come available for sale in uh November of 2025.

And and we had looked at Curry Street, I can't remember the year, um, but we actually looked way back when we were originally thinking of moving the clerk recorder out to some space there.

Uh ultimately decided not to pursue that option back then, and we had talked to uh the owners representative a few times about you know when may it become available.

I remember we were discussing that when we were looking at the old Bank of America building as an option.

So at the time there were tenants, it didn't make sense for us to really pursue it and didn't necessarily check all the other boxes that we're looking for of the you know, meeting the strategic plan tactics, etc.

So we ended up not pursuing that.

And I my understanding is it came available later uh in 2025, but that wasn't on our radar at the time.

We'd already been given direction by the board to pursue this Hop and May Adams foundation proposal.

So I think that's part of just the name of the game, right?

You know, there's always you could give approval today.

There could be something that comes available tomorrow.

And then at some point we have to have a decision on when do we move forward with the best information we have available to us at the time.

Supervisor Horton.

Just real quick, Sherry.

Uh this morning in public comment, uh, somebody mentioned that we needed more information about the off-ramps and and you know, things like that.

And we will get that going down the road.

But in the simplest terms, could you explain the off-ramps and why they're necessary and what the benefit is?

Sure.

Um, so um we're calling them off ramps, but it's really like a prepayment.

So we get the the we'll do the big you know lease agreement.

Um, and then you know, one, two, five, ten, we'll have different times when the um lease will allow it, the lease option purchase will allow us to go in bond and just buy it out from under them.

Um, and so obviously the payments go along with the leases, so we won't pay interest for 30 years on a lease purchase option, which would be a higher rate than a bond.

Um, we would pay a few years, maybe you know, one, two, three, and then bond with when it's you know, low interest rates, best time to bond, and um and buy the building, and then it's just our debt cheaper.

We can set the the payments how we want, they're more flexible.

Um, but of course, any bond we do, there's a process.

So we'll we'll come back with an intent to issue and have all the details for you.

We have to go debt management, taxation.

So it will be very well vetted.

But the price, the price isn't gonna change.

Sorry to jump in there.

I mean, if the you would envision that the lease with the option, whatever we call it, lease option for my simple mind.

Yes, would have the sale price in it.

Yes, so that at those marks one, three, five, ten.

It's not gonna be a reassessment of the building at that time.

No, it will have prepayment options written into it.

So the one, two, three, five years, that will be our our off ramp to buy it at a certain agreed upon price during those years.

Uh Mr.

Martelly, thank you, Mayor.

Just want to reiterate a couple things as Sherry just said.

Um, absolutely that that's what we're looking at is the best timing to use the taxpayers' dollars to invest in the own our own infrastructure downtown.

And secondly, Supervisor Shuty, to your point, uh, again, I just want to reinforce your team's experience because one one in particular that came up and and popped up on the market and went off the market was King Street, the old building on the northwest corner of King Street.

That popped up on the market, and we got some inquiries very quickly about hey, can you look at this?

And Robert and the rest of the team, myself looked at that and said, Well, we know by looking at that, we know being in the area, we know and based on our experiences that King Street didn't work right away because it was not enough square footage and there was not enough parking in that particular building.

So, as you said, we're we can go down a certain distance, two or three steps, and we know based on experience, based on guidance, based on understanding your intent, that doesn't work for where you want to be.

So you're right in that observing not all of these have the same level of detail, but that's based on the experience that your team has put into this and said, No, that doesn't work.

Check, move on, trying to be again to supervisor's white point, supervisor white's point, sorry, to be efficient with the staff's time and make sure that we're getting the biggest bang for our investment of time and getting you the best information we can.

Thank you.

Um, Supervisor White.

Thank you.

Uh Robert, they're on the City Hall options page, the place where the boxes are checked with the Capitol uh plaza, it's noted that that actually has more square footage than uh we think we need, but the box for providing centralized customer service centers, not marked.

Can you tell me why that Capital Plaza would not provide a centralized customer service center?

Uh certainly Supervisor White, uh again, Robert Nels for the record.

Uh because it's four separate buildings, it while they're large, it doesn't provide for the centralized counter.

So you could have different counters, for instance, and different buildings, but you wouldn't have the actual centralized counter in one building.

So you would you just divide it up.

So that's why that box was not checked.

Might be true, but I think that's pretty centralized.

Well, you park right in between all those buildings and have it done.

So did that not just sell?

It did.

Oh, did it?

Okay.

And wasn't it owned?

There's four there.

There's four.

Two were owned by one, two was owned by someone else.

The two that we were looking at, it sold the guy that had the other two bought that.

And so it's all four.

So this cost isn't even, I don't think it's viable at this point because he won't sell two.

Right.

This cost went back to when there were two structures that were available at that time.

It wasn't advocating that we go to the water.

No, no, no.

It just wondered why it's updated.

Yeah, just updated info.

That's all.

That it's probably not even.

I think that's the other thing that everything changes in a moment and in time.

And I know that the public would like things to be static and that you could write something and they could count on it.

Uh I wish that I wish I could have that too on everything that we do here.

But the problem is properties, I see quite a few realtors, they come in and out of the market.

Someone else buys it, someone does that, they get this.

And so a lot of times what I could have availed myself of in August.

Well, that got sold out from underneath, right?

The state who went and took the Harley Davidson building, right?

Whoop, state swaped in and said, Oh, we'll take that.

So it's all of this is difficult.

I want to say, you know, I struggled really hard because I wanted to see if we could figure out how to do something with the Ormsby House, right?

That's a property that's been vacant for many years.

I think the public, everyone would agree, gosh, isn't there something we can do that would facilitate the opening of the Ormsby House?

And so I think I challenge staff even up to last night.

Um why not?

What are the true barriers?

Why can't we get that done?

Um for myself to recognize, I just don't think it's the right fit.

It is 200,000 square feet.

So it is a lot more than we need.

So then I got to thinking, well, that's okay.

We'll make it an income-producing property, and we'll lease out a hundred and fifty thousand square feet, and we'll get that money to to maybe offset other expenses and drill these down.

But then I'd need poor Robert to have twice as much work and manage a property and manage um restaurants, maybe.

I thought of all these neat things we could do there.

And is it viable and does it hit our time frame?

Because the other essence of everything that we're doing is we have to make a decision because we need the courthouse to stay on target to move the clerk properly between election cycles, right?

Because that's another little uh we can't we can't move them during a year of an election, right?

And so those are off-ramps, those are things I call up, right?

Those are decision points that I don't have a choice on.

So I've got to get that one done.

And could you put the timeline back up, the one that you had with stuff?

Because I think it's important that the public understands to me, it's not just a city hall, it's all of the space needs that we have been working on for many, many years to figure out what's the best answer.

Where do we put alternative sentencing?

Where do we put the public defender?

Where do we have the assessor?

Where does everyone go?

And what you start to see is my choices are really much more limited than people recognize unless I'm willing to have nowhere for the judge to sit, right?

And I think it's just an important avenue or discussion here to say every decision causes a domino down down that down that list, right?

And so I really really might have put the city manager through the through the roof last night with uh come on, help me, help me figure out the orangeby house.

Is this a true statement, right?

Because I think that is a mission critical building.

I agree with all of you.

I don't like vacant spaces.

I don't.

I don't think that helps the vitality of our community to have vacant parcels or vacant properties, but I also recognize it has to be correct.

It has to be right.

And when I think the first thing being it's 200,000 square feet, and that's why I asked about the price of rehabbing, right?

Okay, if I had to do 200,000 square feet, how much is that going to be that the taxpayer has to be fronting and then hope that somehow the city is a better salesman than some others, and I can get three-fourths of that property leased or rented or done with others that they haven't been able to do, right?

It's like oh and that option sounds great until you realize we're not going to get tax exempt bonds because it's a multiple income producing property.

Right.

So then it becomes more expensive on the financing side as well.

And I but I think it's important that the public understands we're not ignorant.

We're not not listening that we want to do vacant buildings.

Of course we do, right?

But I still have the job of assessing the points of each building, their pros, their cons, can they meet our need?

Can they meet the need timely?

So when can you so I hope that everyone, and I I apologize because I think this is actually a new slide for people to understand, and they've been saying, why?

Why do we have to do this?

Why a new city hall?

Don't do it, or take another year and study every building on the list or every opportunity that we have.

And all everything will get more expensive with time.

We all know that it doesn't tend to go down, but um, so I think that's uh a critical slide that they recognize that that's what we're utilizing to help us make our decisions today.

And then if you go back now to the slide that has the little check boxes about each property, because we don't have one on there.

Uh no, you're you're oh, do you not have the one with the you don't have that one in the slide presentation in the packet that talked about the buildings that are available?

Because again, I I understand the public's consternation with not having information.

They feel like we're making decisions in a vacuum.

It's not really true.

We are looking at things, and oftentimes they can't see all that staff work.

They just they just can't see it.

But so when you look at this, so I just talked about the Ornsby House.

We talked about the expansion of the existing city hall, was it was determined that if I'm not mistaken, I sorry, Darren sitting in the room, but that'll teach you to be here.

Um, we actually looked at that and determined that we really can't put the additional floors on as we originally thought.

Okay, let's just add two floors.

Wouldn't that be less expensive?

Everybody's used to where City Hall is.

Whew, that's the idea, but we found out structurally that just wasn't gonna happen.

It just wasn't the right fit.

But we did look at it.

The federal building.

Uh, Mr.

Martell and myself, we worked hard with Congressman Amade because there was some thought that that building would be uh put up for sale or that they may dispose of the building.

We had several meetings trying to see if that's something that Carson City could get its hands on, could we get it less expensive?

Wow, we might only have remediation dollars.

We sure found a lot about the red tape that would be necessary and the public use that they require to be able to give a building, and Carson City did not meet the education component.

And I'm like, wow, but we're public use, but you had to have this other little caveat that was in there.

The Kmart building, we looked at that.

We had proposals from the management team there sending us different lease options and things, and none of them were priced that I would spend your money, right?

I look at it and say, wow, um, all the realtors in the room again would go, whoa, look at that triple net.

Look at look at that lease price, look at those escalators, and the amount of tenant improvement that they would put in versus what we would need, because I'm not sure many people realize, but there's just a lot of dirt out there at that particular facility because it never built out.

And so there, but we did look at it.

Um, the Harley Davidson we already talked about.

We thought that would be great, but it was so far out there, and then it didn't matter because the state came and took it.

So it's like, okay, that took care of that one.

Um the Capitol Plaza, that is for the people that aren't aware, that is the four buildings across from there was only two at the time, uh, Mills Park, right?

So there that that building was there.

I began my working career in the state right there in one of those buildings for the department of taxation.

It would have needed remediation.

I'm gonna go with Supervisor White.

That I think the four buildings are close enough that I could have considered checking the box because I think they were all centrally located and had parking.

But that again is now off the market because it was purchased in August, and now they want to, if they're gonna sell sell all four, not two.

So that changed.

And then the Bank of America, we've discussed several times that they would not even meet criteria, which is we don't pay more than an appraisal, right?

Same like you guys, when you buy a house, if the appraisal comes in at 100,000, you're not gonna get financing on anything greater than the appraised value, right?

They're not gonna let you finance 200,000.

You can come up with the cash and buy into it, but I don't think that makes good sense for the city to be paying over appraised values, and so that took that one off.

Then I so sorry I didn't have this one before today, and I appreciate um Terry bringing um this office building uh forward for us to consider.

Um, and I think it's right to consider everything.

I do.

It's your money, so I should I should be looking at everything.

When I looked at this one, um, we did take a tour with the prior clerk, Aubrey, and a few of us went and looked, right?

That's this building.

You can, you can.

Thank you.

That makes it kind of better rather than Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And it's uh I just think we did come to review the building for only moving the clerk and Aubrey Roule, who was the clerk then.

We went and visited the site, right?

Is this the site?

Correct.

And what it was, it was it was for lease only, but at that time the GSA had moved out of a space, but the big pier was not completely it was not available at that time.

The pier is 7,000 square feet, and that can be available in your timeline.

So, but nobody ever came back and asked us if it was fit for sale or anything because we had it on the market prior, and we would have loved to be a contender.

So, but that was several years ago, one walkthrough.

Right.

Thank you very much.

Um, I will ask another question because I hate to have to vet something a little bit on the record, but you kind of forced our hand here.

So I feel that it's very difficult, right, to say, should I put this building in the mix?

Because we just went through the whole list.

Staff's worked extremely hard looking for facilities, occupancy rate is 73.4.

Is it currently occupied?

That have people with leases to what time frame?

When we talked about leasing the court space before, one of the things was the state of Nevada was not buying buildings.

The state of Nevada bought a building, and I have a lease coming up for Dieter in the summer of 2027, is going to move to a state-owned building.

This will cause a vacancy of 44,800 square feet in the downtown area.

So that's right.

Things are changed.

So thank you, because you you kind of reiterate just what I'm talking about.

Doggone it, something changes every day.

So she knows there's another opportunity because the state made the decision that Stacy, just what we're talking about, is we don't necessarily think it's in the community's best interest to pay rent or lease.

Um, that it's better to have an asset and pay that money to something that you own.

Um, but that's in right.

So the state's gonna be vacating more properties.

And so I think that's our real conundrum is at a point in time we have to make a decision, right?

At some point.

I don't know.

Um, supervisor Horton, and then we'll I'll keep this brief.

Sherry, forgive me for putting you on the spot.

I know you're an award-winning professional in your field and you do a great job, but I'm gonna put the light on you a little bit here.

This morning, we heard in public comment more than once about this 70 million dollar price tag.

From your perspective and your experience in history, how likely are we to hit that 70 million dollars if this project goes forward?

Very unlikely.

Um, my amortization schedule actually showed 64 million.

So um, I I think it was inflated and um and again, I think the 36 million dollars I have on here is very high.

So I I don't anticipate we will bond for that amount of money.

It's just if we need to, can we afford the debt service payments?

That was the question I was trying to make sure to answer.

Um because I'd hate for it to come in higher than what we budgeted for.

You never want expenses to come in higher because then you're scrambling to find money, right?

So um, so yeah, I expect it to be hopefully less than 30 million.

I mean, thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay.

Um, we are going to uh before we take public comment, we're gonna take a brief recess so people can use the facilities.

So we're in recession.

Board of supervisors back to order.

Um I've had a request from the Garrett's.

I like that, Garrett and Garrett.

I don't know.

We have Kathleen and Kathleen.

We're on a roll today with uh same names, but um that uh would you like to uh start with your public comment?

That'd be great.

Thank you, um Madam Mayor and members of the board.

Uh for the record, my name is Garrett Gordon.

I'm an attorney at Womble Bond and Dickinson, and it's my honor to also serve as the government affairs director for the Sierra Nevada Realtors.

We first want to thank City Manager Martell for meeting with our government affairs committee on March 13th to explain the vision, necessity, timing, and funding for the new city hall.

SNR is very excited about the proposed public-private partnership with the Hopp and May Adams Foundation and believe the new City Hall proposal is fiscally responsible, and the overall vision of the 200 million dollar investment will result in a significant economic growth to Carson City, especially during the Nevada legislative sessions.

I would like to applaud City Manager Martell on the comprehensive analysis that was performed when considering all eight of those options.

SNR is excited to go on record today and support uh the proposed new city hall located on Proctor Street based on the project as proposed today.

However, we do reserve the right to provide further comment as the project progresses.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Garrett.

Uh mayor, board, thank you for the record.

My name is Garrett LePier.

And before I start my public comment, I want to make it clear I'm not speaking on behalf of any organization that I represent or that I'm a part of.

I'm speaking to you today as a lifelong Carson City resident and a downtown property owner.

I am in full support of this project.

The money's gonna be spent.

I think that's pretty clear through the presentation today that they need more space.

Money's gonna be spent somewhere.

And the way that this financing mechanism is laid out thus far is a very good way to do that.

In my day job, I'm I'm in real estate.

And real estate investing 101 is leveraging your money the best you can to get the most bang for your buck.

And that's what this project does.

And it allows the city to build a future that can be there for 30, 40, 50 years moving forward without having to spend tens of millions of dollars to retrofit an old building.

It's also important that the clerk recorder has a secure and safe place to work out of.

Something I think we all can agree on is having secure elections is really important.

And throwing the clerk recorder into an unsecure place into a strip mall is not the best bet for Carson City or its citizens.

We're the capital city.

We should act like it.

We should fund like it.

We should build like it.

This is the start of a new chapter in Carson City.

And it parlays into the history of our city, and we'll start a new chapter in the history of Carson City.

And I urge you to support this today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

I had signed up for at item.

Uh Jed Block.

Oh no.

Yeah, you put your name here.

Oh no.

Shouldn't be a surprise.

Okay.

No, I hate pull in this way because you guys are all work out.

Sorry, sorry, God.

We're used to it.

Yeah, we'll forgive them.

It's Jed.

Sorry.

Yeah.

Jed block for the record.

I I wanted to be mean and say, geez, you guys all make me feel young, except for Dan, he makes me feel old.

Um, Jed Block, Carson City resident.

Um, I actually wrote some things down because I don't want to blow it.

Um, you know, there's there's been character assassinations today on all of you, and I've known all of you, and I think that's really unfortunate.

I think there should be some better decorum.

Just so most of the people in the room know me, who I am, those that don't, I'm a 62-year resident.

I'm a 42-year Carson City voter.

I've had my my family-owned business for 31 years.

I've been paying into redevelopment area one for 27 years.

I have two historic money pits.

Um of the stuff that that you look at, I'm really into history.

You all know I'm into history.

I seem to be the go-to guy for history.

The one thing I don't think anything should be torn down, demoed or anything, except for our historic parking lots.

Um, if you've seen my presentation, the underlying theme becomes building goes away, it becomes a parking lot.

There's a lot of unutilized stuff.

I don't know if any of you remember when Harold Jacobson and Mayor Squibner's offices were in the civic auditorium.

And if you remember when they moved out of there, everything was on Northgate Lane.

And coming out of there and going to get a building permit and all that stuff, having it in the downtown core, I think is is important.

I fully support this because you're looking towards the future and not renovating some crap that needs to be renovated in another 50 years.

Um, you're not looking at asbestos abatement.

You're not looking at a whole lot of these things that you get into.

Want my house when I did a remodel.

Oh, remodels are 200 a square foot.

Well, it ended up being 500 a square foot because you don't know what you're gonna run into.

Um I think you guys are doing a great job.

I'm sorry, I did not contribute to any of your campaigns.

Um we are too.

You know, so I'm just I I'm just I I think you guys do a great job, and you you put yourself out there and it's really hard.

And when people come at you without decorum, attacking you, your credibility and everything else, I don't think that's right.

We can do it with decorum.

You know, there's some stuff I want to talk to public works about, but I decided this isn't the forum to do that.

I can call the director and talk to him face to face.

So we have a great town, it's a beautiful day.

I'm wearing shorts, and I won't get oh my god, why are you wearing shorts today?

So I can hopefully get a sunburn.

But anyway, thank you for your time.

I think you're doing a great job, and once again, I support this project wholeheartedly.

Thank you.

Watch those everybody in bedroom.

My camp is broken too.

So I have on the sign in that Kathleen Beasley indicated she wanted to speak at the item specific.

Thank you, Kathleen Beasley, Carson City resident.

Uh NRS 279 is the redevelopment statute for spending money.

It specifically bypasses competitive bidding.

I never brought up prevailing wage.

I it doesn't bypass that.

So if you aren't using that loophole, that's great.

Thank you.

I mean, that's a really good point.

However, at the same time, you're pursuing the bill to suit with neighbors in Metcalf.

So I'm really not understanding very clearly how the competitive bidding is going to happen.

They brought it up.

It was brought up by your staff as something that would be pursued, bill to suit.

So where is the bidding process and how is there competition?

But as long as that's what your intent is, I'm gonna believe you that that's what you're gonna hold to.

And I'm looking forward to seeing those bids.

Uh the garage.

Who is building it?

Who is owning it?

Are you on the hook for the building financing?

We've seen nothing about the garage money.

Clearly, the project doesn't go forward without the garage.

Next time around, I'd like to see something on that.

Um neighbors can't be fronting costs.

Someone in the staff brought up, you know, this whole idea that when you have this private public partnership, they can front the costs.

His foundation has two million dollars in it, and he has spoken about the fact that he doesn't have a lot of money at the moment.

So he's not fronting the costs.

So just to sum up, I'm glad you're insisting on bidding.

I think that's really important.

There is a loophole when you're using redevelopment funds that you don't have to do that.

So I appreciate your concern about that.

Second, I'm even more glad that Supervisor Giomi wants to change the wording because currently the wording of the motion, according to the agenda, says that uh you're authorizing the city manager uh to commence or complete any other preparatory tasks for entering into agreements for the planning.

It's commencement or completion that's really bothersome.

And the fact that you are going to have another huge public meeting, it would be nice if you held one in the evening for people who aren't like me and who aren't flexible about their schedule.

I have learned more today than at any other point.

But it's really hard because you didn't tell us all of this stuff as it went along.

And so I don't retract my comments about there being a lack of transparency.

You need to really get out.

If you think this is the best idea ever, you all ought to be good enough to be able to convince everybody.

I'm now convinced we need undoubtedly a new facility.

Okay.

Now do a really good job of convincing me that this is the way to do it.

Okay?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I also have a remote Kathleen said that she would like to speak at the item.

Did she leave?

She left.

Okay, I'm just running down the list.

Want to make sure Kathleen Lee.

Um, and Terry, did you want to speak again?

Are you some people here now?

Okay.

I don't have anyone else signed up at the item.

So come on up.

Thank you.

Be nice.

Denny French Carson City.

As it had been presented as an agenda item.

I'm concerned that we will not get the feedback that I think we've asked for, and the clarification and the transparency that has been come up today has been helpful, but I think it needs to put in a format so that new understanding will be included.

I am very okay.

First off, when I heard about this at Fuji Park, it was a complete shock that any foundation was going to give us any opportunity to use property for City Hall.

That was a shame.

I thought it was done uh irrational time-wise and inappropriately set.

It put me into a, hey, who are these people?

So I looked them up and I found out that during their lifetime as a foundation, they have made some critical uh business errors that nearly cost them things.

This is my understanding, won't go into detail, but that they are a business and they are speculative, and that they are people that we will then be leasing from if we go through with the deal of it.

And while I think I understood, but I don't think everybody heard, um, and I want to make sure that that property then would be our but ours at what point, because we will be uh leasers, and you may or have suggested that being a landlord was less congenial thought.

However, after 30 years, you will be a landlord, unless those properties in that building that had been leased out to private and whatever, you will be a landlord.

And so I'm saying, well, okay, I would think the Ormsby place, even with renovations and with the need it has being bigger is better than smaller.

And I'm sad that the city didn't see in the past that they should have been buying up property and having it for just these situations.

But we didn't think about growth then, apparently.

And just why do we need a new city hall?

Hasn't really been well defined to me or really urged.

But I appreciate this opportunity because I think like it's been said, we've heard more about this than any other time, while it's not necessarily a discussion, because um we could have interacted with maybe what you were saying at times to get that clarified.

But as it is, more clarification is what I would like, and appreciation for what has happened today that people got a chance to speak, and everybody that came out.

Um a lot of emotion here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Donna Anderson, Carson City resident, board member of Muscle Powered for 20 years, and uh president of the historic Virginia and Truckee Trail, and I'm not speaking for both of those boards at this time.

Uh I'm very much in favor of this project.

Um we do need a new City Hall, have needed a new City Hall for quite a few years.

And uh I've actually done three renovations, and I know what is entailed in renovations.

In this case, it's better to build a new city hall.

Um we are cap the capital of the state of Nevada, and we belong we need to look like the capital of the state of Nevada.

So I think this is the best thing for all of us at this time to to do this project.

And I agree with what uh Stephanie Hicks said, you know.

This is the best way to go at this time.

So I'm very much in favor of this project.

So thank you, Donna.

Um this is it, right?

Oh, we have a couple more.

You said you wanted to be last, so come up and we'll get this going.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Uh name is Dan Carmel, current resident in Carson City, and I want to thank you for the information you shared today.

I appreciate learning about the due diligence.

Um, this is nice, but it's insufficient to arrive at decisions.

And so my request would be there appears to appear to be a couple of options at the very top.

I want to come that might still be worthy of evaluation.

I wonder if it's not our responsibility to do that.

Um people who support this proposal talk a lot about being a nation's uh state's capital, having something a point of pride in the center of town.

These are very subjective, they're not objective, they're not financial, right?

So entering into a $36 million investment with its uh 30-year mortgage and associated costs is a financial decision.

And I don't understand at this point, forgive me, I've tried to do the diligence.

Um, the Ornsby House has been rejected because of size and remediation.

These are the two things that are pointed out to.

Uh, I'll just mention that you know we can selectively demolish half the tower and get it down to a size that's more reasonable.

Uh my understanding is there's no asbestos remediation.

I recognize remediation is an expense, but you have a 36 million dollar nut to look at, and some diligence into that possibility should be explored.

So I uh support the decision, understand the need for the space, but just ask that we do better diligence on alternatives.

The orangeby is a negative resource, right?

It detracts from the city, it pulls away from.

And if you want you want subjective criteria, as much as a positive one is a very nice downtown concrete, a negative one is having a blight sitting there for 20 years.

The city does have eminent domain to use.

The city could use eminent domain.

It's time to improve the city in a line with the strategic plan.

And so I would appreciate consideration to this combined option of eminent domain to force an issue and get rid of blight, which enhances downtown or consideration for the spending of the 36 million and how it could be done.

The next point, only other significant point of mine, would be related to I don't see the bigger picture.

What does Carson City?

I'm a marketer.

I build companies, I build businesses.

We're sitting between South Lake Tahoe, Reno, and Virginia City.

What is Carson City's unique advantage?

What are Carson City's assets?

I've listed them in a response to your survey, including being the state government, public private.

How does any of this fit into the bigger picture?

You stand a chance of being saddled with a C C D C not for profit that will then own a hotel and convention center, another one, right?

Could be a negative asset in the city that you're essentially marching down the road with with this as a first step.

I don't understand the connection between phase one and city hall and phase two and phase three.

Phase two and phase three scare me.

I don't know who's gonna come here and why.

I don't see an articulation, and I don't see a plan that integrates this city hall and center of downtown with the other assets we have to move forward.

I wouldn't appreciate hearing about that.

Okay.

You can take a seat there because we'll just you can fill in seats.

I'll end up, I don't care.

I don't care.

Go ahead.

Um is it on?

It is, it's green.

Never done this before.

Uh my name's Kara Falatar for the record.

Uh, I am with Martin Harris Construction.

I did not go to high school with Tom, although I do know him.

Uh I just a couple of things that I just wanted to shed a little light on.

Um, I have done, I am an estimator, I have done multiple TIs and retrofits.

I am currently doing multiple TIs and retrofits.

I just jotted down a couple off of the top of my head to maybe help understand a little bit.

Um, I recently did a just a re-roof on a for the state of Nevada at a on Silver Stageway.

Um it used to be a greater Nevada Credit Union and is now owned by the state of Nevada, I believe, or else they're leasing it.

Either ways, uh, are just once we took the roof off and found everything underneath, we were 60% over budget, and that it was things that were required abatement.

There was a bunch of structural issues, there were electrical issues.

So anytime you do a retrofit, retrofit or a TI or an expansion, you are looking at unknowns, right?

So those are the unknowns, and I I understand the public wants to know what those are, but even as contractors and estimators, we do not know what those are until we get in there, right?

Um, so that's just one.

Um, I also just did a dentist's office here in town.

We looked at um the dentist's office over on Adams Street.

We looked at doing a TI for that building.

It came in a million dollars over with everything that we were gonna have to do than just building a new building, which we did um on College Parkway behind the save mart there.

Uh so again, uh another good reason for building a new building as opposed to uh trying to revamp an old building as much as we would like to, because that building on Adams is beautiful.

Um I also uh currently working on a few retrofits at the Legislative Council building.

Uh everything is requiring seismic retrofits now.

So that's going to be a problem as well in looking at some of these old buildings and these seismic retrofits are not cheap.

The last thing I want to see, I know I'm running out of time, but uh I we you know, our NRS 338 requires obviously that uh this be bid out to sub to contractors.

Um, and I think that even though there is a loophole, it's going to be very hard to uh pass that loophole through the Nevada Contractors Board or Laborers Board.

And um, from what I'm hearing here, it doesn't sound like that's what the city wants to do anyway.

So that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, for the record, Teresa Terry Green Preston.

And I am representing the Rocky Point, uh Rocky Point properties.

The ownership is Lee and Dick Dixon, and somebody said something about out-of-town owners.

This particular owner, her grandfather was the paper boy via the boat to George Wattel in the 30s.

So they're here.

They've been here for a long time.

Uh I first met the Dixons in 2006, because I was working for the state of Nevada as the leasing at that point.

Uh what they had done is they purchased the building.

The building was built in 1990 1980.

They purchased the building in 1980.

They rechased the building in 1996 and redid it all for government offices.

You're concerned about seismic.

The seismic has been done.

There was a flood, there was a floodplain.

The plane has been mitigated.

The tenants of this buildings have been the state of Nevada and GSA with the Department of Agriculture.

Prior to the Doge thing, we were actually going to look at leasing part of this property to the Department of Transportation for the federal government to take care of the Highway 80, 395, and uh Highway 50 projects.

That money has been pulled.

GSA is not leasing right now.

So that's when the owners came up to the idea and said we can go ahead and change it.

Coupled with the fact that the last lease negotiation that the state did was only two years, and it is actually going to sunset in July of 2027.

The building is actually built where we do have other tenants, they can be moved around.

What's nice about this property is it's on 300 3.414 acres.

Coastark grounds up for some reason.

It has 200 on site parking spaces in addition to parking on Curry Street.

The building is 44,800 square feet.

The building that comes out to the front is 7,000 plus square feet closer to 8.

It has a centralized area for consumers.

A couple of different things.

How they came to that was because of a cap rate for an investor.

Now, if there's no tenant in there, there's room for negotiation.

We can talk about it.

Because I have no leases pending right now.

I have leases that I know that actually have no additional options.

So what we can actually do is enter into an agreement to move the court recorder in, move your public administrators in, do it.

I'm kind of a the creative gal.

Do it as a lease purchase until you can actually get your finances together and see where you want to be.

Sorry, your your time.

Thank you.

But I we understand.

Can I ask one thing?

Can I ask that the motion for 18A include due diligence on this property too, so we could actually look at it as an option.

That's what I'm requesting.

Thank you.

Rod Butler, Carson City resident.

I seem to have walked into a good one for the first time here.

Um I don't have any experience with retrofitting buildings, but I do have experience retrofitting a 1968 Mustang.

And I have done a lot of work to that and spent a lot of money, a lot more money than the value of the car.

Still do electrical on it, suspension on it.

And what I've come to learn over the years is it's still a 60-year-old car that's just been updated.

And over the next 30 years, hopefully, one of my kids will want to take it over, otherwise, that project will disappear.

That's the way I look at the buildings that we're talking about here.

These are old buildings that's going to need lots of retrofits, and we're going to need to have people constantly retrofitting the buildings.

In my mind, it's time to go ahead and spend the money and move forward with a new building that we know will be in good shape in the next 30 years, and we're not continually throwing money at it like I do my car here.

And I hear about you know the Hornsby House and the parking garage, and that takes me back to my car because my car sits out in the back garage, not in the garage at my house.

And when I invite friends over to visit my house, I don't ask them to park out at the back garage and walk around to it.

I ask them to come to where I'm at.

And I would much rather have a parking garage and a city hall that's downtown next to my capital.

So when we have tourists come in, visitors come in, they have a place that's right there, and they're not having to commute to go to this spot.

And then the last thing is I heard you say on doing our due diligence and looking at all the options.

At some point, we have to stop looking at the options, otherwise we never move forward.

And for that reason, uh prefer that we move forward at this time and do the next step on getting this new project in place.

Thank you.

Mr.

Metcalf.

Tom Metcalfe.

No, no, since we're talking about high schools.

I'm going to buy high school reunion in Kailuahu, Hawaii.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I'd like to say for the first time in 52 years, I'm retired.

Uh as of the end of 2025.

Um I want to bring up something because 10 years ago I was asked by the owner of the Ormsby House to look at putting a city hall at the Ormsby House.

I had worked with Mr.

Don Lear for 14 years from 02 to 2016.

The project was outliving him and his partner, Mr.

Fegan.

I went to uh Nick Barano.

I think Bob Kroll was the mayor at the time.

I actually still have the hand sketches of how could we make it a city hall and a multi-use uh property.

It just didn't work.

I could only get 20,000 square feet on the north end of the addition.

I'd have to put another floor on top, which means piles and ret, the cost was exorbitant.

Um there is encapsulated asbestos in the building.

I feel that with a new city hall at Town Square that the Ormsby House will flourish.

I really do.

Um the talk about Metcalf building with Hopp and May Adams, yes, there was talk about it in the last two and a half years, but what came about in the last year is it needed to be bid out as either what's called a CMAR or design bid built because that's the best for the city.

Um giving an example of 308 Curry Street, um, some of you know it 10 years ago.

I was asked to bid it against two other contractors.

It was designed as a partial demolition, rehabilitation, and addition to the existing city bank building.

I was told I was the low bidder.

The good news is you're the low bidder, the bad news is you're a million dollars over our budget.

Suggested to the owner, Mr.

Steve Neighbors at the time.

I said, tell the architect to throw the plans in the trash, tear the building down, build a new building, and we built it for 5.3 million.

Um also on City Hall, two and a half years ago, the city came and talked to um Steve Neighbors at Hoppe May Adams.

I was 10-year governor appointed director of state public works board and buildings and grounds.

I was forever getting projects that were over budget.

So I asked the city how much can you afford?

I've got 18 seconds, and that's how we came up with the budget and the design.

The other thing is a new city hall is a type three building for that type of a building.

A lot of these older buildings you're looking at, including the one on Curry is type one, you'd have to tear them down.

Thank you.

You're not retired.

Never really retired.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name's Dan Leck.

And I'm opposed to this.

And what the reason I'm opposed to it is that the city's taking a backdoor approach to getting what you want.

The cost of this at $818 a square foot, to me is excessive.

Uh the state, the state building that they want to build at the children's home is over $900 a square foot.

The problem here is in order for you to achieve this, because I understand you're going to be paying a rent on an annual basis of about $2.3 million a year.

If you take that divide by the 44,000 square feet of the building, it works out to $4.35 a square foot per month.

Nobody's paying that in rent in in Carson City.

And that's based on a triple net.

That means that the owner doesn't pay any expenses by negotiating a deal ahead of time to rent it at a high price.

That is how you back into the higher value to justify it when you when you purchase it.

But I think it's disingenuous to the to a taxpayer to tell them that.

Existing buildings in this town.

The often and retail market here is declining.

So they're going to take those tenants, the state will take those tenants out of existing buildings.

And if there's no demand for them, what's that going to do to the Carson City?

More blight.

I don't know how much the city has looked into the properties on Capitol Plaza.

You could buy two buildings in there, you get 56,000 square feet.

That property was bought with four buildings at 44 a square foot.

You can do a great deal of remediation for less than probably 700,000 $700 a square foot.

And once again, I haven't been in the building and determined and seen any of the information.

And that property.

It's in the redevelopment area.

It's across the street from this structure.

It's across the street from Mills Park, the Aquatic Center, the pavilion.

So it does have locational benefits.

Also, it's on the what I consider the gateway corridor coming into Carson now.

It's no longer Carson Carson Street.

It is U.S.

Highway 50.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Do I have come on up?

Push the button.

It's green already.

Green.

Green.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Connie Salerno.

I'm a Carson City resident.

I've heard a lot of discussion today about all these other options and the due diligence.

But I haven't seen any of the work.

For example, structural engineer reports or anything of that nature to back up why it's not viable.

I'm not saying that it is viable or it isn't, but it would be nice for the public to be able to see reports that have been generated showing why those things may or may not be viable.

And then the only other thing is I really liked what Ms.

Preston had to say about that property.

And I would also like to ask that maybe you look into that as well.

And that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So did it.

And no other.

Oh he's going back to his seat, his phone quit ringing.

Come on up, go ahead.

Hello.

Collette Bureau.

I've been a resident for over 47 years, been a real estate agent for 37.

And my family owned family businesses here for 50 years.

What I want to say is this you cannot hold the city hostage unto where they want to locate based on blighted buildings that may or may not serve them.

They have a right to choose where they want it, which I think is an outstanding location.

That's where it's always been, or at least for the last, I don't know how many years.

And they have a right to choose.

What you have to understand is many of these blighted buildings are blighted because they are one overpriced.

They don't make sense for the potential people that maybe want to occupy those spaces.

And so therefore they sit.

The other thing is you have a lot of rental space that has been occupied by the city and the state.

And that has been very beneficial for those who own those buildings, such as the Sheen uh complexes over there off of College Parkway.

They have benefited, no question, and it is going to be difficult to get them ramped up to find new tenants.

But remember something, those tenants, the state and the city did not pay what a normal tenant will pay in the tax rolls, which will benefit Carson City if we can get those rented by private enterprise.

So there's a lot more to it.

And you know, I would love to see the Orange Bay House be what it was.

It was magnificent.

It was a wonderful place.

But here we are, it is privately owned.

You can't just take eminent domain on a building that is privately owned unless it's in the way of a thoroughfare.

Um I also remember the fight over the downtown corridor.

Oh my gosh, at that time my sister-in-law was on the board of supervisors.

There was death threats.

It was horrible.

But look what we have.

Look where it progressed.

It was the vision, they saw it, they went for it, and it happened.

And it has enhanced everything for the downtown.

Anyone who has money has been able to invest in there and profit.

And we're hoping to see so much more of that.

So I urge you, the board, to go forward with your plan.

It is an outstanding plan.

I hope the rest of it continues with the Hop May Foundation.

And I love what's happening in Carson City.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Anyone else?

Mary?

Hi, Mary Sonata, Carson City resident.

I am opposed to this plan.

There is nothing I've heard today or read or anything else that has convinced me that we need this grandiose new city hall.

It seems like something that would be a nice to have, but not something that we really need.

And I really don't think this is the time to just move forward and say, we've got to have this big new city hall because we've got a centralized services.

I don't think that's a justification.

The only thing I've heard is that we have to move the Kirk Recorder.

Having to move the Kirk Recorder doesn't require the investment for a grandiose new city hall.

And I really think that, you know, I heard somebody today say, well, you know, we're the capital, we need to look like the capital.

Well, I'm sorry, our roads don't look like the capital.

We have deteriorating roads in this community that we're told over and over again we can't fix them because we don't have the money.

But we're gonna spend the money on this big new city hall.

Um I really think you need to think about what you're doing here and not just move forward with a plan to build a brand new beautiful city hall.

Maybe it'll be beautiful, maybe it'll enhance our community, maybe it won't.

And then we're gonna be left with a vacant building, like you guys like the city did when they left Northgate.

And we're probably gonna end up again with a building that nobody wants.

And so we're just gonna abandon what we have so that we have this beautiful new city hall.

Think about it, please.

Think about it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do I have anyone else?

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

Um again, listening to some of the public comment during the due diligence phases and things that would happen.

It was alleged that uh Mr.

Neighbors would not be able to meet his wherewithal on the parking garage, right?

That he doesn't have the money to do his half.

I'm assuming during any due diligence, the ability for the project to actually finance and to actually occur will be proved up during that process.

And so I just want to put that on the record.

There was some comments that uh we're just funding this for his private good or for his needs.

And I'd like on the record two things.

I do think it's important to show that Mr.

Neighbors has two very successful projects.

He bought Northgate from Carson City and rehab that property for the nonprofits in our community, which he indeed did as he promised to do.

And so we have I tend to look at vendors that I want to get into business with, right?

And what do they got in the history that tells me they honor their word?

So uh he also did 308 North Curry, and I think most people in the community think that's a beautiful building and a wonderful rendition.

And he actually did public charrette, if I remember, where he let people put a sticky note, but it worked on which design they wanted, and he indeed did the design that the most people liked.

So I would like to get around the he's not reputable or he doesn't do as he states.

Um, because I just don't think evidence has shown me that he does.

But Glenn, on the record, can I just double check?

None of this funding or anything that the city would be participating in other than the joint garage would actually put money into any of the other phase two or phase three uh for Mr.

Neighbors.

I I just I need I think it's important that the public understands your public money is only for phase one.

Absolutely, Mayor, thank you.

And you you're correct.

The what we're talking about uh joint venturing at this time or whatever lease option you whatever words you want to use, the Hop and May Adams Foundation would bond, they would do what we would do very similar, right?

But on the private side, they would bond for the amount of money necessary to complete their project.

They would then turn around and lease that to us.

That projected lease obviously would be against that bond as income, right?

That's how they would fund the bigger part of this current project.

Then to your point, where we meet, if you will, uh at the at the parking garage, potential parking garage at this time, that is where there is a partnership.

That partnership has yet, again, through this due diligence to be determined exactly how that looks, but we would be in it for about roughly half of that parking garage partnership, as some of the details were discussed.

The where that partnership comes into play, there is no partnership of the city in any projected project.

Let's just say it's a conference room and hotel because that's what was discussed in the white paper.

There is no guarantees of that from our side.

There's no partnership uh legally support-wise, dollar-wise, from the city to the Hop and May Adams Foundation on that portion.

Where we again come together is at the proposed town square.

Uh if this project were to move forward as as we're discussing today, and it were to build out, that town square would be a component, and as a part of that project area, we would have a maintenance through the garage fund on the garage as well as that town square.

Those details are to be worked out, but we do not fund any project and nor support any particular project going forward.

Okay, just want to make sure.

Okay.

Um any more questions up here that you want answered or done, Miss uh Supervisor White.

Thank you.

Uh earlier today, one of our constituents made a comment that uh at some point in time that the existing city hall has been determined to be a blight.

Um anybody have any information on when that designation took place?

Nope it's I I don't know how it would be a blight.

Um let's see here.

Um based off the existing proposed motion.

I I would like to discuss uh at least for knowledge and maybe an understanding, uh, an itemized list of what would these required preparatory tasks be.

Sorry, supervisor.

Yes, so to your question, um all those to include every everything we've talked about today, right?

So, what would that financing structure detail look like?

Part of that then is a subcategory is being able to work with now the project proponent on your behalf to to not finalize those costs, but certainly tune those costs up to help Sherry tune up her budget process.

That is one preparatory task.

The other one would be what does that property look like?

Can we develop that property the way it the way it exists?

Are there constraints on that property, title reports, appraisals to make sure everything matches up?

All of those things are preparatory tasks that I can think of here off the top of my head very quickly.

And and anything again that would follow from those initial invest those initial inquiries would would certainly commit to or follow that as well.

Again, the intent is to come back to you as as discussed earlier today, uh a few times with a more complete package.

So anything that we find is going to be added to that list.

Um I'm not gonna take anything out.

Robert wouldn't take anything out.

That's that's not our job, right?

Our job is to bring you the best information we can.

And so, other than that, broad strokes, I really I don't know where some of those rabbit holes will go, but we will follow them to the degree necessary.

Again, to include the the lease options, right?

I mean, you have to have a good comparison of of the of the residents' money and how that's being invested in the best way.

So I hope I answered at least most of your question.

Thank you.

Um in the proposed motion, uh there's language there that talks about the eventual perpet purchase of a new city hall.

However, uh throughout the uh agenda item, it speaks only to a lease or lease option.

Um I'm wondering where we at in that regard as to are we considering some other financial arrangement or are we headed for a lease option?

I I think that'll get flushed out a little bit more, but I I can tell you that it's certainly our intent with the wording of the motion that that is our recommendation at this time that we pursue a lease option.

Your staff as a part of that preliminary review has looked at a purchase option, and that is somewhat more time consuming and also uh rather more complicated in the process.

So that's part of the reason we're looking at the lease option to be the easiest for us to get through the required regulations and with a willing partner in that scenario, it does give us a greater degree of flexibility.

So we can certainly talk about the purchase, but it is our recommendation today that we pursue the lease option under this motion.

The agenda item talks about off ramps, suggested uh number of years three, five, ten.

Uh where do you suppose we might land if we do go as a lease option?

What in other words, you know, I I've been very clear since the beginning that I am not interested in a leased arrangement.

Where's the escape hatch on the lease?

How many years?

Uh, supervisor, that is uh that is obviously a decision for this board to make at that time.

However, based on conversations and in my short time in this chair and a little bit watching the white paper discussion from last year, sitting here today not giving anything to the board that I I don't see this board as it exists today going any further out than three to five years at the most, based on all the feedback I've gotten.

I my money is actually on no more than three years uh that that we would buy that out and have that flexibility in our pocket to go along with the investment in our own infrastructure.

But that again is your ultimate decision as the board.

I wanted to agree.

Um I'm you know, as the CFO, it's the cheapest option to bond.

So um they own the land so that so they can bond and get the project done and do the financing on their side because they own the land.

But we want to get out of that as soon as possible.

That's why we're gonna build an off ramps and get out of it as soon as possible, and then we will own our own land, our own building, and pay the cheaper option, the bond.

That is absolutely the intent.

And we will bring back those options to you, of course, before anything's moves forward.

Okay.

Anybody else?

So go ahead, supervisor.

I just want to, you know, a couple times I've heard today the need versus want.

Um can it be stated again what the need is?

Is this a need or a want and why?

Supervisor Shuddy, I think the best way to answer that is as somebody said earlier in the public comment that this money is gonna be spent one way or the other over the next 10 to 20 years.

So again, it's this board's choice to do we invest in that growth in the staff and consolidating those services at this time under our control with the design that we like for the next 50 to 60 years, or do we look at options to move those services around Carson City?

We can certainly do that.

That is an option, but the because the growth is gonna come.

This whether it's projected the curve is steep or the curve is flat, we will build out at about 80,000 people, call it 20 years from now, 25 years from now.

That's the future component that we're planning for.

So when you look at that growth, you look at those that money, whether it's a lease of a Bank of America building, whether it's an a continued lease at the Roop Street for the public defender, those monies are gonna be spent.

It's a question of whether or not that money goes into our own infrastructure and supporting our team, or as was stated, we're we're supporting a property owner, which I don't I don't mind supporting a property owner, but I I I personally agree with everybody that we should be investing in our own infrastructure.

So at the end, the dollars will be spent anyway.

Okay.

No other, I don't see anyone else with any other questions.

Um what avenues or what other things?

So I think unless I'm missing the tone here, um, we definitely want off ramps, as we call them, or and and I would like I don't want to just see it at three and five because I agree with uh Supervisor White.

I I insist we have a one-year out clause from certificate of occupancy.

I just I just insist, or I don't want to go down the path, right?

Because the idea is to move as quickly as possible.

Now, if we can't get the bond issued fast enough, but I want to see a one year opportunity and you know, build or even if there's a potential, how about we can bond at any time?

I'm just throwing that out.

There isn't any reason not to negotiate that any time it's in the city's best interest.

So if it's one month later and there was a great three percent bond interest rate, we could grab it and get out.

So I I just I would just counter to that.

That I I think one of the issues with doing that is the uncertainty of bonding it at the front end without uh defined out for the people who are doing the initial investment.

So if you have an investor who's looking to invest in the property, there's a reluctance, and I think it drives the cost of the original money up if there aren't defined periods when that ends.

Um, because as whoever goes to get the money to build that building, someone's gonna finance that, and those people are gonna make money on that financing.

The people who we bond with are going to make money on that financing.

And if you have an esoteric number there or an unset number, it decreases the number of people who will have an interest in trying to fund that, and it may increase the cost.

That's that would be the only concern I would have.

Yeah, defined, I think defined off ramps are better than um an undefined off-ramp.

Yeah, my hope is we can get one, two, three, five, ten, you know.

And that'll that will help the the definition of what the of who's going to eventually be the backer, if you will, of that of that funding, that loan.

Um can we add that language that the mayor used?

But you know, whatever the off ramps are, but not later than one year after completion of construction.

That we start our first one, one, three, whatever.

Um so we'll have defined off ramps.

I guess it's a fancy word, but yeah.

Well, defined meaning we have a buy by amount, you know, that we're allowed to buy three, five, and so yeah.

I mean, we want to try to get the best interest rate.

So with the war going on, if interest rates go up, we might want to hold off for year two.

I'm I just you play.

You know, we're gonna get the best interest rate we can.

War's over in two weeks.

I I I agree.

I don't I mean, I I think the goal is to try and get it when the interest rates are the lowest.

Right.

And if we force ourselves into saying there's only a one-year option, and the interest rates have gone up to seven percent in a year.

Right.

God help us.

I hope they don't.

But if that happens, right, then we don't we don't really want to take away.

We don't exercise it.

Especially considering that we're looking at a 30-year bond or 25-year bond, whatever the number ends up being.

I uh, you know, I think some of the things we're talking about here, in in my opinion, are us giving you general direction because I don't think at this point we can give you specifics because we're one half of a party.

So I think what what I'm hearing is general direction to staff uh on things to include.

Um one other thing I'd just like to put on the record is that if if we if we do sell City Hall, which you know, we know that um I I think there are options there.

I think the state has a strong interest that the state sat right here and said they have an interest.

Um and Hopp and May Adams may have an interest.

I I I want to make sure that we I don't think I would make it as part of a motion, but I want to make it clear that that money goes to paying down this debt, not something else.

I don't want it to go to something else.

To the project, well to the project as okay.

Yeah, it doesn't work with the project.

It doesn't, I yeah, I want to be broad enough, but it doesn't have to go right to the debt, but it has to go to this project.

Yeah, right.

In other words, I don't want it pulled to be used to buy uh Kenny's gone, more cars for him.

Um or you know, Kenny only gets one bullet a year.

I don't want it to go to that one bullet that he gets in a year.

Fair enough, right, to the project.

And then you also heard on the record that we're interested in um staff being a part of overseeing the bid opening so that we can be assured, like I said, uh I believe it'll happen, but I want it in the discussion that a bid is I can try a motion to start.

We'll see.

And I have one other and then we can go right to that.

And I and I don't think I think we under everybody understands what a bus bid is in the city and I know the contractors understand what a bit is in the city.

It's just running a bit and making sure it's a closed bid and it's formal.

I think it's important.

So I think that it's opened at the same time everybody gets to see every bid.

Yes we all have the same intent of just having our people there just to make sure it's done in accordance with how we have to do it.

Right.

Perfect.

So I have one question before we get to a motion.

Is there let's say that you get in there to work on this project you start doing your due diligence and it gosh forbid but it falls apart and you find out we just really can't go down this path because he can't get the bond.

Whatever they they really don't have the wherewithal to get the project completed.

Is it you'd rather just come back and say it failed and we go to the next step or would you like a a secondary thing that if not if he can't get it done and bring it to us in the next I don't know three months or whatever that you then have authority to go to another due diligence that we already are granting you that authority to say uh oh let's not be wasting time let me go ahead and go to number two or number three or would that help you if we included that in a motion to let you do the next step if this one doesn't work.

Absolutely if if the board if the board is looking at granting us a authority to make sure that when we get to a certain point if we sense that as going astray we can go another direction I'm happy to take any any direction from the board.

I I sitting here today I would I think what you know as a part of this what we heard today is and as I said earlier with Supervisor Shute's question at the end of the day this money will be spent so it it may come back I'm just again looking at options it may come back that that based on time and buildings and dollars that honestly if the board changes its mind and and we have a couple of different buildings that we lease I mean that is an outside thing and if you want to give us that extra flex I'm happy to take it thank you.

Right.

I just think you just added and I think if it falls apart I think it's incumbent on us to go back and look at the previous plan of expanding the courthouse and leaving the clerk recorder right where it's at what is predicated this entire conversation.

Okay.

Like I said I that would be a conversation for the Ford supervisor to again as I've said right every everything that Robert presented on that timeline that as you said everything we're doing is predicated off that that deadline at the end January of 30 everything we're doing backs up and backs up this due diligence plan development permitting construction everything all those moves health and human services DAS everything is based off of that deadline.

I guess I'm just looking to say to for you to be able to stay on timeline you could pick the next best and try to make that work.

We can do that thank you mayor maybe that's just the way right if this one runs into no hiccups that's what I'm guessing but if it has hiccups move move to the next one because we're on and I don't mind reviewing just what uh supervisor white said.

So okay oh supervisor shooty is there an a problem kind of doing a quick overview on the the curry street property kind of getting started on that as a possibility or is does that can I ask a point of order question I feel that way I can't yeah I can't ask a point of order I said you could I was talking to Lisa oh sorry she had a question go ahead um uh you're you're making me fall into the I don't matter category again gosh you can bring that up again the the um are we uh are we a far of the agenda item a little bit if we're talking about exploring other options outside of this one option it it feels a little disconnected to me um I and frankly I think the city manager has that authority anyway um I I understand what you're saying mayor but spending the money for an appraisal you're about to open it and I don't know that I'm comfortable saying at this point that if this falls through that they can go and spend money on an appraisal I don't know that I'm there yet okay I think I think that's an action that comes back here because this look this is a making a big decision yep and to just say eh if that doesn't work go do something else.

I I don't it doesn't give me a good feeling you know I I think that's a I think that's actually a very valid concern supervisor.

So what I will say with respect to Supervisor Shuty's proposal, I advise this board to get into a thorough examination of the the Curry Street property during this meeting.

I think that the scope of this agenda title is written in a manner where this board has got a lot of latitude in terms of providing direction to city staff and the city manager's office to proceed with the initiation of due diligence.

That of course obviously includes not only the foundation as one of the options, but also any other property.

That can be clarified in the motion as well if you want to expand on that.

However, with respect to moving outside of the scope as written, I think we're starting to maybe get a little bit murky in the muddy waters.

And I would really, really advise that this board not entertain, you know, discussion of particular individualized properties because that doesn't really fall within the scope of the agenda as written.

And and I thought, at least in my perspective, the idea of if this falls apart, take a look at something else.

To me, that means get your ducks in a row and have a good concise plan when you come back.

Don't just come back and say, oops, you know, have something together when you get here.

I I think that overall that's what I was trying to say is that we I want to give you permission to uh plan B.

Get it get it put together and anyway, but maybe he would do plan B anyway.

And so we don't have to put it in the motion.

I just want it clear to staff to know that it's Mayor again.

If I could uh thank you.

Um absolutely I I think this is the conversation, this is the time for this conversation.

As I said earlier, your team, your experts have spent a lot of time getting us to this point, and we're up against the wall on a lot of the information that we need to go gather for you to have a very solid package on a project that you can make the best decision you can.

That authority gives us that.

I clearly understand your intent on bringing you back.

And if we need to flex, I understand that intent and the main leads of the team are here, and we can certainly take that if we need to.

I love that.

Okay.

Stacy, you want to um are we needing more?

Sorry, same thing.

I think this you want.

I yeah, I think I'll give it.

I you know, I mean, I think to your point, Mayor.

Yeah.

I mean, I think to your point, if if you know, maybe maybe the motion.

Let me make the motion the way I wrote it.

And then if someone wants to amend it, uh I I'd be open to that.

Okay.

Um I move to direct the city manager to proceed with all required preparatory tasks and due diligence and to enter negotiations with the Hopp and May Adams Foundation or its partners for the design construction and eventual purchase of the city hall in downtown Carson City, and to return to the board with an agreement that details funding said building and ensures the building meets the city's specifications.

And further should I'm gonna stop there.

I'm gonna stop there.

You don't want to put the bid requirement.

I don't I think we can do it when the agreement comes back.

I I don't I don't think we need to muddy it in this um motion personally.

I I think it's needed.

Right.

Again, I don't think it right now.

Well, they already know we want it, so yeah, whatever.

Anyone see that anything in his motion needs more clarification?

Is there a second?

I'll do that.

I'll second it.

Okay, for discussion at least.

Yep.

Okay, any any further discussion?

Okay.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

No.

Uh let the record reflect it was four yeses and one no.

Um, thank you all.

And I actually thank all of you too.

I know it's hard to come here and get up and talk on the record and be recorded.

And so your comments matter.

And and the fact that you came out shows that you care about your community.

It really does.

It shows that.

So thank you.

Okay, is everybody all right that we just are right at the end?

Okay, we are on agenda item 19 are non-action items.

Oh, are there any for the updates or anything anyone from the board needs to share?

I just have a couple of quick things.

The um Carson Water Subconservancy District Um has published its annual.

Oh no, I lost the page.

Um it's annual water uh shed uh water and sewer rate study that's posted on CWC WSD's website.

And um last night we heard a really good presentation from a uh the company called Responsive Management that did a watershed literacy survey, uh repeated a survey that was done 10 years ago of people's understanding of the watershed and the importance of the watershed, what it is, how to make things safe.

Um that is going to be posted if it isn't already in the website.

Really good information in there about people's understanding of the fact that they live in a watershed.

So um just wanted to share that.

Thank you.

Um I just wanted to I have to wait till I finish this part, then it's final public comment.

Yep.

I just wanted to build on uh what Supervisor Giomi said, not only in understanding that we live in a watershed, but help those who haven't even thought about it, learn that we in fact do live here and and different steps that we all can take to protect our watershed and the why behind some of the the policies and decisions.

So yeah, it was excellent.

Wonderful.

Okay, not seeing anybody else, so I'll move on to agenda item 20, which is our final public comment.

Does that mean you want to make some, Jed?

I do.

Okay.

How did I know that?

Wow, you guys go through a lot.

Well, I've known that for years.

Anyway, a couple cool things is if you're in the legislative pause, if you don't know where the fireman's memorial is, because everybody loves this town, chairman.

You go see it.

Um they finally got work done.

They're they're working on that.

So I think Supervisor Geomi had something to do with that.

And the North's the front part of the first Presbyterian church, the brick has been restored.

They the the brick guys left yesterday.

And so they need help with funding the north and south portion, which is another 380,000 for just the brick restoration, which they're gonna go to Shippo, but there's other ancillary things like windows and stuff like that.

But there's two cool things that have happened in Carson City in the last two weeks.

Yay, let's celebrate.

Thank you.

And and Jed's house is the ornament that will be coming out.

Yay!

Yep.

Almost have a draft.

I mean, I'll have it soon, so I'll show you.

But um, I also have signed up uh uh for Victory Outreach.

Yeah, come on up.

You were on final public comment.

So yeah, I didn't forget you.

It's like my name's uh Pedro Gonzalez.

I'm the I'm the pastor of the church in Reno, Nevada called Victory Outreach.

We were uh we're involved with uh organization called Victory Outreach International.

We've been there for 17 years, and we're getting ready to move to Carson.

I've been I've been thinking about it for so long, and I fought with it and I fought with it because you guys are the capital.

And I thought if we had a church anywhere, I should be here.

We're we're uh we have Christian recovery homes that are free for uh we we're an inner city ministry, we work with uh uh people that that have uh uh substance abuse problems, uh gangs, drugs, prostitution.

Um, and we and we do it for free.

And we have a success rate of 70 percent.

So that's no nobody else has that.

That's 70 percent if they graduate.

And we have a 70% success rate.

We work with at-risk youth with inner city.

Uh we also partner with uh the Indian colonies there in Reno.

We do a lot of work with them, alcohol, drug abuse, like that.

We uh we do a lot of community outreach.

We uh we weed abatement, you know, whatever we can do to help the city, because we we believe that we exist for the city, not just as a church, but we want to make the city better, enhance it in every way that we possibly can be a part of it, whatever we can do.

That's why we waited so long to talk to you right now.

But uh, we also work with uh jails.

I'm I'm actually a chaplain for the Reno Police Department.

I have been for the last 16 years.

I've been a chaplain there, and uh we also work we also have a college ministry, and uh I'll just thinking about it, and I know that Carson City, you guys have experienced a 20% increase in your overall crime since 2025.

And what one of the things that we really help with is that we we we we uh we go after people like that that are involved in crimes.

We get I I'm I'm I used to when I was uh I got gave my life to the Lord when I was 21 years old.

It's been 44 years now that I've been doing this, and uh I don't do drugs no more.

I I I and the same God that changed me, I know wants to do a miracle in this city.

I know you guys might not know it, but you need us here, and we would love to be here.

We'd love to be a part of uh this growing because I would driving around, and since I've been there for the last 17 years, you guys have grown so much, and I can see that you guys are uh prospering.

I think you guys are a great city, and we'd like to be a part of the.

I brought the youth director with me too, just he could sit here with me.

I don't know.

Yeah, my name is Ryan Perrin.

I used to live right here in Carson City for about five years.

I've been living in uh areno for the past two years, but you know, I've been around in this nightlife community, and it's not really uh what people expect it to be, you know.

Well, just in the past couple weeks, we've been evangelizing out there to the bars, and a lot of the people that are there, they're hurt, they're broken, they're depressed.

And it comes from just being in a revolving door, you know.

A lot of people they work all week and they go to the bar on Friday and Saturday, go to Jimmy G's, Blue Bowl.

That's their that's their corner, that's their comfort zone.

But they don't want to just be right there anymore.

And I can feel that I can tell that we prayed for them.

We just showing them love, a lot of love, and that's what um we've been doing in Reno and Sparks as well.

So like he's like my pastor said, we're here for the city, and we're here to partner with you guys.

Thank you.

So we just want to introduce ourselves to you.

I I would encourage you to get in contact with two groups here in Carson City.

One is exquisite, and the other is Northern Nevada Dream Center.

Okay.

Two very good operations here in town.

And we'd love to have a join our rotation for the uh for our opening prayer.

Yeah, we do great.

Thank you.

We love that you're here.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

All right, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, God bless you.

Mr.

French Denny French, Carson City.

I just want to make a correction.

Apparently, Corey uh Jenkins has not gotten that raise yet, but however, they are fingers crossed for such, and I think his added workload and the considerations of his past um efforts for the airport.

Um would definitely have me encourage them to go ahead and give him that raise I already gave him.

But thank you.

Thank you.

Do I have any other final public comment?

No.

Um, then if there's no objections, we have done our due diligence for the day and our duties.

Uh we are adjourned.

Thank you all for a good meeting.

Um