Carson City Board of Supervisors Meeting Summary – March 19, 2026

This meeting of the Carson City Board of Supervisors included detailed discussion and public testimony on a proposed public-private partnership (with the Hop and May Adams Foundation) to build a new city hall downtown. The board voted 4–1 to direct the city manager to proceed with due diligence and negotiations on the proposal. The meeting also included employee service awards, adoption of consent items, approval of a utility ratepayer assistance ordinance, and approval of a Master Plan text amendment regarding downtown character areas.

Consent Calendar

• Approved the minutes of the February 19, 2026 meeting unanimously.
• Approved the consent agenda (items 8A, 9A [Resolution 2026-R-7], 9B, 9C, 11A, 11B, 12A, 12B, 13A) as presented.
• Item 10A (Resolution 2026-R-8) was removed from consent and discussed separately; adopted 4–1, with Supervisor White dissenting.
• Approved the 2027–2031 Airport Capital Improvement Plan and authorized the airport manager to submit FAA grant applications (unanimous).

Public Comments & Testimony

In Opposition to the New City Hall Proposal (Item 18A):

• Mark Costa (resident) urged the board to vote against authorizing continued work on a new city hall, citing a $36 million price tag, $2.3 million annual interest, total repayment near $70 million over 30 years, budget warnings (personnel costs approaching 70% of budget), concern about using redevelopment funds for a government building, and staff time being diverted.
• Jennifer Varivi (resident) requested the board clarify how they will represent the public, noting many residents oppose the project and that alternate ideas deserve good faith discussion.
• Kathleen Beasley (resident) argued the proposal uses redevelopment funds to bypass competitive bidding, buy land without free market, and sell current city hall without competitive offers. She also raised concerns about lack of transparency and a conflict of interest between the city manager and Tom Metcalfe.
• Richard Chang (resident) opposed the proposal, noting total repayment could approach $70 million with interest, that the city’s growth does not justify the scale, and that public trust is eroding.
• Doreen Gerlani Mack (third-generation resident) spoke for strengthening downtown with a city hall as a central hub, but emphasized need for public meetings, smart parking solutions, and accessibility.
• Cheryl Rookwood (resident) opposed the public-private partnership, citing cheaper alternatives like Ormsby House and Kmart building, and called the expense irresponsible given economic uncertainty.
• Heather (resident) criticized the board for prioritizing developers over residents, called the project a “want not a need,” and urged a ballot vote.
• Sandra Owens (resident) questioned why a tens-of-millions project is not on the ballot, and called for transparency.
• Leanne Saruman (native resident) said the item was brought to a vote too quickly without a single public hearing, and that the process excludes ordinary residents.
• Danny (name not fully given) raised concerns about cost, growth management, and lack of clarity, and urged more discussion.
• Tony Thompson (homeowner) called the $70 million price tag unconscionable and urged a more fiscally responsible approach.
• Tom Metcalfe (developer representative) clarified that city hall would be built under a CMAR or design-bid-build process for best value, and that he has worked with city staff over two years.
• Dan Leck (resident) opposed the project, arguing the effective rent ($4.35/sq ft/month triple net) is excessive, and that the proposal would harm existing commercial buildings.
• Connie Salerno (resident) requested that structural reports and due diligence on alternatives be made public.
• Mary Sonata (resident) opposed the plan, stating roads are deteriorating and the city should not spend on a “grandiose new city hall.”

In Support of the New City Hall Proposal:

• Jeff Sudich (CEO, Nevada Builders Alliance) expressed strong support for a downtown city hall, citing civic identity, accessibility, efficiency, and economic growth. He represented 116 member businesses.
• Garrett LePier (lifelong resident and downtown property owner) supported the project as a good use of leverage, for secure elections, and as the start of a new chapter.
• Donna Anderson (resident, board member of Muscle Powered) favored the project, stating the city needs a new city hall and should look like the capital.
• Collette Bureau (37-year real estate agent) urged the board to move forward, noting the location is outstanding and comparing it to past successful downtown redevelopment.
• Jed Block (62-year resident, business owner) supported the project, criticizing lack of decorum in opposition and noting that renovations on old buildings are unpredictable.
• Kara Falatar (estimator, Martin Harris Construction) cited examples where retrofits cost more than new construction, and that NRS 338 requires competitive bidding.
• Rod Butler (resident) used a car analogy to argue that retrofitting old buildings is a money pit and urged moving forward with new construction.

Other Comments:

• Mark Costa (also spoke on a different item) asked the board to vote against authorizing continued work on the new city hall (see opposition).
• Sheriff Furlong endorsed suicide prevention training on March 30, 2026, at the Sheriff’s Office, and commended a news article on the topic.
• Pedro Gonzalez (Pastor, Victory Outreach) expressed desire to move his church to Carson City, citing work with at-risk youth and recovery.

Discussion Items

18A – Direction to City Manager on Due Diligence for New City Hall:

• City Manager Glenn Martell clarified there is no preset deal to sell current city hall; any project will follow NRS prevailing wage and competitive bidding requirements. The proposal meets strategic goals of centralized services, investment in infrastructure, and confidence in downtown.
• Stephanie Hicks (Deputy City Manager) provided background: since 2015, the board has considered city space needs; the board directed in 2022 that city hall remain downtown. The new city hall would be a civic anchor consistent with the master plan.
• Robert Nellis (Asset Services Manager) presented a comparison table of eight facilities, noting that other options lacked required square footage, had unknown deferred maintenance, could not meet timelines, or required moves the city cannot afford.
• Sherry Russell (CFO) stated the preliminary estimate is $36 million, with total interest over 30 years potentially near $64 million (not $70 million as claimed by some commenters). Funding would come from extraordinary maintenance funds, redevelopment funds, and general fund as redevelopment districts sunset (2031/2034). No new taxes are expected. She emphasized the city will own the land and building at the end.
• Supervisor White insisted on competitive bidding; staff confirmed the developer has agreed to city oversight of bid openings. She also stressed that sale proceeds of existing city hall should go toward the project.
• Supervisor Horton asked staff to explain off-ramps (prepayment options) that allow the city to bond and buy out the lease early, reducing interest costs.
• Supervisor Shuty raised concerns about “need vs. want”; City Manager Martell argued the growth requires investment and that money will be spent regardless.
• Supervisor Giomi moved the final motion, which directed the city manager to proceed with negotiations with the Hop and May Adams Foundation, return with a detailed agreement, and did not explicitly include a competitive bidding requirement (though it was discussed).

16A – Master Plan Text Amendment for Lompa Ranch North Specific Plan:

• Heather Ferris (staff) presented amendments to Condition 57B to remove a full public right-of-way requirement and instead require access, as full public access was not feasible due to private property constraints.
• Supervisor Giomi clarified the language ensures emergency access; staff confirmed. Approved unanimously.

16B – Master Plan Text Amendment for Policy 6.3b (Downtown Character Areas):

• Staff recommended stripping the phrase “while it is not under the city’s jurisdiction” and adding language to clarify the city does have zoning jurisdiction (per NRS 278.580) over state properties, except for uses existing before April 23, 1971.
• Kathleen Beasley questioned why staff did not follow the Planning Commission's recommended language stating the city has jurisdiction; staff explained the additional language was removed for consistency with a prior action removing the state office complex from the downtown character area. Approved unanimously.

17A – Utility Ratepayer Assistance Program (Second Reading):

• Ordinance 2026-6 (corrected from 2026-7) revising provisions of the utility ratepayer assistance program. Approved unanimously.

Key Outcomes

• Item 18A: City Manager directed to proceed with due diligence and negotiations with the Hop and May Adams Foundation for a new city hall downtown. Vote: 4–1 (Supervisor White opposed). The direction includes returning to the board with a detailed agreement. Competitive bidding and oversight by city staff was discussed and agreed by the developer.
• Consent Calendar: Unanimous approval.
• Item 10A: Resolution 2026-R-8 adopted 4–1 (White opposed).
• Item 16A & 16B: Master Plan text amendments approved unanimously.
• Item 17A: Ordinance 2026-6 adopted unanimously.
• Employee Service Awards: Recognized for 5, 10, 15, and 20 years of service.
• Public Comments recorded both strong opposition and support for the city hall proposal.
• No public hearing on city hall was scheduled; the board decision was made during this meeting.