Good morning.

This is the recommending committee for February seventeenth, two thousand twenty-six.

We are officially called the order.

And I'm going to assume we are in compliance with the open meeting law.

Yes, we are.

Thank you so much.

Item number three is public comment.

Comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters on the agenda for action.

If you wish to be heard, please do so now.

Hearing and seeing none, we will close public comment period.

And item number four is for possible action to approve the final minutes by reference of the February second, two thousand twenty-six city council or recommending committee meeting.

I'll entertain a motion.

And those minutes have been approved.

Item number five, bill number twenty twenty-six dash four for possible action, amends LVMC two point two six point or oh four zero four zero pertaining to the compensation for alternate municipal judges.

This is proposed by Hans Jesse, our court administrator.

This was uh this is a catch-up bill basically to codify how the municipal court has been paying our our alternative judges since approved in the FY twenty-four budget.

Um this also puts us in line with our other community courts, uh, specifically Henderson and North Las Vegas pay their judges roughly the same rate.

So primarily they're used when judges have absences that could be related to business travel, especially court conferences, things of that nature, absences related to illness or uh vacation travel, things of that nature.

Um, we'll bring in alternate judges or senior judges as approved by the Supreme Court to come in and cover our calendars to make sure our public business continues without interruption.

And I'm assuming you have the budget to cover the costs associated with this.

There is a specific budget item uh that uh does allow us to cover costs.

An example of some of our usage recently this year is related to the retirement of our two judges uh during that retirement process, and before we were able to fill them, uh pro tem judges were utilized for that process to make sure we continue to use uh our resources and continue to provide uh services to the community.

Thank you very much.

Those are all my questions.

So in others, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just for clarity, I've got the ordinance in front of me.

Uh, compensation, the sum of 150 dollars for each session.

Can you describe what the session means?

Is that one case?

Is that a full calendar day?

Thank you for the questions, and it's a good one.

Um, it's kind of unique.

Um, most people charge by the hour.

In fact, North Las Vegas and Henderson, it is by the R ordinance says session.

Session to us means basically the morning session, the afternoon session, or could be the warrant phone over a period of a day, things of that nature, uh, or 24-hour period of covering that, but it's basically a four-hour window uh of time for the court.

So for eight hours of work, it will be $300.

Eight hours of eight hours work would be $300, correct.

Thank you for the clarity.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um you remind me when was the last time we had raised the amount from 100 to now 150?

When was the last time I guess we we took the time to change the rate?

Do you know?

I don't have that information.

Okay.

Uh this is Jillian Black Sater Bloom Deputy City Attorney.

Um, the last time it was done by ordinance was in 2000, and that established the 100.

2000.

So 26 years.

Wow.

Are we um my only comment on this matter is 150 seems already on the low end?

Um, so I don't know.

I'm trying to figure out why the judges would want to sit in unless they're just doing it kind of volunteering and not really caring about the pace.

So could you kind of I'm I guess where my comment is going is are we gonna be competitive and getting good people to sit in for the you know absences of our judges when they need them being at 150?

And do you see that changing after we adopt this change?

So as I mentioned, this this is to get us codified with what our current practices are.

We do have a list of pro tem judges that are are routinely approved by uh the mayor.

Um she reviews and approves those.

I think our list right now includes seven, and that doesn't include some of our senior judges that are appointed to us through the Supreme Court.

So uh we don't foresee right now having a challenge with being able to fill our pro tem judge usage.

Um it does put us online with our other uh communities, uh Henderson and North Las Vegas, particularly, as far as the rates, and so I don't think we would be out competed for people that might be qualified to serve in that position.

All right, thank you.

Did you say the mayor picks the pro tem judges?

Correct.

The mayor approves the list for pro tem judges.

Those are all the questions up here.

This is a public hearing for anybody who would like to comment.

Hearing and seeing none.

Thank you, Mr.

Jess.

I appreciate it.

I will entertain a motion.

Move to approve.

There's a motion to approve.

Please vote.

And post.

And this item will be up for consideration by the city council on March 4th, 2026.

Moving on to that did pass.

Moving on to item number six, bill number 2026-5 for possible action, adopts a third amended and restated redevelopment plan for the redevelopment area, commonly known as redevelopment area one, to expand the re to ex.

I'm gonna say redevelopment like 17 more times to expand the redevelopment area associated with that plan, sponsored by councilman Brian Knuton and Councilwoman Chandra Summers Armstrong.

Hi.

Good morning.

Alex Strasser, senior economic development specialist with the Department of Economic and Urban Development.

Uh, this item was previously heard for consideration by the redevelopment agency on January 21st and the city council on February 4th.

Uh, since the redevelopment plan was established in 1986, we've had periodic amendments, which has added additional parcels to the redevelopment plan areas.

There have been four other amendments to the redevelopment plan for area one with prior amendments in 1988, 1996, 2006, and 2015.

For this amendment, there are two sites.

The first being Grant Sawyer office complex, which is 22.7 acres at Washington Avenue in Las Vegas Boulevard.

This was previously a state-owned property and was excluded from the redevelopment plan amendments.

With the state trying to sell the site, this site aligns with the vision of the redevelopment plan with the proximity to the Cashman District of the downtown Las Vegas Master Plan.

The second is the Grace Presbyterian Church, which is 4.95 acres at the corner of Charleston Boulevard and Interstate 15.

This was previously owned by the church and not planned to be redeveloped.

But with now that the state owns it and is trying to sell the property, it is ideal to redevelop with the proximity to the Las Vegas medical district.

With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Are there any questions up here?

Hearing and seeing none.

This is a public hearing for anybody who would like to comment.

Hearing and seeing none, we'll close a public comment.

Nice job.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'll entertain a motion.

Uh, since I'm sponsoring it, I'm gonna move to approve item number 2026-5.

There's a motion, please vote.

And post.

And that item passes and will be up for consideration at the February 18th, 2026 City Council meeting.

Moving on to item number seven, bill number 2026-6 for possible action, an ordinance authorizing the issuance of the city of Las Vegas, Nevada General Obligation, limited tax, city hall refunding bonds additionally secured by pledged revenues, series 2026 C for the purpose of refunding certain outstanding bonds and providing the form terms and conditions of the bonds and the security therefore and other details in connection there with proposed by Susan Heltsey, Chief Financial Officer.

Ms.

Helsey.

Good morning, Council.

Susan Helsley for the record, Chief Financial Officer.

This uh particular bond issuance refunds our current city hall bonds.

They were issued back in 2015.

So by reissuing them, we save about 9.7 million over the course of the rest of the life of the bonds.

We're not extending the term, it's just to get a better rate.

That makes perfect sense.

Thank you.

Any questions up here?

Better we see hearing and seeing none.

This is a public hearing for anybody who would like to comment.

And hearing and seeing none.

Thank you, Miss Heltsey.

And I will entertain a motion for bill number 2026-6.

There is a motion, please vote.

And post.

And that item has passed and will be up for consideration at the February 18th, 2026 City Council meeting.

Item number eight, bill number 2026-7 for possible action and ordinance providing the issuance by the city of Las Vegas of its general obligation, limited tax, medium-term, various purpose bonds, series 2026 2026 in the maximum aggregate principal amount of 24 million for the purpose of financing the cost of recreational projects and providing details concerning the bonds, the project, and general tax proceeds.

This is proposed by our chief financial officer, Miss Helsey.

Thank you, Council, Susan Heltzley for the record, chief financial officer.

This bond issuance of 24 million dollars actually takes the place of a bond issuance that just expired last fall.

So we use proceeds that we receive from the I always get this wrong.

It's the LVGVA.

It's their room tax, and that actually pays for the parks.

So we're using this to advance that money.

So again, it's a 10 10-year bond.

It is covered by those particular proceeds, and so it's basically replacing what we already had.

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions?

One question, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and Ms.

Helpsley.

Have we seen a decline in our room tax rates?

Um you know, we keep hearing on the news how the um there's a steady decline in tourism, and there's not as many people staying.

And so do are we seeing that impact the downtown area just as much as our counterparts on the strip.

So I just kind of want to know if this is the revenue we're kind of banking to pay this back, or should we be worried, or are we kind of in a good spot?

Thank you.

Um through you, um, Sir Chair.

Um, Councilwoman Diaz, we have been watching the room tax, and it's a little soft.

I wouldn't say that it's catastrophic.

We are finding that a lot of what's being portrayed in the media is a lot of hype for lack of a better word.

We met with our financial advisory committee in late January, and things are looking pretty good downtown.

What we don't do with this particular revenue source, we don't stress it out.

So we're not saying, oh, we think we're gonna get two million, so we're gonna go two million in bonds.

We make sure that we're actually going for an amount that we know that we can support.

So I feel very confident that we'll be fine on these bonds.

That's good to hear that we're kind of looking at potential uh projections of room tax, but we're not going above or exceeding the amount that we think we'll get on a yearly.

Is that what I'm understanding?

Standings that's correct.

We're very conservative whenever we do any kind of financial projections, and so we take in what the financial advisory committee says, and they're downtown rates have been holding fairly steady.

So our room tax has been hanging in there.

So we we're very confident that we can support the 24 million dollars.

Okay, that's great news.

Thank you so much.

And just just for our viewers' knowledge, this this fund will these proceeds will go towards paying for parks, recreational things, and all of the wards throughout the city.

So we're currently planning that with our capital budget and the budget season coming up.

That is correct.

Yeah, this all and the only thing that we can do with these funds is to play for is to pay for parks and park park and recreational facilities within the city.

No other questions up here.

This is a public hearing for anybody who would like to comment.

Hearing and seeing none, we'll close the public comment period, and I'll entertain a motion.

Move to approve.

I'm sorry, pardon the interruption.

Um there's an additional item uh to be attached as exhibit E to this ordinance.

Um, this has already been provided to the clerk.

It's just a letter of approval from the state of Nevada Department of Taxation.

Under state law, these letters are issued by the Department of Taxation with respect to medium-term bonds, and um pursuant to NRS 350.

Uh, this letter of approval must be recorded in the minutes of the governing body.

And I do have copies if you'd like.

And we have that included within the motion as well.

So it's moved to approve with the amendment or incorporation of the letter from the department of taxation.

Yes.

Okay, there is a motion, please vote.

And post, and that item passes and will be heard at the February 18th, 2026, City Council meeting.

Moving on to item number nine, bill number 2026, Stas 8 for possible action and ordinance providing for the issuance by the city of Las Vegas of its general obligation, limited tax, medium-term building bonds, series 2026 e taxable and the maximum aggregate principal amount of 10 million for the purpose of financing the cost of building projects and providing details concerning the bonds, the project and general tax proceeds.

This is also sponsored by Susan Helsingor, Chief Financial Officer.

Thank you, Council.

Susan Heltzley, Chief Financial Officer for the record.

Uh, this 10 million dollar bond basically pays back the RDA.

So when our parking garage was being built, the RDA gave 10 million dollars in cash to for the proceeds of these, and now they would like their cash back.

So it's actually easier for the city to go ahead and issue the bonds.

We get better financing, our rates are a little bit better, and so we also have um an MOU with the RDA that they will be paying us back, but we are getting the 10 million for them, and then that money will be used for other land appropriations within the RDA.

That makes sense to me.

Are there any questions up here?

Ms.

Segerblum, did you have something to add?

Yes, thank you.

Um again, this is uh has an additional item to be attached.

It's exhibit E, which has been provided to the clerk.

Um, again, this is a letter of approval from the Nevada State Department of Taxation.

Uh these letters are issued with respect to medium-term bonds, and again, this letter must be recorded in the minutes of the governing body.

Thank you so much.

And this is a public hearing for anybody who would like to comment.

Hearing and seeing none.

I will entertain a motion with a quick question.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So you mentioned the parking garage, and I just wanted to clarify and state on the record this is the arts district parking garage we're talking about.

Yes, um, Sir Chair through you.

Yes, it is the arts district parking garage that's currently under construction.

Okay, just lighted you thank you.

Oh, yeah.

I just wanted to make sure we articulated which garage uh the funds were going to support.

There's so many parking garages now.

There are many.

Okay.

That was the only one we have under construction right now.

So it is the Arts District Parking Garage.

And again, the RDA gave us 10 million dollars, and now they would like it back.

So you're gonna make the motion with the attached letter.

Yes, uh move to approve agenda item nine with um also the letter from the state of Nevada Department of Taxation as a documentation to support this item.

And there's a motion, please vote and post.

And that item passes and will be heard at the February 18th, 2026, City Council meeting.

Thank you, Miss Helsey.

Thank you.

And we are now on to citizen participation.

Public comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the recommending committee.

For anybody who would like to comment, please step forward now.

Hearing and seeing none, thank you, everybody.

We can adjourn today.