Good morning, everyone.

I'm gonna call the historic preservation commission meeting on March twenty-fifth to order.

We will start with roll call, please.

Chair Laramie.

Here.

Vice Chair Levine.

Here.

Commissioner Stoddle.

Present.

Commissioner Hodgkins, he's excused.

Commissioner Serfas?

Here.

Commissioner Cosgrove?

Here.

Commissioner Palacios?

Here.

Commissioner Moody?

Here.

Commissioner Perdue.

Commissioner Grimmer?

Here.

Commissioner Harper.

Commissioner Siebrant?

Here.

Commissioner Gillespie.

She's not present.

Thank you.

We do have a quorum.

Okay, thank you.

Our second item is an announcement regarding compliance with open meeting law.

Are we in compliance?

Yes, we are.

No.

Okay, seeing none, we will move on to item four for possible action to approve the final minutes by reference of the regular meeting of February twenty-fifth, twenty twenty-six.

Do we have any comments before we take a motion?

Uh Commissioner Moody, I'll be abstaining since I missed last meeting.

Any other comments?

If not, I'll look for a motion to approve motion.

That's a motion to approve.

Okay, we have a motion to approve.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed that item uh passes with the chair voting in favor.

Moving on to item number two six oh one three eight HPC one.

Report by Jay Dapper, Principal of Dapper Companies regarding the status of the Huntridge Theater located at twelve oh eight twelve oh eight East Charleston Boulevard.

Uh C Bert for the record.

Um Mr.

Dapper sends his apologies.

He had an unexpected conflict with this meeting.

Uh so we would like to ask to have this obey to the April meeting.

Okay.

Do we have a motion to obey this item?

Commissioner Cosgro, by a motion to obey the item.

All those in favor?

Any opposed I need the date.

I think it was changed, wasn't it?

April.

April 29th, right?

Thank you.

Sure, just a quick question.

This I assume we will still have four quarterly reports or four reports this year from Mr.

Dapper as the legal agreement requires.

Thank you.

Okay, so we have a motion to obey this item to our April 28th meeting.

29th.

29th meeting.

I apologize.

All those in favor, no opposed.

That item passes with the chair voting in favor as well.

We'll move on to item number six, 26-0132-HPC 1.

Discussion for possible action regarding approval of historic preservation commission funds in the amount of $5,000 to use as a match for a federal historic preservation fund grant to hire a consultant to complete a national register of historic places nomination for Johnny Toko's Roadside Boxing Gym located at 9 West Charleston Boulevard.

So Johnny Toko's boxing gym.

This is a picture of Mr.

Toko and Mike Tyson.

The building itself, well, let me go back a little bit.

So this is a SHIPO grant that we apply for as a CLG.

That Shippo likes to spend this money, so we try and uh submit applications and proposals for projects that we feel are worthy.

The gym itself, I have outside images that show two sides of the building.

Since it was built in the 50s.

Because a lot of the history that's out there on the internet is taken from media articles or non-uh peer-reviewed articles.

So it's important to get the actual history of this gym and his clientele and its owner so that we understand it's its actual history, not just conjecture.

So again, the building itself is not phenomenal, but it's the clientele, and it is the boxer.

And I don't not sure if everybody read the um backup.

I hope you did.

Um I'll just kind of uh summarize it here.

So Mr.

Toko was not only training very well renowned, world-renowned boxers such as Sonny Liston and Larry Holmes, um several others.

I'm sorry, I don't really know boxers.

I'm not familiar with that history.

Mohammed Ali did not train there, but he did visit there.

Um so all these boxers starting in the 50s would train at Johnny Toko's.

Um Mr.

Toko himself would also train a lot of the youth in the in the area.

So he was very involved with the Las Vegas community.

Um he was awarded several um accolades during his time in Las Vegas.

He was named the City of Las Vegas April 1997 Citizen of the Month and given a key to the city because of his contributions to the community.

He was um a non-boxer inductee at the Nevada Boxing Hall of Fame in 2016, and a little bit before that in 2000, he was added to the Southern Nevada uh sports hall of fame for being one of the most prominent boxing trainers, um, and basically um in Las Vegas' most prominent boxing trainer.

Now, I know Bob's gonna say that the fights didn't occur in the city, they did not.

The majority of boxing matches occurred on the strip, mainly at Caesars.

However, all the training except for Mohammed Ali, that's because the his trainers preferred that he train at the Caesars for press.

But all the other mainstream boxers would train at Johnny Toko's boxing gym.

Um the owner is very interested in adding it to the register, understanding its real history.

And there are, again, it's not just these world-famous boxers, but it's the community that also was part of this.

The owner has murals and photographs of all the boxers that train there.

And it's just this building is important because it would fit hopefully the criterion B for person or persons associate with significant people of America's past.

Now, like I said, if whether you like boxing or not, I mean, it was a huge part of Las Vegas, especially in the 80s.

And it's very rare for us to have somebody that it that is interested in being on the historic register.

Usually we get, I don't want to do that, and so we have nothing to move forward with.

This is a great opportunity for us to sew SHIPO that we are you know very involved with this community that we want to add places to the national register, and then if we get it on the national register, we might be able to also get it on the local register.

So the SHIPO um grants always do require a 40% match.

So we ask SHIPO for $7200, and we would like to match that with HPC funds, uh, the amount of $5,000, and then we can hire um a cultural resource management firm for about 12,200 to do the research, write the and write the nomination, submit the nomination.

Um so I'm happy to ask questions because I'm sure there will be some.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions or comments from commissioners?

Vice Chair.

Please.

We can start with Craig.

Um, I guess I'm a little uh what's the word suspect, you know.

Um in my years in in sustainability and historical preservation, I I find um different reasons why people want to go into either of those things, and I find a lot of times they don't know what they're getting involved involved with.

Um I don't know who spoke with um this person, and I I I love boxing.

Uh I love all sports.

I was just talking about that.

Um, I know that this place is the foremost uh location for the sport within Las Vegas, it's got a lot of stars that have gone there.

I wish it was a more interesting building, but to get to my question, um, do we know why he wants to do it?

And do we know if he knows what he's getting himself into?

He's gonna basically um lock in this corner um for the duration and and limit it from any kind of development for many years to come.

Well, that's not entirely true.

Um I'm sorry, see C Burnt for the record.

Yes, I have spoken with Jimmy Smith is the honor numerous times.

I have visited him at the gym, and he knows exactly what he's getting into.

Um I have explained all the registers to him.

I've explained what restrictions come with which um historic register, and because a national register would not prohibit it from being redeveloped because unless he gets a grant from the uh the federal grant, a national register um listing does not prohibit you from altering or tearing down your building.

It's only our local register that prohibits that without the approval of the HBC.

Okay, well, uh that answers my question.

Uh Palacios for the record, that answers my question, and uh if that's the case, I'm thrilled to to see him do it.

I think that's wonderful.

So did he initiate Jimmy Smith initiate this?

Okay, so CBREM for the record.

Back in 2005, the HPC wanted to put this building on the register, and at that time, I guess this commission did not have the um centennial funding that we have now, and there was only four thousand dollars, it looks like in the whatever they could fund.

So there was the idea to have a UNLV student do the nomination for free, but that never panned out.

I don't know, Bob, you may remember this.

Um I don't, but I will research that.

I don't remember us uh uh Yeah, it came before the commission um uh October 26, 2005.

And then um again, some of the I couldn't find all of the I couldn't find any backup, but the notes say there were no backup documents.

So there was interest, there's always been interest in putting this on the register, and I'm sorry, uh, Commissioner Placius, I did not answer your one part of your question.

Um we came to him because he had contacted our EUD about looking at perhaps doing some type of alterations and realizing the history of it.

EUD contacted myself and and Mike Howe, and we went to talk to Jimmy, and um he's interested in being on the register, but we came to him because again, we have this great opportunity for a grant.

We have a great opportunity to hopefully put something on the register and a great opportunity to you know embellish a true boxing history in Las Vegas.

Having done some work on on this before, and certainly in the in the 80s, I think the right word is embellished.

The history is embellished, and uh uh some yes, Mr.

Liston and Mr.

Holmes uh uh showed up there and and uh so did other less famous uh uh boxers, but um the the challenge uh for me first A is the value of doing the nomination is going to really clear the facts up.

What are the real facts regarding this this facility?

Um and we will likely run across the fact that last year this whole structure was for sale and there was considerable discussion about demolition because it's such a uh uh a key site, and we also know that the city is now uh just begun uh a look at that section of Charleston, the Charleston underpass.

Uh, and so that whole area along with the arts district is uh and main street, that property's become very valuable.

Uh the challenge that I have is it's with the building and stand alone.

There's the the transportation, the buses do to to Mexico on the uh the one side where you have the pictures.

Um uh on the on the one on the right, uh, and then there's a break entire place that's further uh west on uh connected to that building.

Um and then the second part, the reason I'm going to support it is because we will find the true history and then whether or not it really qualifies.

This is this isn't I don't think a given there's a lot of promotion that has been made.

I'm using that most positive word regarding this facility, which was built the the building was built in the 40s.

Uh uh, and I think that he took over and had the zodiac with the zodiac bar there for for a while, and uh he's a colorful character, and and so I I'm not sure of the motive.

My motive is is to support this is that we will get a factual history of which to move forward.

I'm not sure it qualifies.

I mean, but that's not necessarily what we will get that is this is a recommendation.

They're gonna look at it and recommend whether we do it, or they're gonna simply draft the nomination.

So we would have somebody draft the nomination, but we could in uh a contract put in if we prefer that they do a recommendation and draft it.

Yeah, uh uh again it it was on the market for sale last uh this past year, and and uh it's a great it's a great piece of property with with a very interesting history whether it qualifies the national register.

And and of course, I think you explained that of all the register nominations that and he selected or potentially selected this one as opposed to the city, which would have more he'd have to come before this group to uh uh and change the outside, etc.

So I think he's picking for the one that which that's that's his prerogative.

So but he's not contributing any money though, correct?

No, he has not.

Okay, thank you.

Um Commissioner Laramie, I think that the motive of just learning the true history of this building is um is very positive for the application being put forward to us.

I also just want to add that in kind of the preservation industry, there is a desire to expand um our register nominations beyond kind of those phenomenal architectural buildings, and really dive into some of these maybe more commonplace buildings that really do have significant social history and other elements of history that are important to the community but don't always come to light when it's not viewed as maybe an extraordinary building.

So I think this is a really great opportunity for us to kind of learn what that process is as well.

Um and if the building does qualify, um, provides that opportunity.

So I'm um happy to support it through that lens.

I I did also want to add that um I also am not sure that it will end up qualifying.

Um but there is a possibility that it could it could also potentially qualify for a state nomination, and so I do think that in the scope, you know, potentially maybe focusing more on the recommendations and then drafting a nomination for whatever might be recommended, understanding that it would be either national or state, which don't have those regulations that come with the local register.

Chair, one last question, so log in for the record.

Do we understand that this is that what generated this was uh that he was looking at opportunities for financial help from the city of Las Vegas for some sort of restoration or and that generated this?

Uh Saber for the record, I do not know that answer.

Mike, do you know that answer?

No.

Great.

Thank you.

Are there any other comments or questions?

Commissioner Grimmer.

Commissioner Grimer, for the record.

Um, not to repeat what everybody else has said, but I I would agree with that that this is a with the importance of boxing in Las Vegas' history.

I think it is important to go ahead and move this forward so that we can determine if there is if there is historic value to the property.

So I would also agree with moving forward with this.

I'd like to make a motion to approve uh uh 26 uh dash 0132 HBC 1 regarding the Johnny Chacos Roadside Boxing Gym with the idea that uh it would include within the nomination a recommendation as to whether to move forward with the nomination we have a motion, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed that motion passes with the chair voting in favor as well.

Thank you.

Moving on to item number seven, two six-0133 HPC one report by the community development department regarding properties currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Uh thank you, CBRnt for the record again.

And pretty much it's gonna be me talking all day, just to let you know.

So I'll let Seth jump in at some point.

Um, so this is a request from this commission requested to know um if we could update the National Register nominations for any of the um older nominations.

So here we have uh everything that was nominated prior to the year 2000.

So that includes the um Big Springs Archaeological Site, the Thule Springs archaeological site, uh, the Rant Foley Land Park Ranch.

I know that we had a discussion about that one that's still in the works.

Um, the post office, which is now of course the mob museum, the Jay de Dayton Smith House, the Fifth Street School, um, the Las Vegas School Neighborhood District, the Huntridge Theater, and Eureka Lotomode Locomotive.

But keeping in mind that some of these have also been um placed on the state or local register after that.

Um I'm gonna throw a bunch of dates at you here, but you don't have to rememorize them, and you can ask me if uh if um you forgot one.

So as far as the Big Springs archaeological site, it was nominated to the state in 1981.

So I mean just a few years after 78, Thule Springs archaeological site again in 81 with the state.

Um Floyd Land Park at Tully Springs was put on the local register in 2008, uh, the Mobb Museum state in 2002 and local 2003, uh Smith House that's only on the National Register, uh, the Fifth Street School, um 1981.

Wow, you guys were really um busy in 1981.

Um, or somebody was busy in 1981, was on state uh and the local in 1992.

Uh the high school neighborhood district is only on the national Huntridge Theater.

Of course, we know that we put that on our local register in 2021.

It was also placed on the state uh register in 1999.

So this is not um a voting item.

This is just an idea give you an idea of what is old, anything that we want to update.

These are the potential candidates.

Any comments or questions?

Commissioner Moody for the record.

What kind of expense are we looking at for each of these for an update?

Uh Stephen, for the record, so it would be basically what we just approved for the um gym.

Uh it's about 12,000 to pay a consultant to do to do the work.

And we have those funds available.

Um actually we do, or hold on, I had a note, and I always write everything down, and then I lose my notes because I walk over here and I drop my papers.

We have two Teresa, tell me if I got this right.

216, 216,000.

I can't remember what the 200,000, at least over 200,000 left in our bank.

Great, thank you.

Commissioner Perdue, did you also have a question or comment?

No.

Okay.

Vice Chair Stuttle.

No.

I'm not along with the Vice Chair.

Oh, you're right.

I'm sorry.

Commissioner Stodal.

Well, that's okay.

Uh strike that.

One of the what we have done is what this commission has done has really cleaned up a lot of these, whether it's the historic West Side School, uh, and and different places.

The other thing I was I was thinking about my recommendation is going to be for number three, uh, which came out of the report that we funded a recommendation, I believe, to update the Floyd Land Park at Thule Springs.

That was 81.

And it's it's outdated, and uh I will think positively and use the word factually, it needs to be updated.

Uh so I would recommend that uh we redo the nomination on that.

The other ones I'd I think I would not I would recommend that we uh uh send a note to uh uh the owners, for example, I well, the city still owns the post office, but I know that they the mob use the post office courthouse mob museum 83.

That was quite a while ago.

Uh but they're undergoing a redevelopment plan and are in conversation with Shippo and so forth.

Uh I'm wondering if maybe the Hunters Theater, the Eureka locomotive, uh whether we have addresses on these places, and whether we asked them if they wanted have an update before we go through.

Um, yeah, C Brian Federic, absolutely.

We won't do this without owners' knowledge.

Okay.

Okay.

So my my only rec specific action recommendation, I know this is not uh an action item, but uh would recommend that the uh number three Floyd Land Park at Thule Springs, the 1981 uh national nomination uh that it uh be amended uh and that we put it on uh an upcoming agenda.

Uh Jack LeBine for the record.

Um what is the Eureka locomotive?

I've never heard of this.

I don't know anything about it.

What is there any C Burn for the right?

So it is a restricted um nomination because it's a privately owned locomotive, so it's a locomotive that actually Mike Howe knows more about it than I do.

I guess it used to be as part of the old Colorado, yeah.

For the record, Michael Howe.

Um I believe, and I apologize if I don't know his current status, but Dan Markoff, a local attorney owned it.

Um you've seen it prominently, it's been used in film, it was in Back to the Future, he's using some PISA ads.

It's one of the few narrow gauge wood-fired steam locomotives used in mining in the state of Nevada.

And then the why I know so much is because we actually installed it on Fremont Street for the centennial in 2005.

Where is it?

It burned down uh uh at the fire out in Henderson at old Las Vegas, and Dan Markoff got it, it was completely gutted.

He re hand built it.

And uh to the state that it's on the national register.

Markov is uh still a member of the Nevada State Board of Museums and History.

It runs, he takes it out on a regular basis to various the various places, as Mike pointed out.

I let her to him and asking him if he if it needs to be updated, he would respond.

He's retired.

Um but but active.

So in Vice Chair Um Devine to answer your question, I believe it's at his residence, I think.

Okay, yeah.

Uh say he's got a trailer.

And literally it's pulled up onto this uh trailer and he tows it to the city or to Colorado or although I don't think he's he's he's hired for a long while.

Uh I don't know the last the last time he's taken but it's in the neighborhood and the the neighbors all love it given the interest in the Eureka locomotive.

I think that would be one we definitely would want to talk about in the future for updating.

Um and I also wanted to highlight the Las Vegas High School neighborhood district as one that I would personally like to prioritize for an update.

I know a lot has changed in that neighborhood, as well as a lot of ownership has I'm sure changed over.

Um, and so seeing if there's you know individual properties in there that may now be interested um in a state or local register, I think could could also be worthwhile.

And so that's another one I would highlight there.

Um I know this is just for discussion, so I think any future actions that we're interested in, we can talk about when we get to that portion of the agenda for future agenda items.

Um are there any other comments from commissioners on this item?

Commissioner Moody.

Yes.

Um so the vice chair made a motion.

Are we going to hold that till the end?

Uh I don't think we need a motion on this item because there's no decision.

Okay.

Um, so if there are if there are actions that would um need to be recommended for a future agenda item, which is not sure which number, item number 14.

Your mic's not on, Commissioner.

There you go.

Do we have an aversion to have privately held businesses on this list?

Uh for the record, um, as long as the owner agrees, that's well, that would tie the business up.

So I'm just wondering if there's been any kind of uh attitude in the past that businesses are not interested in historical preservation.

It depends.

So some are, but again, if it's on the national register, there are no restrictions unless that property owner receives a federal grant.

It's only when it's placed on our local register that it falls under our Title 19 municipal ordinance where we have restrictions.

Okay.

Great.

Well, thank you for this um great update.

And I'm sure we'll continue talking about this on future items.

I'm sorry, I just want to make clear that I understand that if it's on the national register, there are zero restrictions.

Steve, I'm for the record, that is correct.

And the only time it would be a restriction if I accepted uh federal grant money.

Correct.

Thank you.

And you can only accept federal grant money if you're a business set.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Okay, item number eight two six-0134 HPC one.

A report by the community development department regarding content provided to the commission of the Las Vegas Centennial to update the City of Las Vegas website.

Uh statement for the record.

So this is going to tie into number nine.

Uh, but number nine is a vote, and this one's just a report, so we can't put them together, but just wanted to give you background so you understand what is being asked for in uh item number nine.

So the Centennial Commission um provided funding to hire uh content creator, what website content creator to update the centennial grants that are on the city's website.

And so this is just to show you the type of work that um has been produced to show on the city's website, um, providing the the consultant uh Jeffrey Carlson, he provided written narrative as well as images.

Again, these are for so it's this is not what this commission does, this is what the Centennial Commission does.

And so he we gave him all of the grants that we had, and he created these summaries.

And now when you go to our website, all these summaries are up there and say if you want to know something about uh the the safari hotel or one of our documentaries, that's that's all up there.

So what he did is he went through all of our grants.

Um he did a summary, making sure that all boxes were checked, find the images for whatever the grant project was.

He also provided um again content for the timeline, and Bob, that is just with communications now.

So we should hopefully have that up.

Um hopefully in the next couple weeks.

And again, what he focused on and what he would focus on for what I'll be talking about next is key figures, places, events that occurred in Las Vegas.

And from the timeline, it again he did a summary and provided images.

And again, this is just to give you an idea of what we're looking for that could possibly be done with um the HPC, the history blogs.

Um I won't go through all these slides because it's basically all the same information as far as narrative and um images.

And if you want to read all of this, you can go to our website.

Um, once we have all this up, but you can go read all the the grant summaries to see if this is uh the type of information that you feel is important to be um highlighted on our website.

So again, this is just a report.

Happy to take any questions.

Any questions or comments from commissioners?

Commissioner Purdue, I thought it was very interesting, and I particularly liked the um coinciding of the population growth as they went through each decade.

Well, we have Bob to think for that.

He he suggested we put that on there, so thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Okay, we'll move on to item number nine, a related topic.

26-0135 HPC one discussion for possible action regarding approval of funding in the amount of 31,500 to hire a website content creator to create historic blog posts for the city of Las Vegas website.

Thank you.

So Seabird again.

So you just saw the images of what the Jeffrey Carlson, the content creator that would has that we've been talking to about doing a similar project for um the blogs that are on our website.

And um he's provided the proposed articles that he would write about.

He is open to changing those.

Um, he provided us the um amount based on his hourly rate.

And uh this is an action item, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Do we have any questions or comments?

Commissioner Purdue.

No, no, Commissioner Stoddall.

Fundamentally, I like the idea, uh, but I think that the relating to uh what uh Dr.

Siebran presented in the previous item, uh, which is also the work of Mr.

Carlson of the timeline, the city's timeline uh that that's on there right now is adequate.

Uh the one that uh the Centennial Commission proposed, and Mr.

Carlson created based on research.

Uh and and really updating the the content and adding additional historic sites.

It was an interesting to me that that the part of the process, and I don't know if this was part of the packet uh Daniel uh Dr.

Zibrand, but it came out of the uh uh the centennial commission.

What what was the filter that was used for the timeline?

And that filter to me is the one that we should use to select the stories that need to be more in depth.

For example, there is so much misinformation regarding the May 15th, 16th, and actually it was three days, 17th city auction, or excuse me, uh land sale auction uh on the May 15th, 1905, 16th, and 17th.

That we need a longer in-depth article to to clean up all the all that information.

Plus uh uh the list that he is also supplying.

There's already a couple three hundred thousand dollars been funded, then that's in work for that process.

What I would recommend is members of this commission look through the timeline that I think Dr.

Siebran, you said is going to be on the website in the next month or so, less weeks or so, and select the stories that we the commission feels are ones that we could say, Mr.

Carlson, these are the ones that we need to have a thousand words uh uh added or or created with some uh uh source information at the end.

Uh for example, on on this, all the photographs is is source information, and but they're only 30 to 60 words on the timeline.

Some that really needs to be expanded.

Our history timeline according to the uh our history site elements of the city's history site according to the communication department here is one of the most popular and search.

And so I think if we start adding some articles in depth, uh not book length, uh, but but certainly a thousand words, that we should expand some of these topics.

So that's going to be my recommendation that this and this group uh takes a look at at the timeline and sends those recommendations recommendations to to Dr.

Cebrand, and then in turn those are the ones that we would have Mr.

Carlson do.

If any of that made any sense, uh it did.

So do you uh so he on his proposal suggested seven?

Um do you want to stay with seven, or do we want to use a different number or a fewer or well, I think that's a good question because it leads to the next question, which is what should we pay for each article?

Uh and so the question then is how much are we changing this action item to whether should we deny this action item and or uh uh well if we obey it, it is basically the same item because I think we're going to my recommendation will be to change the topics to those recommended by this commission.

Uh uh, and then it's likely we'll come up with more than seven.

Um I'm I'm not sure that what would be the the easiest and quickest way to to move forward with this before we make a decision on our approval process.

Do we want to take other comments and questions?

And then we can decide the best way to move forward.

Um, I think that I saw Commissioner Cosgrove, did you have a comment or question?

Okay.

Do we have any other commissioners wanting to speak on this?

Okay, so we we're just trying to pass a book, $31,000 that's divided into seven articles.

Okay, and it seems crazy to say that that's worth 40 what 4500 approximately per article.

Um is that a flat rate set that we're set establishing?

Uh can we have a budget for that for that same budget for nine or ten articles that are only 800 words?

Um how can we divide this up that we're getting the most content that we can get for that amount of money?

Um for the record.

So he has broken it down for scheduling 50 hours per each article uh at a rate of 90 dollars an hour.

That's how it was broken down.

That this isn't our number that we came up with.

When we had our discussions with Jeffrey Carlson, um this is the number that he came up with as far as how much a cot will cost him per time and what he charges for his work.

Okay, I get that, and and I don't know that seems like a lot of money per article to me, but um maybe not.

I don't know what you know, research actually costs.

Well, I would say I've never done any in my life.

Still off of the record, I think that that that's that's a fundamental question that needs to be answered.

Some stories you can research and write within a couple of days.

Others are gonna take take a deeper amount.

So I'm thinking rather than set a certain amount of hours per story, we set a dollar figure.

We're willing to pay, I'll make the number up, a thousand dollars for each article that is 900 words.

We we set some sort of parameter.

Uh uh.

So that's why I was wondering whether we should reject this article or whether we can keep amending it and changing it so much that this particular action item is different than the one that's written here.

I don't know how much amending we can do where we're getting out of bounds.

Uh Chairman, if I may, I I may can I ask a question real quick.

This is Jim Lewis for the record.

Uh, because I'm I'm trying to understand what it is you're trying to get at.

Because if what you're trying to get at is really 31,500 seems fine to get us started drafting the articles we need, we just don't right now know what we need.

Uh maybe what we do is you maybe what you do is you you approve the the the amount of money and make sure that your historic preservation officer understands that at the end of the day it's this group that needs to determine what's going to be written, right?

Or if you want more, if you want some more control, the commission wants more control, which makes perfect sense.

You could we could come back with uh different agenda items with smaller amounts so you know exactly what the plan is going to be, but then we're waiting, you know, to get funding to do the articles.

So what if you could try to maybe uh describe more what you want.

Okay, I would say that we would like to allocating a dollar figure, uh still off of the record, a a dollar figure, and we'll use $30,000 to begin the process to uh uh select stories that we feel that the public needs additional information, historic information.

And then secondly, we would set the amount of how long the stories should be and whether or not we want images included, and then thirdly, that we are willing to pay a flat figure for each of these articles.

Let's say that we won an article on the May 15th auction, we want it to be a thousand words, and we're gonna pay uh uh uh a thousand dollars for that, and it's open, and and so if uh uh if somebody beyond Mr.

Carlson, maybe somebody at UNLV or professor wants to write one of these stories, they could submit uh uh, but that puts more work on uh Dr.

C brand.

Um, and or maybe it's another action item every month we approve three more articles at a thousand dollars apiece, and those are the ones that so that's kind of the ball that I'm looking at.

I'm suggesting.

So see, but for the record, so what you're suggesting administratively to me, uh new contract every month, it's absolutely not possible.

Okay.

So that just it just won't happen.

So um if this commission feels that this is not what they want, then I suggest that you deny this.

I'll go back and speak with uh Mr.

Carlson about what we just spoke about today.

Um, and if the commission feels that they would rather say we want to hire somebody and we put out our own um proposal for bids, we could do that as well.

But it we can't um again, just the way our contracts work.

I can't have one person writing an article here from UNLV and Mr.

Carlson writing an article here, because those require two different contracts.

If you if you may, if I may, Jim Lewis again.

It seems to me that what I what I'm hearing and what Diane's hearing is that uh there is interest in the commission to one make sure that what's being written for the money is relevant and something this commission wants to see on our website, and it makes perfect sense.

So uh I mean there's a couple ways to do it.

If you a bang this won't really get the job done because it's just the same item next month.

So you could you could deny this item.

Uh Diane and I could kind of talk about ways to skin the cat.

I mean, it seems to me that if you wanted to have a if you wanted to have an item where you allocated X dollars, and then you would delegate some authority to Diane to allocate the dollars once we had an agenda item down the road where where you guys discussed what you wanted to hear, you could direct her, okay, go use some of that money in that contract uh to get that to get X, Y, and Z done.

That maybe that's maybe that's a way to do it, so we're not bringing like singular contracts for every thousand dollar article.

There is a the problem is there's a bureaucratic process whereby everything that she wants in contract has to come through like my our office first, and it has to go to a different place.

And so it would it would lengthen the amount of time necessary to get approvals from you for getting this stuff done.

Um chair, can I go ahead and do a motion to do what Mr.

Wall said first, where we do a approve this contract, but then we say that we want to have control over what gets written just to see if there's appetite among the board to vote for that.

Well, I was I was gonna suggest that we uh deny without prejudice and we ask uh what the uh city attorney's office has just recommended to come back with something that encompasses what we what we are trying to do.

Yeah, uh chair uh chairman.

If I could just answer that directly, if you don't mind, what happens is if you approve this one, this one's 31,500 for that particular content creator where we're gonna be spending all of that 31,500 for the the reasons associated or the things associated with what's before you today.

So if the desire of this board is to have a little bit more control over the money and how it's spent, uh then I think that maybe we come back to you with something that works a little bit better, that's a little more flexible, that gives you more power on a per like article basis.

And Steven for the record, if I can just jump in.

So a couple years ago, so we've already done this.

A couple years ago, this commission approved um funding for us to use for our strategic outreach programming, and so we still have money remaining in that, and so we use that every time we do neighborhood meetings or you know, we need to produce literature.

And so because the commission approved that as a bulk, we just use that approval to say, because of the way it's worded in our um our agenda item, if we can use it for paying a content creator whatever this commission wants to do, write five articles, write a hundred articles.

What I'm suggesting is I really like Mr.

Carlson's basic ideas that we need to have some more than 30 words for historic elements uh on on the on the timeline.

Uh and so what I'm suggesting is a input from the commissioners, because we have Mr.

Carlson's timeline here, using that as a beginning and sending those ideas to your office, and then also having a an action item as was more or less outlined by the city attorney's office on how we would get from get to that point to where funds could be allocated for people to write articles.

Or is it an open-ended that we could do some here and some there, this author or that author.

For this action item, it would just be Mr.

Carlson.

Okay.

So what I objected to in the um or what bothered me in uh the the background is the the 50 hours per then 90 dollars an hour, because some topics require the full thousand pages, and some might only require five or five hundred words, and some might require a thousand words, and and um and there certainly should I think we should be more than seven things being covered under seven topics being covered under this uh uh this grant.

So um I I'd really like to see us that you know that we that we can say we want we want a thousand words on this one but five hundred words on that one and whatever until we've used it up and have to vote for more because there's still more that we want to put out.

So my question should all for the record if we make a motion to deny, and I don't want to add with without prejudice because it's Mr.

Carlson's idea, but I wouldn't deny this.

Do you have enough information to go forward with what's what we would like you to do?

Yes.

Well, I'll just sure Laramie before we make a motion.

I'd I'd just like to add to this conversation um that I I think beyond the blog post, there could be really there's a lot of value in just increasing our online presence as a commission.

And so if it could be expanded, you know, each blog post can also have social media content that drives people to the blog and other kind of ways, uh quick ways to engage the public to drive them to the blog.

And I know that we do have a lot of online traffic to our history section, but increasing that and tying it back to the historic preservation commission and the work that we do, I think is really important.

So it sounds like we're moving in the direction of denying this and writing something that's a little more open-ended that allows us more control and that better fits our needs.

And so I would add to that to just generally expand our online presence as a as a commission through this effort.

Madam Chair, yes, Commissioner Grimer for the record.

Um First of all, I'm glad you brought that up because I I agree putting an article on the website is one thing, but driving traffic to it is something that we should be thinking about more.

I know one of the options for one of the training sessions we're gonna talk about later is actually how to expand your social media presence.

I think so.

I think just thinking about that in general is a really good idea.

But I guess my question for staff would be you know, sort of related to Commissioner Levine's inquiries.

Is this sort of the going rate for this kind of a service?

I mean, when you break that down to 31,000 divided by 50 hours to $620 an hour, is that standard.

I'm I've not worked with other content creators, so I do not know the answer to that.

But we for let's for example, it's not the same because it's a little bit different work for our cultural resource management um contracts.

It's it's usually about $90, about 70 to 90 dollars that we pay them per hour.

But again, it's a completely different um thing that they're doing than creating content.

So I I can't answer if this is normal or not.

Real quick though, it's not six hundred dollars an hour because the 90 just just so so we're clear.

Uh what he what he put in his his um email newsletter was 50 hours uh times 90 out 90 per hour times seven articles.

So it's it's actually 90 bucks an hour, not six hundred and something dollars an hour.

Okay, thank you.

Uh thank you.

I I do also um just to add to that, Commissioner Laramie, I do think that there would be value in opening this up to at least a competitive process.

There are other, you know, engagement and content creators in our community.

Jeff is certainly, you know, one of the ones that we know it has quality research and is factual, and so um I think he would be a great person to do this work.

Um since we don't really know what the going rate for this kind of work is, I think there's value in getting um a couple bids on the project as well.

Uh chairman, I hate to get in the weeds as a lawyer here, but interesting 32 is the statute that that kind of governs uh state or city purchasing, how it is we buy services.

Uh, if we choose to use a competitive process, then we have to use the competitive process.

The fact of the matter is folks like this are probably a professional service, which means we don't have to use a competitive process.

My only point is this there is pure competition where you go out and you say, Here are all the things we want.

The lowest, the lowest bidder gets the job, right?

If we choose to do that, we have to do that.

What we what I might suggest we do uh as your lawyer is we do a different kind of competition.

It's a request for qualifications.

We tell people, hey, listen, we're looking, HBC is looking for folks to create some content.

Um it's we're not necessarily looking for the the lowest price, we're looking for the best price.

You tell us what you tell us what you can do for us, and then we're gonna select one or more of you from this list that we create.

One or more.

One or more.

And I just don't I I didn't, I I don't want to go down the road too much into the weeds, but I just don't want to get us caught up in the we have to.

Here's some things we want, and now we want the lowest price, and now you're stuck with somebody that maybe you weren't looking for.

So just I think that type of competition makes a lot of sense, the the latter type, which is uh let's let's build ourselves a list of people that we like, and then we can select from there.

If that sounds okay to you.

That that sounds fine.

My intent wasn't to suggest we take the lowest price.

I just think the intent was to know have a better idea of what our options are.

Um and and I think that we've done that.

Staff has done that really with how we handle our register nominations um and hiring.

We're not really usually in the in the weeds of that.

Um I think the idea though is just to ensure that we're getting uh a project that meets all of our needs with someone that is able to do all of that.

Um but quality is certainly preferred above lowest price as well.

And so for the record, one uh one element we uh the city of Las Vegas has a brand new uh very knowledgeable and experienced communication director uh running the department for communication of the city, and it has already a very aggressive social media uh uh platform, and maybe there's an opportunity in one of our coming meetings where that department could make a presentation to the HBC on recommendations on how the HPC could have a stronger uh social media presentation.

But with that said, I'd like to make a motion to deny uh uh as I thought I already made that motion, but if I haven't it's to deny 26-0135-HPC one regarding uh uh historic blog post for the city of Las Vegas website with the understanding that the city will come back with uh uh a a fresh approach.

So we have a motion to deny the application in front of us without prejudice.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye, aye, any opposed that motion carries with the chair voting in favor.

Um moving on then to item number 1026-0136-HPC one discussion for possible action regarding approval of historic preservation commission funds in the amount of six thousand dollars for in-person training to cover four topics for historic preservation commissioners and to choose which topics offered by the National Alliance of Preservation Commissioners uh Commission Assistance and Mentoring Program or Camp.

Dr.

C.

Brown, say brand for the record, yeah, it's a mouthful, isn't it?

Yes.

Uh so this is uh from our discussion at our last meeting.

Um everybody's Teresa sent out the um the poll to ask which topics everybody was most interested in.

And we had the top four, but we had some late votes, so now we have the top five.

So the if we only so and also there was the discussion of how many topics everybody wanted to do, and we basically have a tie between um commissioners wanting to just have two topics and which would be $3,500, or commissioners that prefer four topics would be the six thousand dollars.

So today we need to um determine which of the five that uh you want two, or do you want four?

Um and the discussion we just had social media strategies um could very well fit into um hopefully g giving us more understanding of what that means.

That is one of the topics again.

I'm not here to tell you which ones to pick, um, but we have the legal basics, uh, enforcement and violations, envisioning infill design, uh preservation planning and community visioning and engagement.

So I'm happy to take comments or discussion.

Um Commissioner Laramie, just quickly, and is this for because I know there was also a question regarding in-person or virtual uh what's being proposed here?

This is I'm sorry, this is in person.

Everybody wanted in person.

In person, okay, thank you.

Um questions.

So we have to pick the Jack LeBine for the record.

So we somehow um right now we need to pick either three topics or five or four top not two topics or four topics and eliminate one or eliminate three of these.

How do we do that?

I mean, are we voting?

I mean I mean, I certainly want to especially want to see the social media strategies included.

Okay, and uh uh the infill are my two favorites.

So well, can else Jim, can we take a hand vote?

They can discuss this amongst themselves however they like, and then at the end of the discussion, they just come up with uh a motion to make.

So certainly uh however you guys want to kind of get to the four or the three or however many you please do.

Uh Jack Le Bine for the record.

So my mic's still on, so uh I'd I'd I I would like us to certainly see so uh social the social media and the preservation planning and enforcement and violations.

That's I think is a topic we need to discuss and uh the legal basics for all the new people um that are on the panel that uh on the board that might uh really benefit from that.

Okay, that's three.

So you if you want to do four, we need one more.

Okay.

Well, somebody else threw one in.

Um Commissioner Laramie, why don't we start quickly and just go down the road to understand who's interested in two topics versus four topics?

Um, and I think that can give us a a better idea of of where we stand, and then we can decide on how many topics we'd like to pick.

So for our quick question, do we go with how it's laid out on the screen or on the memo?

Let's go with the screen.

Go with the screen, yes.

Okay, in case folks don't have the memo.

Chair, can I ask a question?

Yes, of course.

Um, and and I apologize for not remembering all of this from the last meeting.

But one of the questions in the survey was how many hours could you devote at a time?

So if we choose two items, are they like four hour sessions?

And then if we choose four items, are they two hour sessions?

Maybe that's in the background, and I didn't read it well enough.

That's a good question.

Hold on one minute.

It was in the backup, hold on.

I don't think so.

I don't know.

Uh I honestly can't answer that right now.

Teresa, can you please look for that answer?

Um I'll kind of train.

One hour camp training, planning with camp trainers.

So it would be, I mean, if if everybody can't make it for every single one for the entire time, that's understandable.

Yeah, that was my thought as well.

Although, if we don't have a significant number of folks interested in the more topics, maybe that pushes us one way.

It does say in the backup material each topic option listed below is one hour in length.

So I guess each so it would be between two to four hours that we would be um voting on right now.

Thank you.

Yes, that's correct.

And all that happens in one day, yes.

Yes, yes, okay.

Okay.

So can we have a just a quick um vote on whether you would prefer two or four hours?

We'll just go down the line and we'll start with you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Harper for the report.

Okay.

I'd be interested.

Commissioner Purdue would be interested in two topics.

I would like the design review and also the specific topics, the speciality topics, social media.

Okay.

Commissioner Moody, two topics.

Um the top two bullet points.

Commissioner Service.

Commissioner Surf is uh top two bullet points, two topics.

Okay.

So four uh items, one, two, and it's on.

I'm sorry.

So we can't hear you.

Items uh four topics, items uh one, two, uh, four, five.

Okay.

And uh not including infill design exercise.

Yeah.

Um, Commissioner Laramie, my preference would be for four topics.

Um and all the topics look good to me, so I'm good wherever we end up.

Uh Commissioner Levine.

Um, I'm for four topics, and one, two, four, and five would leave out the design review.

Commissioner Cosgrove.

Uh Commissioner Cosgrove, I would say the exact same thing.

So everything except for the info.

Okay.

Commissioner Placius.

I my duration is about two sessions.

So I would be interested in design review and engagement and emerging topics.

Okay.

And Commissioner Grimmer.

Uh I would be supportive of four topics.

Uh everything except uh the in-fill design review.

Okay.

So we have a slight preference for the four topics.

Um, so I think that we would move probably want to move forward with that, understanding that those who have less time they're able to commit can come to two of the sessions and and leave, and that's no problem.

Um we've we of course can have a final vote on that, but that would be my recommendation there.

And then um I did not do as well with remembering what folks were interested in, but it it sounds like that the least interest was in the infill.

Did I hear that correctly?

I think so.

Yeah.

So we could move forward if if we're all in agreement with um the four topics excluding the infill exercise.

I can make a recommendation that uh our uh motion that we move forward with the four topics uh that are listed.

There are five topics listed.

The one that we would not include uh is the in-fill design.

We have a motion on the floor.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye, aye, aye.

Any opposed that motion carries with the chair voting in favor, and um, I'd just like to add, I know I mentioned this last time.

If there is an opportunity to invite other members in the preservation community to this training as well, I think that would be a great idea if that doesn't add additional funding to our plate.

It wouldn't add additional funding, but I'd have to check with legal on that.

Sure.

We did it last time, but things have changed.

Okay, item number 11 report by the community development department regarding directors' updates.

Uh thank you, madam chair, uh Seth Floyd for the record.

Well, I'm back.

Um, as you can see.

So um Michael Cunningham, I he he was so excited working with you all, he decided he would take another job uh to get out of having to come again.

Um, as you may have heard, um Mike is gonna be is now our acting public works director and we'll be in that role at least for two months, uh potentially longer.

Uh we we have just assigned as of Monday of this week an acting deputy director of building and safety, but because he has a lot on his plate and he's actually doing two jobs right now.

I'm not gonna ask him to fill in.

So most likely I will be filling in uh through the end through through all of these transition uh points until we have folks sitting in those seats permanently.

So um, if if if we identify someone who's gonna step in on a longer term basis, I will let you know.

But I'm I think you're stuck with me for at least the next couple of months.

Yeah.

All right, and that concludes your update.

That is my update for today.

Thank you.

Okay, well, welcome back, Seth.

Um item number 12, then report by the community development department regarding project list update.

So C bring for the record again.

Um so we've done well to complete um all of our projects.

Uh the only I have two updates uh the HPC um, I'm sorry, the historic preservation awards.

Thank you for those of you who have submitted your um nominations, appreciate that.

If anybody else or there are more nominations that uh you feel are worthy, please make sure you get them to us by April 19th.

Um and the only other update I have is our updated nomination for the National Register of Historic Places for the old Mormon Fort went to the keeper of the register in DC, but uh they they had comments and kicked it back to us.

So we don't necessarily agree with all of the um comments, so I am waiting for um a confirmation on a meeting with the um DC reviewers so that we can actually ask some questions as to why some of these uh recommendations or changes were requested.

And that's the only updates I have.

I'm happy to ask questions.

Um do we have any questions or comments?

I'm curious, just like a ballpark headline.

I'm curious, just like a ballpark headline what kind of topics were they objecting to so there were concerns for the record.

There were concerns on criteria consideration uh E for reconstructed properties, uh the classification and resource counts, uh criteria and areas of significance, the period of significance, criteria and D for archaeology, prehistory, and archaeology historic integrity, um, and they requested fewer photographs.

Uh Commissioner Harper, or I'm sorry, Commissioner Purdue.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I can't okay.

Commissioner Stoudl.

Uh just a question on the process.

If we if we have to make changes after the discussion and and and so forth, even if it's moving the photographs throughout the report, will that have to come through us, then go to the state again and then to a whole process?

It would, and it would also require additional funding because our contract with CATS Environmental has completed on this project.

So if we need cats to redo this uh information, we can't ask them to do it for free, of course.

So we would have to do another contract.

This has come up in in pastures in different ways.

Is there any way to put in the contract if their work is rejected that they need to be responsible for correcting it?

I mean, uh if I was to do something that it's uh this is a bad word, and it's wrong because I think it's a great nomination.

I should have some responsibility to fix it.

But I don't know if that's how it works.

Well, I mean, we can't ask somebody to devote hours to work they're not being paid for, um, especially when we do not necessarily agree with these changes.

Right.

So um we could put that in the contract.

I personally would not be comfortable with that because I think we should pay people for their work.

Okay.

Commissioner Laramie, just to add to that, I think that it that is a slippery slope because it really depends on the nature of the comments.

There could be some, like you know, submitting less pictures that I could see being something that maybe isn't is a comment that could be addressed within the existing contract, but they are asking for some pretty substantial changes on this one that would necessitate, I think above and beyond what you would expect, just some you know, basic corrections to be.

And and yes, they bring for the record.

That is correct.

Right.

If if it's something like we had some spelling errors, of course they would correct that.

But this is very significant changes that they're asking for.

And and I'm I I shared this with um uh uh chair uh Laramie and Commissioner Stoddall.

I'm happy to share it with everybody else if they want to read it.

If it's uh it's a lot of um, it's a lot of word, it's a very wordy document.

Um but if anybody else would like to read it, I don't think Nathan, you probably might want to read the archaeological part.

Well, I think it would be helpful off the record because one of the pieces that was is is important moving the photographs around.

Uh that's what the period of significance is always something that uh uh I think is is important, and especially with this with this particular one where the period of significance wasn't was changed.

So I I think there's some information here that needs to be expanded a little bit, and and uh uh but you've answered my question, which is if there are some changes that we have to make, which is likely we will have to do something because they aren't accepting it, then it's got to go through the whole process again first to get some money and and then say so maybe we just need to put the money on the next agenda.

I don't know.

Okay, thank you.

Um who fights is that with them?

Is there a discussion back and forth that okay?

Well, we remove this request and and uh tone down this request and whatever, and that's you doing that, and then and then they just need to update the uh the file or so I have never had to have a discussion with the park service about this before.

So, but I um I'll obviously work with Shippo because they are more familiar with this process than I am.

But yes, it would be a discussion.

Perhaps we can clarify some of their questions verbally rather than having to put change the entire document.

Um, or maybe we can understand a little bit better when we have a verbal discussion with them of what they want changed.

Um but yes, that would be a discussion with myself or our consultant and uh SHIPO and the Park Service.

Okay, and all that comes before we actually update.

Okay.

Yes, that on the just the uh the person who did it.

I forget you just said it, but uh uh not them fighting with uh Park Service.

It's you you and Shippo and everybody else fighting with Park Service first.

I don't want to say we're fighting with them, but we will discuss with them.

Okay, discussing with them.

Okay.

Intense discussion, intense discussion of why they're wrong.

Okay.

Apologize.

Are there any other questions or comments on this item?

No.

Okay.

We will move on to item 13, 260137-hpc one.

Report by the community development department regarding historic and archaeological resources in the local media.

Um, as always, Diane provided us with a fabulous list of article links of things that have been made their way into our media over the last month or so.

Does anybody have any questions or comments on the articles we were provided?

Okay.

We will move on then to item 14 discussion regarding topics for future agenda items.

Comments made during this portion of the agenda by individual members shall refer solely to proposals for future agenda items, and any discussion shall be limited to whether or not such proposed items are within the purview of the commission, and or whether such proposed items shall be placed on a future agenda.

No discussion regarding the substance of any such proposed topic shall occur, and no action shall be taken.

Any uh commissioners would like to put forward any topics for future discussion.

I'd like to uh the idea that from of social media, if we could get somebody from the communication department to come down and uh help guide uh the HPC on how we can have more of a social media presence.

Thank you.

Which was not my idea, but thank you.

Any other items from commissioners I'll just add as well, we talked about earlier in the meeting bringing back um the list of projects that are in potential need of an update of a nomination update um with the ability to decide and allocate funding for some of those updates.

I know there's a handful of projects still kind of being closed out, so um, when capacity opens up to do that, that'd be great to bring that back too.

And uh like to see the Hunter T report on a future agenda item 15 citizens' participation, public comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the commission.

No subject may be acted upon by the commission unless that subject is on the agenda and is scheduled for action.

If you wish to be heard, please come forward and give your name for the record, the amount of discussion on any single subject as well as the amount of time any single speaker is allowed, may be limited.

Do we have any members of the public wishing to speak at this time?

Seeing none, our meeting is adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.