How are you?

I'm good.

Excuse me, Commissioner Cosgrove.

Hello.

Commissioner Cosgrove, can you hear me?

Yeah.

Can you please mute your phone?

Yeah, sorry about that.

Good afternoon, everyone.

We are ready to call to order the historic preservation commission meeting.

And we will start with roll call.

Thank you.

Chair Laramie?

Here.

Vice Chair Levine.

Commissioner Stodle.

Commissioner Hodgkiss.

Commissioner Serifast?

Here.

Commissioner Cosgrove.

She's in.

Thank you.

Commissioner Palacios.

Commissioner Moody.

Here.

Commissioner Perdue.

Commissioner Grimmer.

Here.

Commissioner Harper.

Here.

Commissioner Cebrandt.

Here.

Thank you.

We do have a quorum.

Great.

Thank you.

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

Are we in compliance?

Yes, we are.

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 come forward and give your name for the record.

The amount of discussion as well as the amount of time any single speaker is allowed may be limited.

Do we have anyone from the public wishing to come forward?

Seeing no one, we'll move on to item number four for possible action to approve the final minutes by reference of the regular meeting of June twenty-fourth, twenty twenty-six.

And so I uh provided uh update package uh to Diane recently and uh wondering if you all received it.

I know that we're gonna look at it today, but just wanted to find out if everybody received it.

I don't believe so.

It's not in our backup material, but we do have your slides on our screens.

Okay.

When when did you send that?

Uh this I sent it, I think yesterday.

Oh the backup you you talked about what you're presenting here.

Yes.

That's his it's not the backup, it's the his presentation.

Okay, yeah.

Okay.

Well, yeah, we when I send it do in addition to the city getting it, does it get sent out to each of the commissioners?

No, because that's why we ask you to send it a week in advance.

Okay, because our agendas are due a week in advance, and that's when we um have to include the backup.

Otherwise, it's a presentation here.

Got it.

Okay.

Understood.

Okay.

So um, so this is progress on the public-private partnership nonprofit, uh, nonprofit stewardship model that we've put forward and the advisory board and needs assessment that AMS uh has been working on.

Um I've been working with AMS, and so has the you know the city, and then also the group of individuals that are in the um say the performing arts community, they've been working with AMS for quite some time.

Uh the group came down from uh out of town, and they spent three days here in Las Vegas doing interviews, and then they've been continuing to do interviews.

Um I just saw the initial draft of their assessment.

Um the I think the assessment is being broken up into maybe two or three phases as I understand it.

And so I think that the city is currently reviewing the first phase.

Um also they're going to be making comments, and my hope is is that by the next time that I come uh for an update uh next quarter, that that assessment will be complete, or at least that first phase of the assessment will be complete, and we'll be able to share it with the HPC.

Um basically that what I just described is kind of what this slide is all about, just explains that um that we've been participating in this AMS assessment.

Um I do believe that uh the board was provided the original proposal, correct?

Seth when I talked to Seth, he said that the original proposal was requested by the board and that that was sent out.

We'll have to check that.

Okay.

So I don't I don't know if if if that was provided to you guys.

I mean, that's been out for quite some time.

And sure, just so I could I what when you're talking about original proposal, what are you referring to?

Are you referring to the the uh survey the funding that uh the the parks and rec is doing?

Yeah, so AMS is the group that is uh uh is is doing the study.

That's correct.

So I'm asking you the the question is when you last appeared you presented uh the uh uh agreement between AMS and the uh uh and the city.

Right.

That agreement was uh was rejected, and a new agreement uh was was put was put in place with the dates that uh you I think you're reflecting here.

This commission has never received the actual contract.

The one that was given to us was outdated, was never used.

Um we have not received that, nor have we received the copy of the questionnaire that AMS sent out.

Okay, so deal with those in order.

So uh last time I spoke with Seth in regards to this.

I understand the original agreement was when we say rejected.

I think that there was a request to break it up into parts, and so I think that that was the big change.

Um that occurred, the city executed that and moved forward on it, and the study began.

And the last time I talked to Seth about this, um, he told me that that proposal has been sent to the commission.

If it hasn't, I know that you you Seth, you have that and that has been sent, correct?

I'll have to double check and see if that's been sent.

But yeah, we can send you the proposal.

But the I I walked in on the part where uh apparently there was a question about the two phases of the AMS study.

There was a phase one and a phase two to the extent that it was broken up.

So phase one uh is nearing completion right now.

Uh uh I uh actually the the one my question was uh still off of the record was at our last meeting with Mr.

Dapper, a a contract uh uh an agreement with AMS was presented to us as the one that was going to move forward, and apparently that one was not a new one that has potentially two phases, and we're in the first phase, and that was signed on, if I'm not mistaken, on uh May 20th of this year, actually at 1137 in the morning.

So we should be getting the first results of that within 90 days.

So we're gonna we should be getting some information ASAP.

And then there's there's the next one that comes in 120 days, and that's and that's the the wrap-up.

But this commission has not seen that.

Yeah, has not seen what what is being done uh that the city is paying for.

So we don't know what the city has asked AMS.

Okay, so Commissioner, so just to to clarify, so I think that the substance of the original proposal that I had brought in last time is the same, and I think that the only real deviation or change was that there was two different phases, I believe.

And um, Seth, if if I'm not mistaken, uh I I thought that that there's a lot of feedback.

I thought that that proposal after it was signed was was distributed out to the historical preservation commission.

Because it I mean, Commissioner, you you said you know the date that it was signed.

Right.

So how do you how would you know that if you don't have the agreement?

Um because I I found a way to get a copy of it.

So oh, so you do have a copy of it.

I do have a copy of it, and uh it is uh it is not a feasibility study as has been described.

It's uh uh not anything anywhere close to a feasibility of the of the process that was presented.

All it is is looking at the local uh community, theatrical community, and see if they would want to use it.

The questionnaire that was sent out to all these groups really doesn't have to do with a financial feasibility, it's whether or not they could use something like this.

The question of who's gonna pay for all of this, that's not in this study.

That's not what this study is about.

It's not feasibility study.

Yeah, I think the the so the study it starts off with asking the question, and so first before you figure out, and I think the purpose of this, and you know, although I'm not AMS, but you know, I've been on several of the calls associated with it, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of what they're trying to do and what they've been directed to do, is first and foremost, they have to assess whether there's a need for space like this.

And so the assessment starts off with asking questions about each one of these these theater groups, some of them are jazz groups.

I mean, there's a lot of different groups, but it's understanding exactly what the need is.

Is there an abundance of spaces that are out there that already meet these needs, or is this something that is needed in our community?

And so that's the first part of it.

Right.

The financial part of it that you described, um, it comes in later phases, but it that can't be analyzed until we really understand what we're looking at.

And so uh I think that it's a it's a very comprehensive and good way to look at it.

It would in fact it was much more comprehensive than I originally imagined it would be.

Um maybe that's the reason that it was broken up into multiple phases, and the amount of data and information that they've collected and assembled is is significant.

And so um I've only just seen it as of like two days ago.

I mean, I was on a conference call where they went through it and they started to, you know, it's a draft, and so it hasn't really been put out as as of right now.

Um, but it was the very first time that I had seen it.

Um I did participate in the interview process.

I know quite a few other people who did as well, and it was a pretty extensive interview process.

I think out of the 40 plus people who participated, which were you know a lot of different groups that would utilize the Huntridge at some point in time.

I think only one or two didn't participate, and the rest all did.

So I I was really pleased with what I saw.

Uh again, the the only question I ask uh is my frame of reference is the preservation of the restoration of the Hunter Theater.

Yeah.

And so the question is uh why we're uh I I'm wanting to do a deep dive into this proposal if it's financially feasible to buy it, if it's financially feasible to restore it, if it's financially feasible to turn it into a theater, and then if it's financially feasible to operate it, that's what's going to be the restoration saving that that building.

That's why I'm interested in this as uh uh rather than whether we're gonna paint it blue or green or or or neon.

So uh and I think it'd be important for this commission to to be in involved to some degree and and certainly understanding and get copies of these of these reports again.

First one, I think is as you described, it's simply going out and and asking all these small theatrical groups that maybe have room for 50 or 60 chairs and what and what they're doing to see whether or not they would like to use the hunters, but the reality of that paying for the hunterage is a whole nother survey that needs to be done.

So I appreciate the effort and and uh I I didn't mean to go off on a tangent here, so thank you, Chair.

Well, but I do want to say, I mean, I think you're you're absolutely correct.

So that assessment is what's going to directly affect the cost of the renovation.

I think that what we found originally was we had an architect just you know design a space, not really understanding what the true needs were.

And so if you go out and you price the renovation of the building, but you don't really know what it what it needs to look like and how it needs to act, then it's just an exercise.

And and so I think that where this study and you know the subsequent, you know, fate the next phases of the study go.

If the initial study, the initial phase of the study found that there's no need for this, then like you just said, then what's the point of doing a further assessment and saying the cost to renovate this building as a community theater is X if there's no need.

So I think But again, Seth, I think it would be helpful for the commissioners that we could see a copy of the the actual uh agreement uh with AMS and and the questionnaire that uh so they we could get an understanding of the process of of getting from A to B to if this is feasible.

Yeah, as far as I understand it, now that this process is wrapping up, because they don't want to, you know, when I say prematurely send all this information out.

So they're going through that, and as I understand it, now that we're just at the tail end of it, and I don't know if it's appropriate.

I'll uh I guess I would ask uh I'm talking about the just the agreement itself and the uh questionnaire.

Yeah, well, no, no, I know not the results.

No, I understand the the agreement itself, I believe you said you already have a copy of it, but there should be no reason that the board couldn't have a copy of that agreement today, right?

So my I'm trying to check, I'm having trouble logging in.

I believe it's actually linked in your backup because Jay included that he handed that to the commission.

That was that one wasn't the one that was accepted by the city, it was changed.

So I could certainly send out I'm looking at it right now.

I have the executed contract that outlines phase one.

I do not have the questions.

I was never provided those.

I can go see if I can find them.

Um, but I've not seen the questionnaire.

So and unless I can find that somewhere, I I've not seen it.

So just to ask questions.

So it's it's not uh I don't think there's anything confidential about it.

So I mean the original contract that was signed, that could that could be given to the commission.

And then the questionnaire that EMS sent out, I'm sure that that can be given if you don't have a copy of it.

I I can request that and I can certainly send it to you guys, and then you can distribute it out.

I just happen to wonder the downtown uh theatrical groups you sent me a copy.

That's the only reason why I've got a copy.

Oh, so you do have a copy of it?

Uh of the questionnaire.

Oh, I thought you said you didn't have a copy of it.

No, the commission doesn't.

The commission members that don't have a copy, they should have a copy of that.

The reason I can't make a copy of it is this is from a person who filled it out and sent me a copy of what they filled out, and I don't feel comfortable in supplying that.

So blank one would be great.

So we could so the commissioner could see what the questions were that were being asked.

So I only I went through the process, the interview process, but I don't actually have a copy of the questionnaire myself.

But but what I can do is I can request AMS to provide that, and then I can send it to the, you know, if the city doesn't have it, I can provide it to the city, and the city can distribute it.

I'd be surprised if Parks and Rex doesn't have a copy, but yeah, I was actually gonna just clarify.

So part of the reason why I don't have everything associated with it is because the report is not finalized and that contract is actually managed by Parks Recreation and Cultural Affairs.

So I I likely won't see all of the materials, including the finished product, until they've done their review, which I don't believe they've finalized yet.

This is Chair Laramie.

Um can we pause for a minute and just clarify a few things around the needs assessment?

Because there's I have some confusion on my part.

So my understanding, Mr.

Dapper, is the needs assessment is a study commissioned by the city to look at the greater need for theatrical arts spaces around the city.

Um and contemplating whether or not the Huntrge could be one of those spaces that are needed among potentially other spaces that could be needed.

Can you clarify your role in this study?

Because I'm not sure I'm clear on that.

Um, I think that what you just said is fairly accurate.

I think that they AMS spent a lot of time evaluating the needs of the the community, and then also they've are evaluating whether or not that the Huntrage fits those needs, specifically the Hunterage.

My role in it would be I guess I'm the current owner of the Hunterage.

Okay.

So I guess the point I'm trying to make is I understand that the needs assessment will be helpful for for your work, but it's very confusing for us to hear information that basically kind of positions yourself as a project manager or a leader for the study when it doesn't sound like you have really a lot of knowledge other than participating in the study about what it's looking at or what it's finding.

And so that creates a lot of conflicting information for us up here, and we're not entirely sure how to, at least I'm speaking for myself.

I'm not entirely sure how to process that information without a copy of the scope of work or the draft of what's being, you know, what the findings are.

Um, when it seems like it's a little bit of hearsay that we're being presented.

Yeah, so I I disagree, and I don't think that that's accurate what you just said.

So just to be clear, so I didn't just participate in it.

So I mean, the group that you know, AMS, they came down, they spent you know, hours with me interviewing me, um, understanding specifically the Huntridge project.

So it's not like they're just here to uh assess the needs and say, you know, what's out there in the community that could potentially be a great place for this to happen.

It's directed uh at and for the Huntrage, so that's number one.

And as far as my participation in it, I mean, you know, along with Maggie at the city, I mean, I was presented, you know, their findings and and discussed many things with AMS as they went through the process.

Um, more importantly, the public-private partnership that would be created, which is under evaluation, um, that would be you know the Huntridge Conservancy, which we've created, and now we you know, I was about to give an update on where we're at with that, but that's exactly what this assessment is for.

And so um, I I think that I would be a big part of that, and specifically the Huntrage Conservancy would, because once the theater would be handed off to this public-private partnership, it would very much use the study, the methodology, and then more importantly, the data that it's collected to really get it right, uh, make sure that the groups that are associated with the study, you know, are are participating in it, and then as the design and changes are um, I guess uh you know, flushed out, meaning like each one of these groups, we're not gonna take a survey of 40 different groups and then go, okay, here's the laundry list of all the things that those groups need, and we're gonna associate all the changes and revisions into the set of plans.

That's not the way that's gonna work.

The idea is taking all of this data, deciding what's really important, what can fit, because obviously there are constraints.

This being a historic building, if tomorrow it's decided that there needs to be a 20,000 square foot, you know, add-on for like one of the things that they focused on is there's a tremendous need for rehearsal space, and that doesn't exist.

And so if that's not incorporated in our design, and you know, we can't just bolt that onto the front because this is a historic building, all of those things need to be taken into consideration.

So I think that it's unbelievably important for us to be able to determine like what we're going to build in the future.

One of the things that we didn't do was a good assessment, and we didn't really understand what was needed.

And so, uh like Commissioner Stowdall said, it's one thing to just say it's gonna be beautiful and it's gonna be white, but in this particular case, we have to make sure that the functionality of what's needed can fit within this box.

And so I don't see how realistically, if this is going to be a success, I don't I don't see how we would get there in any other way.

And this probably should have been done a long time ago.

This is the first time that I've ever developed or built anything that you know has you know multiple users like this and has all these needs.

And so it is a very difficult process to understand and figure out, but as we've gone along, I think that we've finally landed on a really good pathway to get to a point where this can be a success.

Okay, so I hope I hope that answers your questions.

Yes, somewhat.

And I I understand the importance of the study.

I think what I'm confused about is you know, you're talking about some potential findings of the study.

Um, but you're using kind of an explanation of to your understanding and from what I've seen so far, and so it's unclear to me how much of the findings of the report are really known right now, and what you can be presenting to us at this time.

Well, I yeah, I'm not presenting the report because it's not complete.

What I'm doing is I'm giving you an update on what's occurred from the last time I was here to today.

And so I think that we've advanced, you know, we've I think we've made tremendous progress because this report, this first phase of this report is almost done, and I can tell you from the findings, you know, right now it looks like there's a tremendous need.

There's lots of groups that are interested in participating in this particular project, and I'm excited at you know being able to uh you know give that to the the board, and I think that my my question um to the city staff would be um once this is completed instead of waiting until the next HPC meeting, is it possible that once the phase one is complete that that can be sent to the board for you know so that they can see it ahead of you know waiting two or three months?

So Seth Floyd, for the record, I mean that it yeah, it's a it's a public document as soon as it's done and we've had a chance to review it, it's available for them uh to review.

I I don't know how Parks and Rec plans to present those findings, but certainly once there's a report that's it's it's available to anybody.

Okay.

Jim Lewis, I'm with the attorney's office.

I'm I guess there's a there's a logical piece that I think I I hear from uh Mr.

Stodal and Ms.

Laramie, and now I'm I'm a little bit maybe maybe what I'm hearing people try to ask is what is the connection between a parks and rec report and the historic preservation commission.

Because it's the parks and recreation department is putting together a report for something that may or may not be related to this commission, except for the settlement agreement between the commission and you so maybe I've maybe I don't know if I'm helping or not, and if I'm not helping and if I've heard something incorrectly, I'm not on the board, I don't need my questions answered.

But if I'm helping translate what I think I hear, please let me know.

The question that I had is is this parks and recreations funded a report that is the very beginning effort of a new way of restoring the Hunter, this historic building.

That's our connection.

I mean, our connection is through Seth and Diane and in many ways, but but the money for the survey came from Parks and Rec.

And they're looking at it from a parks and rec perspective as to whether this is a viable concept because as you look around this community, I was amazed at the number of existing facilities that the city operates that are already in place, and why some of these downtown theatrical groups are not using those and want to use this the potentially the hunterage.

The hunters are not gonna be a blank check, they're not gonna be able to walk into that building and say, here I want to put on this show for the next week, and it's gonna be uh uh you're not gonna charge us any money.

Well, that's not what it's all about.

What you said is exactly right.

This is the first phase to see if there's a need, and the need is simply part of the longer process of restoring this building.

So we got a long ways to go before this idea.

I don't know, you I'm gonna one of the questions I'm gonna ask you is as a city said it's going to uh uh pay perhaps and have we gotten the appraisals, but I'm gonna let you finish your report.

And and I think I mean the the slide that's currently up, and I mean to further you know answer your question, what's what's the connection?

I mean, I think it in my opinion, and I mean you can have a different uh different opinion, but preservation of a building is one thing.

Um if we went out and simply renovated the Huntridge and made it look nice, but then it sat empty and not activated.

I you know, I don't know that that is uh I wouldn't say that that's a win, and I definitely think that that is something that I mean I'm not aiming to do, it's not financially feasible and doesn't make sense.

And so part of having a successful project in this case, like normally, you know, I finished the mission linen building.

I have multiple tenants in that building, and what ended up being in there, which was a museum and multiple food and beverage businesses, it made sense and it makes sense.

This is a little bit different because the you know, the use cause or case for that matter needs to be, you know, needs to be correct.

And in the very beginning, you know, the idea was I was gonna just renovate it and I was gonna have a single tenant occupy the space.

But the reality is is that wouldn't work.

That tenant was a nonprofit, and the amount of rent that they agreed to pay on an annual basis wasn't going to work.

And so if I would have completed the the renovation and they would have opened for business eventually, they would have handed me back the keys, likely, and then I would have had a beautifully restored building that's not activated, and I don't think that that's what anybody wants to see.

Um this assessment is the first step, and I think that the findings um based on what I've seen so far show that there is a tremendous need.

Um, Commissioner Stodal, I mean, as you pointed out, there was a question in my mind, and I think that this assessment definitely answers it, and it's like, why why you know, there's libraries and the Smith Center and many other venues in in our town.

So if all of those places are are there and built and available, um, why can't these groups go there?

And you know, as I understand it, like the and I don't know why this is, and I'm not gonna get into get into the you know economics of it, but you know, I said what the god the libraries, you know, there's a uh uh venue that's up in the uh Summerlin that you know the library system, Clark County runs.

And I'm like, why isn't that used more often?

And apparently, whatever their price structure is, it's very high.

And a lot of these nonprofits, as I understand it now, after participating and going through this this exercise, there's a price that they're paying to be there that's you know too high.

And I'm I'm like, how's that possible?

And I don't understand why, you know, the the library, you know, charges prices that are too high, but apparently all of these users think that that's the case.

And so part of this assessment is looking at all these other places and why they're not you being utilized or why they don't fit the financial model.

And so I think it's really helpful for me to understand that.

And it's the very reason why the Huntrage being a nonprofit and ultimately being, you know, owned by the Huntry Conservancy that's set up to have a strong foundation of being a nonprofit, I think is why this makes a lot of sense.

And so um this slide, you know, is tying it all together.

This is going to create a durable nonprofit foundation for the project.

You know, it it aligns the preservation, arts, education, community, and city goals.

So the idea behind this is is that when this is done and we have all the information, we'll make sure that everything ties together.

Um, you know, when it when it is completed, it'll allow the huntress to serve as a nonprofit for you know all of these users that are out there and not be just for commercial events, because what I found is is that in today's world, events that are held, you know, in casinos right now today.

The Huntridge was used to be a place where concerts happened, and that was at a time when there was no, you know, there wasn't a bunch of casinos grabbing up per performers and paying three or four times their going rate.

Today, you know, when a big time performer comes to town, they're they oftentimes they get booked at a casino because the casino will pay, you know, three or four times their going rate, and they don't need to necessarily sell tickets to make it all pencil and make sense because they're just looking for people to walk in the door.

And that was an important thing that I didn't really understand in the beginning.

So if tomorrow it was open and I said, hey, I'm gonna have concerts here, I would never be able to pay the dollars necessary to get the right performers to perform at the Huntridge, and that's a very important thing.

And then, you know, the last thing is you know, focus on building a lasting institution, not just renovating a building.

And I think that that's really the statement that matters.

It's renovating a build a building that ends up being empty is not what my goal is.

It's to be able to see that it's used and utilized by the community and all of these groups.

And so I think that that's what this first step of this uh this assessment is doing.

Um so I'm gonna just move forward to this.

So we've worked you know quite a bit on the advisory board that is going to be formed.

Um I've taken out the candidates and the notes, but this is the evaluation that we're using to create the advisory board that's going to help guide this process.

Um the idea is there's two pages of this, so I'll just toggle back and forth.

Is we wanted to outline, you know, what kind of people and groups do we need to include in this advisory board so that we can make good decisions.

And you can see principal is the first category, which I would be in in that category.

Um, community advocates, you know, those are people could be somebody like you.

Um, you know, programming and booking, we need to have somebody that's a part of this group that understands what this will look like on the back end, because once you finish the project, if it doesn't work and the booking part of it doesn't happen, then it's not a success.

We've we have to have somebody that's from the legal community on uh on the board.

We actually already have a couple of people that have committed to this finance, uh, which goes back to Commissioner Stodal's comment.

We need to make sure that doing I can I can tell you how to pencil a for-profit project, but I've never had to figure out a nonprofit project.

So there's a couple of groups that specialize in that, and we're we're bringing those groups on board to kind of help better explain how that nonprofit, you know, fundraising piece works.

Uh marketing and communications, you know, the there's a lot of people in the theater industry and the performing arts industry that kind of fit this box.

Um, somebody that's more technical, like an architect, um, and then uh the funding and community engagement piece, and then ultimately a facilitator.

So which we have a gentleman that's worked with the Philharmonic and a bunch of other really great organizations that's signed on to kind of help with that.

And so we have a pretty good list of candidates, and you know, we want to make sure that the group is not too large, but we spent a lot of time putting this together, and then you know, probably by the next time I come, I will have the board uh formed, you know, all the invitations out, and I'll be able to say these are all the people that are a part of this group.

Um this is just the explanation of what AMS is doing.

The city retained AMS planning and research to evaluate potential users and and the community needs, the work is still in draft form and under city review, which is accurate.

So as long as there's no reason that the the commission can't have those findings, I'm sure that once they're the phase one is completed, it'll be sent to you guys and you can review it.

Um it's a very comprehensive.

So far, what I've seen, the evaluation is very comprehensive.

And you know, it's it's evaluating many different things, but it's it's really gonna help us decide, you know, what we currently have designed, if it will work, the black boxes that we currently have designed in the back, you know, are those needed?

And do we need to do those in phases?

Because that was one of the big questions that we came up on is if we want to move this project forward quickly, does it make more sense to complete the renovation of the theater and then leave those um those boxes that are in the back as you know separate phases?

And I think that ultimately that's where we'll land, but it's hard to get there and make a good decision until the assessment is complete.

Um and then this is really next steps and path forward.

So finalize the conservancy and advisory board structure, which is what we're doing now.

Um, complete the city review of AMS with AMS, and so that's underway, and I believe that that'll be done in short order.

Um we need to continue refining the acquisition framework with the city, as uh Commissioner Stodal pointed out.

You know, will that work?

Part of this assessment and you know, how we present this and move forward with the city.

Um, as as Seth, I think will tell you, um, that decision hasn't been made.

And so, in order for the city even to agree on how they're going to move forward, I think this assessment's very important.

Um that leads us to develop the capital campaign and uh fill fill philanthropic strategies.

So all of those things really can't be decided until we know what the theater is going to look like, and more importantly, if we're gonna build it in phases or if we're only going to or if we're gonna do it all together.

So that's really important for us to know.

And then number five, which is I think what is really important to this commission is the begin restoration, and you know, uh so that that part of it has to come after all of these other things are done, and then continue the outreach for the future programming is kind of the last thing that's like after we're already done.

And then that's the end of the presentation.

So I'm more than happy to answer any questions that you have, and uh would be glad to you know go over any of the things that I just talked about today.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um I'm sure there's a lot of questions on the commission.

We just were handed a copy of the Huntridge Theater Market Assessment.

So I'm sure we're not gonna be able to digest this now and be able to, you know, talk about it too much more.

Um excuse me, when you say the market assessment, what do you mean by that?

The title of the contract is Huntridge Theater Market Assessment.

Oh, you're saying the one that the city oh here.

Yeah, and if I could uh Seth Floyd for the record, if you look to the last three pages, the exhibit, that is actually the proposal, uh, and then that outlines the approach and the methodology, you'll see under methodology phase one is a market assessment, that is what was uh scoped by AMS.

Okay, yeah, and just just to tell you, although I've participated in this, you know, I I have this is the first time I've seen this as well.

So um I wouldn't be able to answer the professional services agreement.

I mean, this is something that this the city, somebody in parks and rec signed, so um, I think just to start to clarify my you know, kind of question, I guess, from earlier and interpretation from staff is you know, while I understand the HPC doesn't really have a defined role in the market assessment itself as it's being run through a different department, it is being presented to us, and I do agree that it's a key piece of you know, kind of the project proposal moving forward, and so it should be either included in our backup materials, um, or potentially there could be a co-presentation, at least as far as the presentations will be heavy on communicating the findings from this report to us, so that we ensure we have the information and the staff here that can really speak to it to help answer our questions about it.

Um, because it it is integral and to Commissioner Stodl's point earlier.

Um, I also think you know, I haven't had a chance to go through this, but if there's not kind of a financial analysis, that seems like there could be a real key piece missing there, especially because as I understand the proposal, although you didn't touch on this today, is you do want to separate the properties and remove the commercial elements from the theater itself, and so removing that likely takes away a large revenue stream from the theater, and it's really difficult to assess whether or not the theater could be financially viable on its own without including that in the assessment as well.

I realize the assessment is already underway, but I would um recommend that that be part of this process too.

Uh I I believe that it it actually contemplates that.

I mean, it says we understand that the pro project requires evidence-based market and financial framework that can answer the fundamental question, can this project succeed?

So I I don't it may be in there, I don't know.

Yeah, I don't I don't I'm in a uh Commissioner Laramie.

I don't know that it's in the first phase as I described to you.

I think the first phase is really addressing or evaluating, you know, is there a need before you look at the financial aspect of it?

But I've had several talks with AMS, and I I do believe that part of what they're going to do is once they understand what it looks like, is laying out the best pathway to make this work on all sides, and even from the financial end.

So I I believe that that is a part of the assessment.

Okay.

Are there other questions from the commission?

Madam Chair, if I Seth Floyd, for the record, if I could offer a comment to your um comments that you just made.

I think one of the reasons why, and I'm trying to put myself in your shoes.

One of the reasons why this is confusing is because normally if if the city were just on its own doing this market assessment, we would wait until it was done and they would come and give you a report.

The reason why you're hearing about it in pieces throughout is because on a totally separate track, Jay is obligated to come to you and give a report because he's got a burden he has to meet under the settlement agreement.

And so these things are going on, he is understandably using that as rationale for the progress that he is making.

But we are not on the same track.

And I think that may be why there is some confusion because we are not at the finish line of the phase one that we contracted for.

So we are happy, and I'm I'll talk to uh Parks and Rec.

I'm sure they're happy to come and give a presentation to you on the results once it's finalized, but we we are not prepared to do that yet.

Uh so but I understand from where you're sitting, it's confusing because you want all of this information all at once.

But we're on two kind of separate tracks that are intersecting here.

So that's just my my comment just to frame uh what I've heard today.

Okay.

So my question, Chair, is understanding the process and the process is it sounds like this first one is simply is there a need.

We know there's two or three theaters downtown and nonprofit groups, the Mirage and and uh uh the majestic, I mean.

But their venues are very small.

And and to say that the Mirage, excuse me, the the uh the majestic, which was named after our initially our first theater in Las Vegas, 1910, one of them, that they say, yes, we'd love to come over to the Huntrage, but the reality of whether or not they could afford to come over to the Huntry, uh the Huntry's is going to have to make money in order to operate.

I don't mean profit money, I mean money to operate, to keep the lights on, to keep the insurance on, all those things in order to keep the doors open.

So they can't say to folks, come on over and put on the show for a week, and we won't charge you anything.

So it's all those financial elements that this initial, which we were told was going to be a feasibility study, is really to see if there's a need.

And what Mr.

Dapper said at this last presentation is he already knows the answer.

There is a need that's out there.

This is simply going to be reinforce what what uh uh is is is available uh for these places to go.

There's the city's got any number of theatrical places uh uh theaters that it could uh it could use, but the Hunters is very special.

So the question really for us is to be brought along in this information process.

So when there's a decision to be made, and the decision largely is going to come from the city, uh sounds like they haven't even decided whether or not they want to participate in buying it.

Uh I don't can you answer that?

How does it be decided that?

So yeah, I I would would say, I mean, there's no doubt that the city has not made any commitment that they were they would be buying the theater.

Okay.

I I would say that.

Um to speak further to your point.

I mean, I think that the assessment that we're talking about, I mean, it's not it's actually my my gut feeling before this process started was yeah, there's a need.

Um this process is educated me, and there's 40 users out there, not four, 40, that I believe, you know, are you know either homeless, couch surfing, or don't have you know a good question is can they afford the hunters?

Can they afford that's the biggest question?

Not that there's my next door neighbor wants to put on a show.

Yeah, no.

Can he afford to rent the hundred?

But anyway, that's for the but that's part, but that's part of their assessment.

And when I when I say that, what I didn't understand is it's not just saying what do you you know in a perfect world, what do you want?

It's also part of it is the financial viability of it.

Would you pay, would you pay less than what you're currently paying?

Would you pay the same amount or would you pay more?

And what would that look like?

All of these questions are not only being asked, but tracked and understood.

But that goes and and I'm gonna say the direct connection to what this board is here to do is that's going to dictate ultimately what changes may be brought before you to reapprove.

Right.

Because ultimately, what I can tell you is what's been designed today needs needs to have some changes.

There's no doubt in my mind that that's the case.

And then the assessment that's going to happen is gonna tell us okay, what are these changes, what are these changes look like?

There's a chance that I could be coming back before you and saying phase one is the renovation of the theater.

And these boxes that are in the back, these will be built at a later date.

And so we're going to have to explain that and then also visually show you what that looks like.

And if that means my point is if this these are these are steps, then that's why we just need to be brought along on the information process and also the difference between renovation and restoration.

Those words are not in in interchangeable as far as as this group is concerned.

The question is you brought up at the last meeting that you want to see several changes made in the legal agreement that currently is with the state of Nevada, the city of Las Vegas, and uh you yourself and the HPC regarding the judgment and some other things.

Have that has that been formalized and presented to the changes that you want to make to the city attorney's office?

No, so going back to this, so that's that's the very reason we have we'll call it a legal category.

So we have uh a large local firm that specializes in um you know government work like this.

Okay, they've agreed to come on board, take this pro bono, and be on the the this advisory board and work with the city attorney's office.

We just got the commitment from them within the last few weeks.

And so the point of this is if this is going to be truly nonprofit, which is the goal, you know, we've got to have all of these components, and we've got to have somebody that's you know on our staff that's going to be able to work with the city attorney's office to do that.

All right.

And so uh you you hope to have this all worked out by the end of the year.

Well, we have as I said, I mean, I I'm presenting something that doesn't have the candidates or notes in it because I don't think it's appropriate at this point to you know put that out into the public.

But so the the answer is yes.

So most of most of these um these categories, we have several candidates.

We've talked to you know, those people and said, hey, would you like to participate in this?

These are you know, these are the skill sets that we're looking for.

And so far, I mean, we I haven't had one person say no, I'm not interested.

Everybody's like, yeah, I would love to be a part of that.

But chairman, real quick, I think I think it is important to add that any changes to this agreement uh between the city and the state would probably be at the end of whatever came out of discussions with the city manager's office and the city council about what they'd like to see happen with this.

Uh we, as you know, uh are like bartenders, right?

You ask for something, we give it to you, right?

So once once all the policymakers and decision makers have come to a deal, then they come to us and say, okay, help us work out that deal.

And so I would say, just so you have an understanding the the legal part of this wouldn't come first.

It would come it would come last year commissioner moody.

So it seems to me if the effective date of this contract was May 20th, and we're looking at 90 and 120-day deadlines.

We have a couple of months before we can expect this analysis to really know more.

So I know Mr.

Dapper is coming in periodically reporting.

I'm going to look forward to two or three months from now when we have more in front of us to be able to ask what I would consider more intelligent questions.

Just a comment, not a question.

Thank you.

Commissioner Hooper?

Harper.

Commissioner Harper.

Thank you, Mr.

Dapper for the presentation.

Can you tell me the current status of the construction and construction staging in the parking lot of the Huntridge and when you expect that construction staging to be finished?

So they only give us a quarterly update.

As of right now, there's still a need, and that's still ongoing.

The general contracting group that I'm working with, you know, is uh sub, you know, they're they're the contractor that's hired by public works through this this project.

And so they they provide a an update, but they have not given me an indication of how much longer that they would need the space.

Um we did, however, and I mean this is a total side note, but you know, we're constantly looking for ways to utilize the theater, and uh during uh the NBA, um you know, summer league, you know, the last couple of weeks, Nike and uh uh Nike and the MBA contacted us and they ended up actually shooting an amazing commercial inside the Huntridge Theater.

Um they set up like a basketball court and some other things.

Um I had to sign an NDA.

Um I can say that it happened, but you know, I've actually seen the pictures of what they did.

They had you know NBA players there, it was pretty cool thing that happened.

And um they did say that once it gets released, I'll be able to share it.

So like the next time I come back, I could show that, and it's kind of cool.

But you know, even though there is this construction going on and they are staging and utilizing the parking lot, it's not like you know, it's it's it hasn't allowed us to you know continue to kind of take care of the theater and the inside because they're just around it.

Just a follow-up question.

You said so you so you had a you had a film crew, you had staff, you had so how many how many people and how much equipment did you have in the theater for that?

You know, I don't when you say like how many, I have no, I wasn't counting, I wasn't there supervising it.

So um, you know, it was it was a it was a production crew.

Um it was I mean a year and a half or two years ago we had Christina Aguilera shoot uh uh commercial or uh video in there.

So it was like similar to that.

Um I was uh out of town and I was only there for the first day of setup, and then I left, but I did get to see the pictures and a little snippet of some video, and it was pretty cool.

Just one last question.

Um you mentioned uh has the appraisals been done.

Um so I think that another really good piece of this assessment will be um there was two appraisals done.

One that I completed, I've provided that to the city, one that the city initially did.

The the issue is I think that the appraiser didn't have the right information.

I don't know if I mentioned this the last time I was here, but they uh they evaluated or appraised it as land, meaning like wiping the building off the face of the earth, and that's not the way obviously that's not what any of us want to see.

So I don't think that an appraisal um, you know, appraising it as a raw piece of land is appropriate.

I think that once this assessment is complete, I think that what we could do is we could go and have another appraisal done.

Okay, we uh last time when you were here, it sounded like the you were gonna have a third appraisal.

Yeah, I don't yeah, I don't think I think that we have to wait until at least the first phase of this is done because um part of what the the appraiser could that was working on behalf of the city, they couldn't get over the fact that it was an older building, and they were just saying that we they didn't think the highest and best use was renovating the building.

And so um did you guys get a copy of that appraisal?

No.

Of w with of the appraisal that you did.

No, not the appraisal.

So the city got an appraisal.

Yeah.

And yeah, yeah, yeah.

We we have that appraisal, yes.

Yeah, so yeah, I mean, and I I'm sure that that could be provided.

It's it's not gonna give you much again.

It's there, it's appraising the Huntridge as a piece of land.

So I don't know.

Um, just a couple other questions.

This is probably more for staff.

Um, the Huntridge designation on the city register.

Does that apply only to the Huntridge Theater, or is that for kind of the complex itself since the buildings are connected?

So on I'm sorry, Crant for the record.

Umly the uh theater is on the register.

So the two older buildings that was the bank and the post office, those are not part of the historic register.

Um, so it's just the tower that inside of the theater and what was originally there.

Was that did that answer your question?

Yeah, it did.

Um, and I'm just mentioning that, although you know, this may be out of our purview anyways, but um I do have some concern with those properties being separated, and this is just for the record.

Um, that there is potential for future design of those buildings to really take over the Huntridge and minimize the building itself.

And so I think that you you know, as we move through this process, it would be important to recognize that and potentially put an overlay or some sort of design guideline on those buildings to ensure that the Huntridge remains the focal point of that entire lot, um, rather than letting those buildings eventually overtake the Huntridge, especially if they're gonna be separated.

That's all I have.

Commissioner Levine.

Anything?

Sorry.

Commissioner Levine for the record.

Uh the commercial buildings that we just mentioned, the bank and the and the post office buildings.

Uh are you still uh proceeding with uh obtaining tenants and building and building it out and uh all that, or is that all on hold as well?

Well, yeah, I mean, part of this assessment.

I mean, we for sure we were gonna proceed forward, but we're not gonna start construction on that before this is all sorted out because it wouldn't be appropriate.

I mean, it'd be very difficult to let's say renovate those buildings and then all of a sudden be you know under heavy construction on the theater.

It that wouldn't work.

So it all has to happen at the same time.

We do have a lease signed.

Um you guys have seen renderings of what we propose for those buildings, and right now there would be no changes to those buildings.

I mean, as we've what we've proposed in the past is what it would look like today.

Um, but not putting the cart before the horse.

I think that this has to be worked out before I move those forward.

Um wasn't there supposed to be a certain number of days or whatever that the buildings were accessible to the public or it needed to be an open house at least or something.

Well, yeah, so it's that we need to allow for anybody to come and do tours anytime they want, which that's been ongoing.

So we we get you know inquiries all the time.

I mean, we don't do them every day, but when somebody wants to come in and see the inside of the building, um, you know, we make it a uh open and available to do that.

And I mean, I've extended that uh invite to you guys.

I some a few of you have come and toured the building, and you know, you could come anytime.

Uh so you know that's absolutely you know, you I know that both Seth and Diane have both come to the building, you know, multiple occasions.

And if you guys would like to come, you know, please let us know.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Well, I think we're done.

Thank you for your report today, Mr.

Dabber.

Yeah, thank you very much for your time and consideration.

I appreciate it.

I hope you all have a good day.

Thank you.

Uh moving on to item six, two six-0337-HPC one discussion for possible action regarding approval of funding in the amount of fifteen thousand nine hundred fifty dollars to hire COTS environmental consultants incorporated to provide information for new signs and to review and revise existing historical information signs at Floyd Lamb Park at Thule Springs, located at 9200 Thule Springs Road.

Thank you.

Uh Crant for the record.

Um, so I know that we've had several discussions about these signs, so I'm not gonna dive deep into this since we all are aware of their condition and their need for um uh revising uh checking for any errors, um, and reprinting them.

So again, these are what the signs look like.

Oh, we just have the one.

And speaking with uh Cats Environmental Consultants, they've submitted the proposal that's in your backup.

Um with the scope of work showing that they will review the text and images of the existing information signs, and that includes the outdoor and indoor signs.

So there are several indoor signs in the um the what's called the foreman's house, which is now the visitor center, but that's not always open, so I'm not sure if everybody has seen those.

Those obviously have not been damaged by any environmental elements.

They're they're not faded like this.

But during our when we had the same consultant do the report, they did identify that there is a female in a photograph that was um identified incorrectly.

So we would have to that would have to be changed.

Um, and so this is a project that we're working jointly with uh our parks and rec and cultural affairs um department.

So HPC is being asked to fund the consultant to do the research and provide the content in the um amount of 15,950.

And then once we have all that, and those of course would come in front of the the commission as we move forward um to make sure everybody is you know happy with the language um and the narratives, and soon as that part is done, then we give that to um our parks and rec and cultural affairs staff, and then they will print them and um install and mount them uh back at the park.

So um any questions.

Uh Commissioner Moody.

Thanks, Commissioner C.

Brown.

Um besides reviewing the existing 41 signs, they are going to be recommending content and photos for 10 new signs.

Is that right?

Correct.

Yeah, sorry, I failed to mention that.

So right.

Taking from the the report that they did, they did uh separate into the the timelines, and again, this is in your backup.

Um the new information signs would each sign would say, all right, the pre-contact is one sign.

1855 to 1903 is another sign, and so on and so forth.

And so those would be placed.

Um, well, we'll have to work with parks and recs to see where we can put those signs.

Um that was exactly my question.

Oh, I we have to work with them to see where we can.

Okay.

So that will not be part of CATS's recommendation.

It'll be the city's recommendation about where they're placed.

Correct.

Yes.

The consultant does not tell us where they need to be placed.

That would be on you know as far as whatever parks and recs, whatever constraints they work within.

Right.

I'm you're going to get my vote for approval on this.

Um hopefully we can move this along quickly.

The signs we're looking at are to the better signs that are in the park.

Some of them are so sunfaded and weather beaten, you can't even read a word on it.

So I'm anxious to see this approved.

Um is the uh if you look at the size of the signs there, the three sizes that are in the uh report.

One is the the small signs, uh the large, and then of course the the big welcome, those are the extra large signs.

Is uh I'm intrigued as to how some of the most important uh structures there get small signs and the some of the leashed uh will the this report provide uh suggestions or recommendations on the size of the sign, and I say size in the sense that it's gonna allow provide more space to give more historic information, why this particular building is really a contributing uh factor, uh, an important contributing factor.

Question is will this report deal with uh the the size of the sign if it doesn't can it?

And then uh uh as you look at some of these signs, two important structures, two very important contributing structures are on the same sign.

And I'm wondering why they don't have their own individual signs.

And my question is can the report uh make recommendations on the creation of new signs for uh the the important structures that uh that that are that are there?

And then I think the last uh there are four signs that are there, but they don't there's no more features or sites or buildings, and whether or not like the turkey house, the tennis courts, the cook and the gunhouse.

Um why do we have signs for these if those buildings don't exist?

Are they that is the tennis courts that critical that it needs a sign?

If it does, great.

Uh the turkey house, the gun house.

Um will will she have the uh the consultant have the opportunity to look at each of these signs and say, you know what?

This is not necessarily that important, but this place over here should have a sign, or is you gonna be confined to just uh analyzing the the verbiage on the signs that uh that are there?

If that's what the contract said, I would recommend expanding it.

Um and then potentially she may run across based now that uh uh the consultant is one of the experts on the history of the site, uh, whether or not she may say, you know, there's a couple of places here that need signs that are not part of the original 30.

Uh I would hope that she would be able to uh we would include that if she's got an idea for a new sign to uh to include that uh uh in the uh uh in in the report.

Uh this those signs are just been so great and so helpful out there, and uh the see the sad condition.

I'm assuming parks and record looking at better uh signs, or at least uh I think Diane, when we were out there, if they could just move the signs to the left or right, they wouldn't be in the direct blaring sun, because some of the signs that were not in the direct sun were okay.

Uh so it really is the placement of that.

Uh, but that's I guess is not her her function.

Thank you.

Um okay, so I'm hoping I remembered all your questions.

Okay.

I'll be more than happy to ask them again.

Okay, well, or you can send me your documents.

So the size of the signs, I honestly do not know how that was decided.

Um I'm not sure if it was based on photos and the amount of uh text that was there.

I really don't know the answer to that.

Um does it have to remain the same size as it is now for the revised signs.

That is what we were working off of.

But if you think that you would see prefer to see different sizes for different signs, then we'll just we'll have to um revise the proposal a little bit.

Um it's not that it can't happen, it can, it's just that's not in this proposal.

For example, but my uh is the Adobe Hut, which is one of the most historic, it has a small sign.

And to me, it should have two signs, one at both ends, so people could see how important that Adobe Hut uh was, but rather than a small sign, it should have not just one large, but one at each end of the building.

Uh uh, I guess what I'm saying is I I I hope that the consultant has the opportunity to uh make any recommendations regarding the signs uh or adding new signs or changing the sign just beyond the verbiage.

Uh uh the the Lush report had an opportunity to read it over the weekend again.

It's really a great document uh uh and very helpful for preserving the history of that important site.

Uh C Brian for the record.

Um if you want to add that in, we can add that.

The consultant makes that um recommendation.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Um, and the other one about I mean it kind of goes along with what you just said as far as if there's two elements that are on one sign, should that be separated into separate signs?

Again, we can we can include that and we'll just again have to change the proposal about uh your question about the non-extant structures.

So I think it's important to identify them that they were there.

For instance, the gun range is now a restroom.

And it's important that I think that we have that there so people understand what was there, not in addition to what is still standing.

So I do that's I mean, if you if this commission does not agree, um you know that's that's your prerogative.

Um, and you can let me know.

But to me, I think that we still need to identify things like the swimming pool, because you can still see the outline of the swimming pool, the tennis courts and the cookhouse, because it gives you a more of a visual of what it looked like and it's heyday of you know the 30s, 40s, 50s, rather than just looking at you know, like because now the tennis court and the cookhouse is um grass.

But it's I think it's important that we show where those places were.

The last question I have, which I just noticed, it uh this place did not one of the signs says casino, and it never had a casino.

I mean, can we clean that up a bit?

I mean, we're leaving the impression there was a casino out there.

Yes, and and we did um speak about this.

Um I spoke about this with Zone yesterday.

So that came from the 2009 report, and no, it was never a casino, a licensed casino.

It was a building where people, the guests would go to play cards or play poker.

So they called it a gaming house, and they called they called it a casino just in passing, but correct, it was not.

We can certainly take that off, or we can include in the sign that says this is why it was referred to as such.

I think an explanation would be fine, uh, rather than because it was historically that's what they called it, then we should leave it and then but I think explain that it wasn't what slot machines and there weren't.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Of course, any other questions on this one?

Um, just a follow-up question to that conversation.

So I do see in the proposal that the four signs that are for the futures that are no longer extant are not included in the proposal, and that they may require additional research.

So, do are we able then to add those in, ask that they be added into the proposal?

Yes, we can.

Um, sorry, Crent for the record, yes, we can absolutely do that.

Um, this is great feedback.

I'll go back to Zoanne and she can revise the proposal.

So that would um obviously change the dollar amount a little bit since it would require some more research.

Um and a few more hours of their time, perhaps on some of these other changes that we're asking for.

But um, so if if that is the case, then you would not be able to approve this proposal today because we are going to change it.

Okay.

So what would uh do we need to take an action?

It is an action item, so you can deny it.

Um I'm gonna let the city attorney can we jump.

Can we make those changes and still pass it?

I don't know what the dollar amount though is because if they charge for additional um research.

Um, and I I don't know what their fees are until they give them to me because they have to determine how many hours they have to work on it.

Um, but I think that Seth wanted to jump in here.

Yes, Seth Lloyd for the ground.

I I think what I would probably do is if you wanted to obey this item, and then that way it stays on in case they come back and say we actually can do that work under the scope of this agreement, you can vote on it next time.

It also gives Diane the flexibility that if it does expand the scope and they need to give a new proposal, she can prepare that and get it on the agenda, and then you could just withdraw it at the next meeting and then approve the next one.

That I think would probably be the easiest way to do it and gives you the most flexibility uh for your next meeting or two.

Okay.

Um before we take a motion, does anybody else have any comments or questions?

Uh yes, Chair, this is Commissioner Grimmer.

Yes, please.

Um so my my first comment is I think I would agree with with Diane that um uh recording and being able to cite the the parts of their the ranch that no longer exist but were there is a good idea.

So I would agree with adding that to the proposal.

Um but my other comment is because at some point we also have to pay for the actual signs.

This is just for the research and the content, right?

So my other comment is it, and this is maybe just my personal preference, but it seems like 10 separate signs to describe the just the timeline.

I guess in my mind that seems like a lot, but maybe that's just me.

Uh Stephen for the record.

So, first of all, the this commission is not paying for um the printing or the installation.

Our our part of this with working with our uh colleagues is we're paying for the consultant to provide the content.

So the Parks and Rec and Cultural Affairs, they are responsible for the actual printing and the creation of the signs.

Now a lot of these signs out there, the um stands that they are on are still in good condition, so could be just reused.

Um the ones that are not, they would replace.

But that that expense does not call fall on us.

We're just um for the consultant to provide the information that will go on the signs.

Jack Levine for the record.

Isn't there any way to do uh an amendment that says that uh with a 10% uh slash fund for additional work to be done in the future?

Uh uh we could get the the project could actually just get started now instead of being obeyed or obeyed again and being put off for months and months and months.

I I suppose I could answer that, Chairman.

The the answer is we already have contract.

Uh we have right, we have to we have to amend it.

We can't kind of do that on the fly and just get going.

Okay.

So I I think Seth's suggestion is probably the wisest.

If they can do the work that you've had, the extra work you've asked for uh within that cost, then we can get it going next time.

If not, hopefully we'll have a new scope of work and a no price for you, a new price for you to approve next time.

Why don't we pass what we've got and ask them to make those changes to get the pricing to us and then come back with an amendment to the contract.

Yeah, Seth will.

I suppose you you could do that, but then they would be they would for this price, they would do this scope of work.

You then have to come back with a second contract for the additional scope, um, which you you could do.

I mean, I'm just thinking for Diane here, that might make it a little harder to manage because then she's got two very intertwined but separate contracts.

So that's what we can get started on it now.

But but the good thing is that we might get everything we need for the price we already have.

Okay, well, but we had to have to pass this then the final.

Well, you would still be amending the proposal because they're gonna add you know, when Diane manages these, well, I don't want to speak for exactly how she does it, but I I think what she does is she's looking at that proposal outlines 10 different things that Katz is supposed to do, and so she's gonna make sure, okay.

You did number one, you did number two, you did number three.

What you've just added to it is not in there, and so if you could approve that today and they could start on the other items, I just think that's gonna be a little messier for Diane to try to manage that contract.

And and we can get it on, I think we can get it on next meeting.

So that it the delay is only you know the 30 days between now and the next meeting.

Correct.

And and so our next meeting is September.

Wait, what is this?

July, oh gosh, August 28th, I believe.

Um, and so it would just be a short delay, but it will a hundred percent be on the August um agenda.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Laramie, just a quick follow-up question again.

On the proposal for the 10 new signs, was this part of is this coming from the consultant who put together the proposal, or was this is this responding to you know, something that was suggested in the scope or the RFP that was sent out?

Uh Stephen for the record, that was um it came from staff, it came from myself.

Came from yourself, okay.

But it's included in the report and it's important information, we should have signs for it.

Gotcha.

So just reflecting on some of the other comments that have been made.

Maybe this section, you know, just becomes um additional signs up to a certain number that at the consultant's um recommendation.

Um, and that could be timeline or other signs for specific sites or buildings, um, and they could provide a recommendation and and content for how to break that up.

Because I do agree the timeline is important.

Um perhaps it doesn't need to be on all individual signs, though.

There could maybe be you know some consolidation around the site as appropriate.

Um maybe not, I don't know, but I it seems like this section is where we could build in some flexibility for the consultant to respond to.

Okay, yeah, we um I'll we'll get this back to um her today, and um they have a quick turnaround time, so they'll get me some quickly.

Okay.

Um I think we're then looking for a motion to obey.

You make a motion.

Uh Commissioner Moody.

No, but I'm happy to move to obey this item to next month's HPC meeting, and that would be the August 28th meeting.

No, that would be August 26th.

Oh, I'm sorry, August 26th.

I said 28th.

Okay, we have a motion on a on the floor to obey this item to the August 26th meeting.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That motion carries with the chair also voting in favor.

Um, item number seven, two six-0338-hpc one discussion for possible action regarding approval of funding in the amount of two hundred dollars to renew the historic preservation commission's membership with the National Alliance of Preservation Commissioners.

Uh Crent for the record, thank you.

So this is again, you know, we have our um uh memberships.

This is one that um allows us as we're going to be heading out this evening to attend the conferences that are um required by SHIPO for us to attend these conferences.

Um, and we do get a discount by paying this uh 200 um renewal fee.

And it also does come with, you know, they have all the wonderful webinars of I'm hoping some of you have been able to watch those that do come through um throughout the year.

So we just need approval for the HBC funding on this amount.

Commissioner Levine has made a motion to approve.

Do we have any comments beforehand before we take a vote?

Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

This item carries with the chair also voting in favor.

That brings us to item number eight, two six-zero three three nine-hpc one.

Discussion for possible action regarding approval of funding in the amount of two hundred and fifty dollars to renew the historic preservation commission's membership with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Leadership Forum.

Thank you, C Brent, for the record.

So again, this is our second membership.

Again, they do have the conferences um and some of the um extracurricular activities, and this one is 250 dollars for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

I didn't move to approve that.

Jack LeBine for the record, I move to approve that.

We have a motion on the floor to approve.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed that motion carries with the chair also voting in favor.

Item number nine two six-0340-hpc one, a discussion regarding historic preservation projects to fund for for fiscal year 2027.

Uh thank you, CBR for the record.

So um, Chair Laramie, I know that you did ask for an approval item on this, but it's hard to approve something if it's unknown.

So we need to um be strategic and are um what we are going to be looking at funding for.

So these are a list of potential um preservation projects.

So the first one is the historic context for the arts district.

This is important because of all the changes that are happening within the arts district, and it helps our planning department um as well.

And this one is we are going to be applying for uh SHIPO just sent out their second rounds of HPF grants, so we will be submitting um for a grant with uh for the arts district on that one.

Kind of um overlapping the arts district is the gateway district, and this is another district that is receiving a lot of attention from the city um for, and I don't want to speak out of turn.

Is it development?

Do you want to explain that?

What's happening there?

Yeah, so as Diane mentioned, is as the arts district has grown, uh some of that growth has spilled over into the gateway district, which of course is also the north end of the strip.

And we've had a couple of meetings.

In fact, Michael Cunningham uh before he was promoted to the acting public works director had had two neighborhood outreach sessions with folks from that neighborhood about future growth and development there.

And so I think the reason that made the list is because, like the arts district, that is seeing some attention uh for investment right now.

And if we were doing the arts district, I think the thought was we could also do a survey of that gateway district as well and get ahead of some of that growth with doing that survey now.

The the geographical boundaries of I mean, just rough.

Yeah, the the gateway district zigzags a little bit, but roughly it's um uh Los Paradise actually on the east.

Uh the railroad tracks on the west.

Okay, Sahara to the south, and I I think it goes all the way to Wyoming.

Yes.

Yeah, okay.

I was gonna say, I think the northern boundary is Wyoming.

Yeah, it's big area.

It is because at first we were going to um incorporate the arts district and the gateway district together, but after speaking with Mike and Mike, if you wanted to jump in here, you can.

It's just too big of an area.

So we would do this more like a phased project of we want to do this whole area.

The first phase is Arts District, the second phase is the gateway district, including the Naked City.

For the record, yeah.

Thank you, Diane, for mentioning that.

Because I one of the things that we're attracted to from the planning side of it is there's always been a lot of lore about the naked city.

Um really want to get the facts.

Okay, so but the naked city is on the west side of Las Vegas Boulevard.

Does this cover the the east side as well, or we just talk about the quote the naked city?

Just the west of Las Vegas Boulevard.

Ah, okay.

Okay.

I I for some reason I was thinking it was gonna go down to Paradise.

So that um Commissioner Laramie, I believe that area is actually part of Beverly Green, and so would be considered downtown south now.

So yeah, I apologize if I'm making it confusing.

The general area for the gateway, again, it's just echoing what Seth mentioned.

So north of Sahara, pretty much the neighborhood established around the strat.

And then that is west of Las Vegas Boulevard.

Mike, I think real fusion is I said paradise on the east side.

I might have been wrong about that.

So yeah, not as far, not yeah, not as far as ignore ignore that part of that sliver of what I said.

I'll send everybody the maps.

I'm sorry, I should have brought them, but I didn't.

Um show you the maps.

Um, and again, this is this is just discussion right now.

That's great.

I think it's a real important area to be uh um and so some of the others of uh potential projects.

This has been mentioned several times in this um by this body to amend the Floyd Lamb Park at Thule Springs, the National Register.

Again, that was done in 1981.

Um, and it does need to be updated.

That's something we probably want would want to consider.

Um, I know Chair Laramie mentioned the Charleston Boulevard survey in the past, but I need to know what your parameters are, what you're looking for, and we probably should wait until the construction is done because like right now we're you know, we have the Johnny Tokos moving forward and we're having to work around all the construction that's now encroaching on that property.

Um, and then I know there had been um discussions about doing strategic planning sessions.

Um again, I would need more information on what exactly the the commissioners want out of that.

And then there's the discussion about the camp training, and so I know that Teresa had sent out the um surveys or the polls to everybody of what they want to do, and actually I just got this email literally before I walked over here from Shippo.

No, of course I can't find it.

Um, so they do have the dates set for the um state um the state conference.

I'm like I'm like the absent-minded professor here, forgive me.

Um shoot.

Okay, so the the um actual camp will be on Friday September 25th.

Is that a Friday, Teresa?

And the they did send the MMO that said that on Thursday the 24th and Saturday the 26th, if I have those dates right.

Um, I found it.

Um, so what they do, this is the one-day training would be an in-person workshop, but there is the virtual option for anybody that wants to watch it but can't attend in person, would be on Friday, September 25th.

And then for those interested, Shippo will also be hosting optional networking opportunities and historic building tours on both Thursday, September 24th and Saturday, September 26th.

So when we get closer to this, I will have to ask for funding from this board in order to pay for the travel and accommodations for the commissioners that do wish to attend in person.

But again, this is will be a reimbursement grant from SHIPO for us to attend this.

So we just take we need the money up front and then they do reimburse us.

And I just did want to confirm if everybody's um good with this.

Of can you please raise your hand if you are going to um attend the SHIPO Carson City conference in person?

So one, two, three, okay, Nathan.

Yeah.

This is Commissioner Grimmer.

I'll be doing it virtually.

Okay, Grimmer's virtual.

Um Commissioner Cosgrove on the phone.

Would you be doing I'll be doing it virtually as well?

Okay.

In person.

Okay.

So Nathan Todd.

I'll be doing it virtually.

Okay, good, good.

Virtual for and Jack, you raise your hand and in person.

And I know Michelle did and virtually.

Virtual.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

So then since I have these numbers now, um, then I can go ahead and get this information back to Shippo and we can um then get a price tag for for this um this conference or this training.

And then we also have what we talked about, the Las Vegas camp.

Um, and it looks like there's not one day that everybody is available, unfortunately.

Um we would either have to go with one where most people are available, which would be October 1st, 15th, or November 5th, or um what we can do is if we want to wait until after the state training, so that we everybody under whatever they are going to be presenting that we want to build on that, or is there something different that we want to do for um the in the Las Vegas training that would be in person?

Um happy to hear your comments on that.

My call, oh I'm sorry.

Oh, go ahead.

My comment would be I'd like to go ahead and schedule something now.

It's getting closer and closer.

And so I uh would hope we could do it October the first.

Oh this is Commissioner Laramie.

Do we know the topics for the state training?

Yes.

I think as we as long as we know their topics, we could um yes.

So topics covered by SHIPO will be um one is legal basics, two is standards guide and guidelines, three is meeting procedures, four is design review exercise, uh, five is community engagement and building community support, and six is preservation planning, how to prepare a preservation plan.

And then the last time we did discuss this, the topics that this commission would like to see at the in-person Las Vegas camp is uh legal basics, um, and that's because um we would want to focus more on specifically Las Vegas municipal code, um, where I'm assuming that the state would cover more of a statewide um type um information.

Um also staying with the in-person Las Vegas would be enforcement and violations.

We did have community engagement and building community support, which does duplicate the one in the state training.

I don't know if it would be differentiated from the state level to the local level.

We can find out that answer.

And the last one was social media strategies for historic preservation commission, and again, that's what we discussed a couple months ago.

It sounds like um just from the one comment, there's an appetite to go ahead and get it scheduled, but I think it would be helpful to bring this back as an agenda item so we can re-look at the content and what we want to ask for for that training.

So you okay, so you want to revisit the the topics.

I think so, knowing that there's some repetitiveness between the state training and what we had chosen.

Um, because I know there was a handful that rose to the top that we did remove to limit the training for to I think four topics, so we could um revisit and discuss if we want to pick up a different one or just hear it all together in if we think there's gonna be a more localized context.

So you're I'm sorry, Crump for the record.

So you're saying wait until after September No, I just I guess I think that we should just bring it back to us when we can see the options again so that we can decide what we want for the local and then we can schedule it.

Okay, yes.

All right.

Any other questions on the camp training?

Not on camp, but uh on on Charleston.

Uh yes.

Yeah, um my interest on Charleston is not the boulevard itself, it's uh I think we had chatted it's the uh residential areas on the north side, excuse me, the south side of Charleston there around 13th, 14th.

There's three or four different very small uh in the sense of uh maybe 30 homes or 40 homes that uh we have ignored is not the right word, but we have ignored because it wasn't a large residential development, there were just a series of some smaller houses in that area, and I think they're worthy though not only from the time frame but also the uh the architecture uh uh that we should do a survey of those neighborhoods.

I'm sorry, did you did you say what which side of Charleston?

Uh on the on the south side, and maybe Jack and be a little bit more specific.

Yeah, well, 13th of uh and the 14th Street, we're already Jack Levine for the record.

Um east of Maryland Park way south of Charleston, you got the Hump Ridge, okay, and then it's actually the east east of anything that's Hunt Ridge.

Um Crestwood Well, yeah, Crest well, all the way into Crestwood neighborhood, and but there's another name like on um between 15th and 17th in that in the that area.

I used to know the name of the subdivision, I can't think of it now.

Okay, I'll look it up.

But those neighborhoods there we've really ignored.

Okay, I'll I'll take a look on the map.

And then the last bullet point is anything else this board would like to discuss that or potential projects.

Um Commissioner Laramie, just on following up on the Charleston Boulevard suggestion.

So my I my I guess idea and concern there is along Charleston Boulevard, there are a handful of googie style properties that are small and and uh you know currently being used by small businesses.

Um but with the significant amount of of construction, there's also you know, some rezoning, I believe, that's planned for transit-oriented development.

Um there's additional studies happening right now for high capacity transit um and transit oriented development.

And so as these things start to move forward and take off, I do think that corridor becomes endangered of losing some of those properties.

And so I think if we can get ahead of that and identify what's important in that corridor, I don't know that there's a district, but there may be some individually eligible properties or um you know a non-contiguous district, which I know is also a nomination.

We could start working with property owners now to try to educate them and preserve those buildings as redevelopment starts to happen.

So that was that's what I had proposed for the Charleston Boulevard survey.

Um and then also building on that, I don't think there is also a neighborhood, well, many neighborhoods north of Charleston as well.

Um World War II era neighborhood.

I believe it's called Mayfair.

I may be wrong about that.

Yeah, and that could be a potential neighborhood to survey as well.

Yeah, so yeah, the Mayfair was surveyed.

Okay.

Um but that it was a while ago.

And it I believe as a district it was not eligible, but I believe there were several homes within it that were individually.

Yeah, we were Jack LeBine to the record.

We were trying to combine home ridge and and uh Mayfair and the because of the being built during World War II and for the housing as as a method of appropriateness.

But uh but all that failed.

So for the record, if if I could interject, I think Jack, you're I think we're looking for Charleston Square.

Charleston Square, yeah.

Yeah.

Is the neighbor that I'll follow with Diane, but that's that area.

Sure, there's one other is there a Mary Crest.

Well, Mary Jack LeBine again.

Um Mary Crest is just 14th Street and 15th Street is technically Mary Crest, south of Oakie between Oakie and St.

Louis.

Um but we generally refer to the Merrycrest district being also including uh 16th Street, Chapman, Cochran, and 17th Street is the Merry Crest district from certainly from a real estate standpoint.

Okay, so then it sounds like we're talking about a huge area then combining all this.

There's lots of there could be several different surveys done in in that area, including I I I agree the GUGI and uh uh mid-century uh uh commercial buildings along Charleston.

There's a lot of them in there actually.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Um a couple other just quick questions about the first two.

So the the arts district, I know we do have we have done a survey there, so is the proposal to update that survey?

So um I did not see that we did a survey there.

Now we've surveyed in that area, and there's pockets that have fallen within other surveys.

But when was the arts district surveyed?

I'm not sure, and I may be just thinking of pockets that have been done.

Um I just know that there has been at least some work done in that area.

So I guess I'm clarifying what um if if the intention is to expand beyond what has been done, or to also update what has been done, because I think that was some time ago, and so there likely has been some changes.

Um so I didn't bring it with me, but I do have a list of the arts district that was the parts that were surveyed, like some of them were surveyed during when Main Street was being looked at as a district, and there were in the railroad cottages, and so yes, there's pockets of it have been, but we can revisit those.

Um the most important part of this is the historic context, because although that area was heavily industrial, um, there still could be some information that we're missing um from its history.

Yeah, and so that's my that was my other question.

So it's being proposed as a historic context, not necessarily a survey.

So is the focus then is just to create the historic context for the area?

We could do both.

Um again, the the nothing is written in stone yet here, so we could do a historic context and survey building on those other surveys, yes.

Okay, um, and then also just another comment on the gateway district.

I think that I have mentioned this before, but there was a 106 report done for a property in Naked City that includes um a substantial amount of information about Naked City and a historic context.

Um, and so you may want to look at that report, and there may not be there may or may not be a need um to include that in the gateway district.

At least at least you know, there may not be a heavy research lift needed there, as that was done fairly recently as part of one of the city's neighborhood services redevelopment projects there.

It was a housing rehabilitation project they did.

Was it uh was it a HUD project or a city project?

Um it was a city project, but it would have used some sort of federal funds to trigger the 106 report.

Um okay, I'll I'll have to uh I'll get with Shippo to see that it has to be a Nebcrest, so um we can get that.

And if I could just back up to your arts district, are we talking about the official designated boundaries of the arts district or the generic term which covers I'll let Mike answer that so the the greater generic term so going from Wyoming all the way up to I believe Bonneville?

So it's include the evil conible museum.

It'll include the evil conible museum, which is technically in the core of the official arts district.

Is there any move at all to to expand the the boundaries so that there are the official boundaries of the arts district down to commerce or there are ultimately it would it would end at Wyoming as proposed uh to align with the ongoing development of a business improvement district so that everything makes sense?

So that everything makes sense.

A lot of the goal is to meet what people think the arts district boundaries are.

Okay.

Great, thank you.

The other question I had is the one of our oldest parks.

If we could get a uh an update on the status of the circle park, the Hundreds Park.

It just is every time I drive by the fences seem to get higher and higher, and uh I don't know what the city is.

It's an awkward issue, an awkward place for a park, but I don't know if the city is even on anybody's agenda, but it is a historical back to the Hunters 19 mid-1940s.

So are you do you want an update as a future agenda item, or you want something to be done at the park?

Or you want to report on the park?

Well, I would hope the uh I would say uh uh what I'm trying to understand if if there is a knowledge base about the park and its future, are there plans for it?

That makes sense.

Anyone else?

Uh Commissioner Surface, Diane and Mike, could you provide maps to us at a future meeting of what's being contemplating today?

Uh because I think uh that would be helpful.

Yeah, it's a little confusing.

Yeah.

Um I have the maps, as I said, I just didn't bring them with me today, and I could have put them up there.

Um but I'll we'll send them to everybody and bring them to our next meeting.

Thank you.

So from this discussion, um, and I'm sorry, I didn't I hope I didn't cut anybody off.

We don't have to end the discussion, but what do you need from us out of this discussion, Diane, in order to bring this back as an actionable item?

Um I would need if everybody believes the um topics on this list are something that need to be done.

Um, because obviously these all take funding, and in what priority, um I believe the city will say the priority is the arts district and the gateway district.

If you say there's already a lot of information out there, I'll find that.

Um I know it's so a basically a priority list of how you would like to see these um done.

Oh, and I forgot that the strategic planning session, or did I already mention that?

I think I mentioned that.

Um as far as what everybody believes is most important and perhaps in danger of losing.

I would suggest we put camp on the top, get that taken care of.

Um for me.

You've already got the the top three or the arts district and gateway, though those seem to be the stuff that the city's already working on or or is important to the city in general.

Um, I like I I you know I read over over the weekend the the uh the eight nineteen nineteen eighty-one uh Floyd Land Park.

That really needs to be updated.

I mean, that's uh uh and a lot of work has been done, but that that needs to be I don't know, they're all the the one, two, three, four things on the top of the list are all pretty solid.

Anyone else and anybody have any additional suggestions that they want added to the list there was some discussion.

I don't know if this is the the point about the 106, or we want to wait.

Oh, I think I'm sorry, Commissioner Laramie.

I know what you're referring to now.

I think that should needs to wait for public comment.

So we'll hold on that.

Um I mean, I I do go ahead.

Commissioner Grimm.

Uh this is Commissioner Grimmer.

Um, I guess if we're prioritizing um the list of all the things that we've just discussed, um I would also like to prioritize the the GUGI architecture along um Charleston date that you and Jack mentioned.

Okay.

So it it sounds like we have a pretty good list here that folks um are passionate about and agree our priorities.

So I don't know if maybe we can send out a survey or just take a vote at our next meeting on on our top three or four, whatever's within your purview.

Um it could also Diane make sense to maybe put a few numbers to these things, and I I know that you may not have an exact number without going out for a bid, but if we had a better idea of what these things were gonna cost, we can also kind of prioritize in that way to understand what's gonna fit with our budget for the next year or two.

Also, uh Zola for the record.

I'd like to hear what your thoughts are in the order.

Some of this is gonna come from the city.

So if there's a a flow of the things that that would fit in in a in a time frame, I'd like to hear what staff's recommendation would be of those items as well.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Um Stephen for the record.

So the most in time sensitive are the arts district and the gateway district.

We can move the Charleston Boulevard survey up because it's not the same area, but it's tacking on to the areas.

We do need to update the um Floyd Land Park Register.

I absolutely agree with that.

I read it again this morning, and then yeah, 1981, it's um lacking a lot of information.

Um so on what I have here, and the camps are just I mean, yes, we're doing those, so we can knock that off the list to say yes, we were working on that.

I would just switch the strategic planning and the Charleston Boulevard.

No, actually, I would leave it exactly like it is.

Um maybe move Charleston Boulevard up underneath the gateway district.

But we can do again, we can include these as phased projects of these surveys, and then we can have that as one project with different phases, and then we can also have the updated national register.

So that's it, that those are doable, but keeping in mind that the phase project is gonna take a little bit longer to get to every single one of those.

Yeah, Chairman.

I would just say with regard to um the order, you can either have an agenda item next time where you vote on an order, right?

Or you can just know that your historic preservation officer has heard uh what she thinks the order might be.

But as you know, we can't do surveys or votes offline without public um without public input.

So uh that that's not an option for us.

So either either we have another item or you just trust her to have heard what's been said today.

Yeah, I guess my proposal was we do the survey and then Diane brings those results back to us to vote on them.

But if we don't need to have an official action on this, if you have enough information needed to move forward, I um I don't want to speak for commissioners, but it sounds like we think the top four are doable and some sort of prioritization and and timeline over the next you know year or so, maybe a little longer for the three projects, the arts district, the gateway, and Charleston that have some overlap, but um, if that's enough direction, we could potentially just leave it as is too with this discussion.

I'd agree with that.

Uh because likely over the next year something else is gonna pop that we don't even know about.

So this is this is a tentative plan to begin with.

Uh so the first two, I think is largely what the city is working on right now.

Uh and the Floyd Land Park, that's just something that can come before us.

We send that out.

We get a uh uh the Charleston Boulevard survey is gonna need to, I think, a little bit more thought about what specifically want the GUGI on the on the Charleston side.

I think we need to think about exactly where we want to parse those things out, so that may take a little more discussion.

So you run for the record, I agree with Commissioner Stoddall.

Okay.

Which can you summarize what you heard?

So what we'll do is, and this is just a report, so there's no vote on this.

Um these because these are just part of our um uh what we were going to discuss.

So we are actually I have most of the arts district proposal already completed that needs to be submitted to SHIPO.

Um, and I'm now working on the gateway district.

Uh Seth just did remind me um that a couple last week, two weeks ago, um I put together for him um a quick history of the cashman district because there's obviously the development going on there with the sale of the cashman complex and um the what they're gonna develop that into I think a mixed-use um residential area.

Um so those are two that we are working on the arts and the gateway, and and those are just within the map of what we have, and I'll send that out to everybody.

Oh goodness, is everybody okay?

Yes, um so for the Charleston, yes.

Um I'll need to look at the maps of Charleston to see where these different pockets of neighborhoods are, but then I'll get with Jack and um Yale and whoever else um that is giving their input on where you want to see these what neighborhoods are within Charleston, so I can look at those and see how long it's going to take us to get those done.

And of course, it depends on the size of the neighborhood or the whatever boundaries we're going to pick.

So, yes, that one will take a little bit more thought.

Okay, well, it sounds like we can return to the Charleston Boulevard conversation as um you get a little bit more information and kind of a plan of attack there.

Um, but otherwise the arts district and gateway are moving forward.

That is correct.

Okay, do we have any other comments on this at this time or any um desire to bring this conversation back to have further you know prioritization of these projects moving forward?

Okay, we will close out this item and move on to item number 10.

A report by the community development department regarding our director's updates.

So unfortunately, Director Floyd had to leave.

Mike, do you know if he had anything?

No director updates.

Okay.

Item 11 report by the community development department regarding the project update list.

So it's me again.

Crant for the record.

So for our updates, the old Mormon Fort, the nomination that was sent back from the Park Service edits are in progress uh right now.

The Johnny Toko's gym, we had our kickoff meeting with Shippo.

Um and uh CATS Environmental is doing that, of course, and they've been in put they've been put in touch with the owner, and she was meeting with them today to go over all the old photographs and the information he has.

Um so that one's in progress.

I failed to mention this at our last meeting, and my apologies, but Shippo did approve the mob museum expansion project, the same one that was approved by this board.

And then we did already have our discussion about the state camp and the Las Vegas camp.

And as I said, Trace and I will be leaving tonight to the Minneapolis National or the National Um Alliance of Preservation Commissions Forum, and we will have a report on those at our August meeting.

And any questions on any of that?

Questions from the commission.

Um we're not sure all for the record, not sure what the appropriate time, but since you're going to the uh uh to that meeting, maybe we can uh will you be attending the session about this uh massive change on the 106 on the 106?

Yes, absolutely.

Um okay, do you have something, Nathan?

You keep looking at Nathan Commissioner Harper, uh, for the record.

No, you know, on June 17th, the ACHP put out Yeah, I saw the revised thing.

And I don't I know I I didn't see it until the following Monday, and they're actually going to be voting on this on the 24th to make these changes.

And so after that vote, it will go into the federal register for 30 days, or it'll be 30 days of comment on that.

But these are incredibly sweeping changes that are that are happening with this uh uh this regulation.

Uh trying to change the definitions of historic properties.

Yeah, I saw that.

Trying to change the definition of effect, uh trying to remove uh SHIPOs and TIPOs and CLGs from the actual process.

I did see that.

Public comment is not mandatory.

It's just going to be if they decide to do public comment and and finally it just leaves everything at just it says the whole process is for the single agency official to make a determination at the end.

So it just essentially says you know, you can Shippo can do the thing, TIPOs can do the thing, everything can do things, but essentially in the end it's the agency uh official that makes the terminations.

So I'm sorry, Jim, did you have something to say?

No, I might just remind the commission this is off off agenda, and if we'd like to speak about this in any depth, we'd like maybe we could put this on uh the next agenda.

I can uh I can bring it back.

There's no ability to talk about this today, Bob.

I'm sorry.

Staff is going to attend this meeting.

And we can certainly talk about what uh uh seminar she's gonna go to.

Certainly, but that's it.

So I think there may be some confusion here.

So there is at the forum a 106 review um session, and I am attending that.

I believe what commissioner Harper's talking about is a separate meeting from the email that came out two days ago.

Yeah, okay, those are two separate things.

So my apologies.

I thought you asked if I was going to be attending the 106 session at the forum, which yes, I am.

We have not been invited to the other one.

So there are two separate agenda.

I've been told to keep my mouth shut and I want to do that.

I'll talk to you afterwards at a non-public meeting.

But the 106 panel you're going to is clearly going to be bringing up this topic.

Oh, right, they will.

Um, and so I'll send that email to everybody so you know what this is referring to.

Well, and and chairman, let me clear.

I'm I I can't stop anyone from speaking.

Uh I'm suggesting I'm suggesting, sir, that the open meeting law doesn't allow us to speak about things that are non-agendized.

And all I'm saying is my suggestion to you would be, and this commission would be if we want to have a very in-depth discussion about changes being made by the federal government, that we have an agenda item for that, that your HBO can prepare for it, make sure that we can have your questions answered.

Commissioner Harper for the record.

This was just announced on June 17.

This is past the date when we can add things to the agenda.

So, how do we add something to the agenda that's after our date?

And the decision is going to be made before we have another meeting to discuss it.

And we have a very clear interest in in what happens with this.

Certainly.

One one one option can be that through your bylaws, the the chairman can ask for a special meeting, and we can go ahead and agendize that.

I'm not sure that the city holds special historic preservation commission meetings, but there certainly is a mechanism for that.

Uh the fact of the matter is the state law is pretty clear.

The public is entitled to know what you'll be speaking about because you are a public body.

And so I can't stop you from speaking.

I'm not gonna, I can't turn off your mic.

If you guys want to speak about some things, you go right ahead.

Uh, I'm just suggesting that there may be a way to do it where we both comply with the open meeting law, and you get you get to talk about the things you need to discuss.

If there are things you need to discuss with the historic preservation officer, we can do that in a couple different ways, which we can discuss later.

We can have groups of non-quorum folks from the HBC come and talk to the historic preservation officer.

You can call their historic preservation officer on your own and speak with the historic preservation officer.

I'm not here to say you can't do what you need to what needs to be done.

What I'm saying is I am suggesting that we comply with the open meeting law.

Commissioner Laramie, um I also just want to remind folks that public comment is also open to us as citizens.

Um, and so you can also, while we can't have any discussion on it, you can elaborate during the public comment period and put and put a comment on the record as well, and that would be item number 14.

Um but let me if I can sorry, chair.

I'm sure further so because this is very important, um, you know, I'll get as much information from the um forum as possible for on that session and bring it back to um this commission.

Thank you.

And I guess my question would be if there is a a kind of a call to action with this announcement that the commission could respond to, I think it would be beneficial to look into having a special session and if that's available where we could decide on an action to take as a commission.

I haven't had a chance to review this.

I don't know what type of opportunity there is.

It may be that it's best to just individually respond.

Um but I just wanted to, I guess, since that suggestion was offered, um, provide my opinion that that if there is a mechanism for us to respond as a commission, um having a special session, although did you say we have to respond by next week?

Uh the ACHP is holding the vote on the 24th.

Okay.

If I may, the the federal process, the the reason you put something in the federal register is to give all interested parties time to address issues, make comments.

So while there may be a vote coming up, that's not the last opportunity for this commission to provide comments.

Generally you get 60 days of comments.

Sounds like this one's been limited to 30.

Uh so it sounds like you might have another meeting before then to get to have this conversation.

If if you direct your HPO to make comments to get onto the federal register, you may have time you may have time for that, but we're gonna have to take a look at the schedule.

And Commissioner Harper, if you could help us with dates on that, I think that uh myself and Diane would be appreciative.

Yeah, thank you.

Commissioner Harper, yeah, yeah, they they they they plan on on putting it in the federal register immediately after the vote.

So the 30-day o'clock will start then and definitely will have a chance to comment on it then.

Um these are some significant changes happening that it probably should have been discussed and reviewed before the feds moved on changing this.

Okay.

So it sounds like we're a little ahead of ourselves, but we would like to see that on the next agenda to discuss.

Um other comments on our update from Diane.

Okay, we will move on then to item number 13 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 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.

Do we have any commissioners wishing to share topics for future agenda items?

Oh, sorry, Chair.

I think we forgot 12.

Item 12.

Oh, I apologize.

Um can we take this out of order and stay on 13 and go back?

Okay, we'll do that.

Um topics for future agenda items.

I'd like to put it as an action item, not as a report, but as an action item uh for the commission to come up with a resolution in regards to the specific changes that are being made.

Uh by the federal government regarding uh a list of things that directly impact this board uh as well as the state board.

I think we need to come up with a resolution.

So anyway, uh I'd like to see that as an action item on the next agenda.

Thank you.

Any other suggested topics?

Okay, hearing none, we will go back to item number 12, 26-0341-HPC 1.

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

Again, this is a list that Diane puts together for us every month.

Thank you, Dr.

Seabrant, and probably Teresa helps with this as well.

Um, do we have any comments on our um media summary this month?

Okay, we will then move on to item number 14 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 um who would like to comment at this time?

There's a commissioner Harper for the record.

Uh, just a few things for other resources out there looking at this Section 106 uh rewrite.

Uh NAPC did send out uh email to uh members uh discussing this, so that's probably in your inbox there.

Society for American Archaeology, American Cultural Resource Association, Cultural Heritage Partners all have uh sort of YouTube sessions discussing the changes and what it means for uh cultural resources and historic preservation.

So I encourage all the commissioners to get a chance to check those out and find those resources.

Is there a process that the this commission should go through in issuing its comments or resolutions formally?

Now there's not a there's not there's not a policy per se.

I mean uh the duties of this board are enumerated in Title 19.

Uh there's a catch-all provision in Title 19 that basically says one of your duties to do whatever you think is necessary in the uh as to historic preservation.

Uh one caveat, uh oftentimes when there are major pronouncements from a board of the city, the city council likes to be involved in those things.

It's just something to keep in mind uh when doing so, because sometimes uh a board might not have the same view as our elected officials.

Now, sometimes that's okay because you are appointed because of your expertise.

Uh I just point that out as a just something to keep in mind.

And with that, we are adjourned.