Welcome to the Tuesday, May 12th City Council meeting.

We are gonna start with the invocation from Pastor Dennis Lee from the Living Waters Fellowship.

Would you bow your head with me, please?

Heavenly Father, we just come today, this evening, and we are asking for your help.

Just as I look at what's going on in our world, in our nation, even state and city, Lord God.

Just seems that things are just falling apart.

Lord, you're the only one that can hold them together.

So, Lord, we come today, and I come today just asking you for your help.

I sometimes think about what that Canaanite woman said to you after three times she came and worshipped you, and each time she says, Lord, help me.

And you said, I've never found someone with such great faith.

And so, Lord, we are asking for your help.

And even thinking about that, Lord God, I think about what King David prayed when he said, Hear my prayer, O God.

Give heed into my cry.

For the ends of the earth I cry to you when my heart is overwhelmed.

Lead me to the rock that is higher than I.

For you have been a refuge for me and a tower of strength against the enemy.

Let me dwell in your tent in your tabernacle forever.

And so, Lord, that is what we ask tonight.

Lord, I ask that you would be with the council tonight, Lord, that you would give them wisdom from above.

That's supernatural wisdom that they're going to need to make the decisions that are necessary for our community, that we as a community can live in peace and prosperity.

And so bless this evening.

Bless everyone that is here.

And this I ask in Jesus' name.

Amen.

Will you please stand for the Pledge Allegiance?

Pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which we stand.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

We have a few presentations tonight, and I'd like to welcome up the Southern Nevada International to do a presentation.

Your name and speak into the microphone.

Thank you.

Um, Benny Gonzalez.

Um, thank you, Mayor.

Um, my name is Benny Gonzalez.

I am the chairperson for the public outreach of the Southern Nevada chapter of the International Cove Council.

Our chapter is dedicated to public safety in the built environment.

One of the many ways the chapter supports our Southern Nevada community through our public outreach community committee is through our uh toddler swim grant program.

Um currently, every year, the program gives a total of 25,000 dollars in a grant money in grant money in nine cities, including the Southern Nevada Child Drowning Prevention Coalition to prevent childhood drownings through free swim lessons, pool safety and education.

Every year, almost 500 children under the age of four, school-aged kids and families benefit from our toddler swim grant program.

Our chapter would like to commend uh the city of Mesquite for the dedication and efforts in providing water safety awareness and prevention to our community.

And on behalf of the Southern Nevada chapter of the International Cold Council, we would like to present you with a check for the amount of 2,500.

If I could just say real quick, uh these guys have been coming for many years, uh, Betty, they're your code counsel.

We appreciate the donation.

It does help the rec center a lot with kids that are looking for swim lessons, help us give the opportunity to help the community as well.

Uh and the safety is obviously the biggest part.

So thank you very much.

Uh, I do want to tell our staff, Nicole Justin, uh, appreciate everything they do at the Rec Center with the Aquatics Facility.

Uh they do a great job, and triathlon is this week, so if you guys want some good entertainment, can watch the kids do the triathlon.

So I appreciate it.

Thanks, Benny.

Right.

Oh, there we go.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Next, we have um a presentation from Becky Boyd and to introduce the new Miss Senior Musquite.

Hi, I'm Becky Boyd, and I'm the administrator for the Miss Senior Musquite pageant.

And if it wasn't for our wonderful founder, Gene Watkins, who we all love, it's amazing to see what this program has done for the women in our community that are over 60, and it's been such a blessing to me to watch them grow.

So I would like to introduce our new queen, Miss Senior Musquite and Miss Nevada, Cheryl Kilker.

Our first runner up, Darlene McKay.

Um our second runner up is in Idaho, Wyoming.

Sorry, Alaska, somewhere.

She's not here.

Miss Congeniality, Irene Johnson.

And now we have our forever queens forever.

So Marie is now a forever queen.

Marie Alvin.

So I want to thank our community and the mayor for supporting our program and for continuing this wonderful community pageant that helps everyone over 60 and promotes the age of elegance.

We don't get old, we get better.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Scooch on now.

We'll feel friendly.

Okay, I should turn the other way.

There we go.

There we go.

Waiting for them to get done.

Do we have any other presentations?

CNN will go into our public comment.

Public comment is to speak about anything that's not on the agenda, agendized.

And you have three minutes.

And I'm here tonight to um let you know that this is National Police Week from May 10th to May 16th.

So I'd like to thank our officers and our chief for their wonderful service of keeping our community safe.

And I also want to thank the dispatchers, the advocates, and all the people that work in the office.

They may not wear a uniform, but they're all one big team because I used to work in the sheriff's department in California.

The other thing is President Kennedy in 1962 signed a proclamation making May 15th, and Trump reiterated it this year, May 15th police officers memorial day.

So let's all remember that on May 15th.

And just a little add to that, this week week would be a really great week to give the police officers their contract.

Thank you, Donna.

Hello, Bob Bradbury, resident of Mesquite.

I uh coming to address the great news article we saw a couple days ago about uh the lawsuit being brought uh towards our former chief.

I was curious what uh this would be about, perhaps some of the rumored problems earlier, but now it seemed to be something far less.

I have 13 years of law um enforcement experience, so I kind of understand how it goes from a crime to prosecution and how it gets brought to a court.

This case is a little different because of the extenuating circumstances.

Um PD did what you're supposed to do when you're filing a crime going through Clark County DA.

And uh the allegations are from an incident that occurred approximately two years ago and comes on a handful of days after the council agreed to uh 1.4 million dollar lawsuit, which by the way, in the article I saw where someone had mentioned well, insurance pays for it.

The people of Mesquite don't, which is kind of true.

We don't have to pay out the 1.4 million in lawyers' fees, but anybody here, and probably all of us since we're adults have filed an insurance claim, and we all know what happens to premiums when that happens.

They go up.

Um I understand that the uh situation was um he the former chief had attempted to or did record uh two or three uh people, including a council member or two.

Uh my understanding is it was in a public area, which has no expectation of privacy, and also an area I've been told that has surveillance cameras.

Less of um a sense of privacy.

I don't believe in a privacy can be expected in those situations.

Obviously, there may be more to this because the DA did move forward with the case, so perhaps I'm in the dark a little bit.

Before MPD move forward with this, I have to assume because of the circumstances, they consulted council, they probably talked to the city attorney about the situation, even though it is their right to move forward, and they did what they felt was right.

At best, this is bad optics, maybe even considered a little petty.

At worst, it opens us up to yet another lawsuit if this is found to be malicious and and uh baseless.

We need to start looking forward as a city and not looking back, and that falls on our council.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bob.

Do we have any other public comment?

Gary El Gordon.

Um, as much as I was thrilled that you looked at the not a truck stop, truck stop and said go away.

I was kind of disappointed about what you did extending the uh contract with the senior low-income housing project.

They didn't get their funding the first time.

We're giving them potentially a multi-million dollar property for a hundred thousand dollars.

And I'd buy it for a hundred thousand.

Um, and they said they could get their funding or they had to apply and might have their funding by August, and you gave them a year extension, which means if they don't get the funding again, where it's just tied up for the whole rest of that year that they didn't need.

You could have just extended it past when they would have gotten their funding to see if it happened.

And I know we want senior low-income housing.

I I know we want low-income housing, but when I heard that a whopping 10% of 50 units would be reserved for locals, which means that 45 units were potentially gonna come from who knows where, Vegas, Perom, Tonopah.

We don't know where.

If they're on the list, they get in before our people get in.

I just think it was a bad choice.

You made it, we're live, we're gonna live with it, but if it comes around next time, please say no.

Thank you, Gary.

Do we have any other public comment?

Seeing that, we will close the public comment.

And I do want to mention that the bay the mayor is at a family event tonight, so he will not be joining us.

Um going into the consent agenda.

2.1 consideration and approval of the Tuesday, March 10th, 2026, regular city council meeting.

Minutes, the Tuesday 24th, 2026 regular city council meeting minutes.

The Tuesday, April 23rd, 2026.

Technical review minutes, the Tuesday, May 12th, 2026 regular city council meeting.

2.2 consideration of approval of a notifications of bills paid and b purchase orders.

2.3 consideration and approval of the C AB budget proposal for year 2026-2027.

Do we have any council comments?

CNN, do we have any public comment?

Can I get a motion?

I don't know what that's a good question.

I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve that.

Thank you.

I'll second thank you.

Call for the vote.

Building aye.

LLI.

That motion passes.

Mayor's comments.

The mayor is not here, so there will be no comments.

And then council, um, Mr.

or Councilman Ennis, you have comments.

I do.

Uh just a couple of things really quick.

Uh just a reminder that our veterans mobile clinic will be here on the 21st, which is next Thursday, I believe, from 10 to noon, uh, as always.

So they'll be down to Veteran Center.

Please, please come on by or tell a veteran about it.

Also, I want to remind everybody that on Memorial Day, the 25th, uh our Mayor Littman will be doing his Memorial Day uh program at uh Veterans Park over here across from Smith at 8 o'clock in the morning, and there will be chair chairs will be provided.

So please show up to that.

It's an awesome event.

And he usually not usually always gives a great speech.

And back to the comment that was made about the uh senior housing, that 10% was guaranteed for veterans.

That's where that's at.

So it wasn't for those citizens of mosquitoes for they guaranteed us 10% of those housing, that housing for veterans.

So thank you.

That's all I have.

Thank you, man.

Um thank you, Councilman Annis.

Um, I have something.

So there's some flyers outside.

Um the graduation parade celebrates the Virgin Valley um class of 2026.

It is gonna be on May 22nd at 6 p.m.

It starts at Arrowhead and goes down to Willow Lane.

Um let's come out and line the streets and celebrate the Virgin Valley High School class of 2026.

And there are some flyers out there if you want to grab one so you can remember, and that is Friday, May 26.

And then graduation is up at the high school in the football field that night at 8.

If you're interested in going to that graduation.

Okay, let's go to um introduction of bills 4.1.

Introduction of an ordinance number B26003 of the City of Mesquite, Nevada, amending Title IX zoning, chapter 7, zoning district, article U Planned Unit Development by adding a new section 9-7U-11 in titles affordable and/or workforce housing providing for flexible development standard, including reduction in park and open space requirements, establishing bonus densities to incentives, and providing for other matters properly related.

Simon, this is your item.

Yes.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem and uh City Council members.

Uh they say it's about affordable housing.

We have been talking for uh ages, but uh we don't have a design standard for it.

So uh if they want to apply for it, then they gotta have to go through the POD process because uh they want to go for the uh smaller lots than standard the 65 by 90 uh feet lots.

Uh so if they go through the PUD, then they need to uh provide uh uh uh parks, uh the spaces and uh yeah, uh parks, uh land areas uh for the city uh to develop a park and open spaces.

So uh that was actually uh conflicting the ideas of uh providing uh cheaper uh property and houses to the low-income population.

So at least uh 20% of the total dwelling units are designated as affordable housing, and the city council determines what is affordable or workforce housing and uh that this is the definition what is affordable housing and workforce housing.

Workforce housing is income level between 80 uh to 120 percent of the AMI uh affordable housing is uh uh up to uh the 80 percent of AMI.

So um multiplication of uh to the development standard is at first the park requirements.

So if they apply applying uh 20 percent of affordable housing or workforce housing, then we will we may uh waive them uh 20 percent of uh park dedication or open space dedication requirements in that case uh uh 20 percent will not pay for the park impact fee.

In that case, uh 20% will not pay for the park impact fee.

However, uh the city council may choose to uh the make them to pay uh the dedicated park or open spaces.

In that case, they need to pay the uh the impact fee too.

Um if they don't have a homeowners uh uh that they don't have a common uh land areas to maintain, then they don't need to have HOA.

If they're gonna have uh common land areas to manage it, then they need to have an HOA.

So uh density and last standards can be changed because it is this is the uh the uh PUD planet development.

Uh parking can be provided lesser because uh for in in uh at in the affordable housing cases, uh they they don't have much uh money to purchase vehicles in that case.

So uh when we require two parking spaces, they may need to have have only one parking.

So we are looking into into it, and infrastructure can be phased, it depends on their uh financial uh proof, and landscaping and buffering may be uh the reduced uh per uh their proposer.

Uh those are the all those what I just said.

Uh the parking, infrastructure facing, landscaping, uh so incentives, uh, height increases, reduced setbacks, fee reductions and differs and expedited processing, uh for affordability control, uh, need to be provided through the development agreement if they have an HOA.

If they don't have an HOA, they uh those need to be recorded in the deed.

Uh it it'll be about duration of the affordability, uh, normally 30 years, and uh they need to provide the income qualification compliance monitoring, uh the mechanisms and all those there.

Um, and it is to provide affordable and workforce housing, uh modifications.

Uh they are proposing uh per this ordinance that should be a necessary for project feasibility, and that the development should be compatible with the surrounding uses, and public health safety and welfare uh uh should be protected through this.

The master plan committee at their April 20th meeting unanimously recommended the city council approve this item, and the recommended motion is uh introduce bill number B26-003 by show title and set the public hearing date for uh May 26, 2026.

Thank you.

Thank you, Simon.

Do we have any council comments?

Any public comments?

Oh sorry, Karen.

I can't even read that far.

Councilman Parrish.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Um, I'm gonna date myself a little bit.

This ordinance wreaks of the projects that used to go on back east in New York City, Boston, Detroit, Baltimore, et cetera, et cetera.

A lot of uh building provisions were thrown out the window for those projects, just so they could build homes for the underprivileged.

And at this point, this day forward, there's hardly any tenants in any of those buildings.

I can see the same thing happening here in Mesquite, and I don't want that in Mesquite.

Um these are gonna be low-income folks.

Um they need parks, they're gonna be young married couples, they're gonna have babies, they need a park to go walk their baby through a park.

Um, they need parking just because they may not be able to afford two cars, but they might have a visitor or they might need to have two cars.

So this whole ordinance in my mind is opening a big can of worms.

It's gonna leave the council to make decisions from one PUD to another.

Um a developer can come in and say, how come you allow this guy not to have any parks, but you're gonna make me have a park.

This reeks of bad, bad, bad.

We need to make sure we either table this or non-motion it or something, but let's this need to be rethought and um thank you.

Thank you, and councilman Paris.

Um councilman Wanless.

The part of it that concerns me the most.

I live I live in a gated community.

We're all old people.

We have a park.

And on Saturdays, you go over there at eight o'clock in the morning.

They have four lanes of bags going, people are playing cornhole and just having a ball.

There's lawn bowling there.

There's other areas we can do other things, play croquet or whatever.

And the seniors use that.

I'm thinking of when I was a child.

And for workforce housing, there's a better chance they'd have kids in our neighborhood.

If you see a someone under 20, it's probably a grandkid or a great grandkid.

But I was always looking for somewhere to throw a ball with my friends or play basketball or throw a football or kick a soccer ball, anything to be outside and play.

And if you take that away from kids or make them do it in the streets, I'm not sure that's safe.

I'm not sure it's healthy.

This city needs housing for the workforce, needs affordable housing for seniors.

The list goes on of what this city needs, and and we we can't afford to do it ourselves.

And with the economy the way it is right now, I'm not sure how we're going to get someone else to afford to do it for us.

But we we can't take away a childhood or a senior being able to get outside and do something they enjoy and laugh and talk to their neighbors and high five while they're playing Cornhole.

And when we decide to start doing that, Kevin's exactly right.

Thank you, Councilman Wanless.

Um, Councilwoman Gallo.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Pratem.

Um first of all, what brought this on?

I I I don't this seems like it came out of nowhere um to be changed making these changes.

So to the comments, I actually this one is um uh uh for the NRC, they purchased the land from the city and they need to build.

Uh and uh by the way, there is an option, uh city council can ask them to uh donate the land uh for the park.

So it'll go through the PUD every time.

It is it is not just like a city's uh steps gonna sit in uh the debut and make them not to have anything.

If you uh city council would like to make them have a park, then you can request them to provide the park.

Uh there is a provision as an option, and uh in that case they're gonna have to donate it to the city.

City is gonna have to utilize the impact fees and to build uh uh park.

Uh that could be the uh small pocket park or playgrounds.

So there are other options in here.

It is not uh completely prohibiting uh parks.

And by the way, otherwise uh we have some of these code sections.

We cannot approve anything about this affordable housing or uh workforce housing in the city.

Um I just feel that um uh to councilman um parish's point we want to do workforce housing and we want to help some of our workforce, but yet we're gonna cheapen what they get.

Um I I it just this just I don't even it just seems strange that this even came up.

Um and we're doing this for one builder.

No, it is not, it is for uh any proposers out there.

So let's say if it is a small subdivision, they wanna build uh 10 houses, and it is a smaller than what is required, and they're gonna make uh affordable housing housing for 10 houses.

It is hard to uh request them to provide uh uh those uh the uh the park lands or open spaces for that, but uh they cannot actually go through the subdivision process because the last size is smaller.

So in that case, we can waive it.

If if it is above 100 uh the units or more, then uh city council can actually request them to provide uh quarter acre per 100 units.

Uh and uh that that they can donate it, and the city can build their park there.

Uh so uh there are some uh options there.

It it is not just the prohibiting anything.

It actually needs we need this one, otherwise smaller uh affordable housing units within the city cannot be approved at all.

Well, I agree with councilman parish and councilman wallace.

I it this doesn't seem clear.

All right, go ahead.

All right, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Um we've already made some connect uh concessions to NRC concerning this property.

So they went into this with their eyes wide open, and now they're coming back looking for some more.

So I'm not prepared to make any changes.

They knew what they were getting into when they purchased this land, and and the second thing I don't like about this is, and I kind of touched on it on my first statement was it's going to be up to council to tell which developer what they can do and what they can't do.

And we're not in, we don't want to be in that business.

Um, we need to have strict strict ordinances that take care of this.

So we found out what kind of uh bag of worms we're getting into with the uh uh short-term housing when they started bringing that to council, and it just doesn't work, it just plain doesn't work.

So therefore, I'm gonna recommend to council that we uh deny this and uh table it or whatever we need to do.

Thank you.

I I I do have a few comments as well.

So I like that the whole ordinance is going to be changed, including reduction in park and open space requirements.

When somebody comes and they want to change something for their property, don't they have to come and get an extension or amendment or variance to that property?

I mean, could we do this one at a time instead of changing the whole ordinance?

I mean, that's no, we have uh uh lot dimension requirements, which applies to the subdivision process.

So if they are proposing lots smaller than uh if it is single family home, smaller than 65 by 90, uh, then uh they cannot actually go through the subdivision process at all.

I I am gonna have to agree with um all the other council members, and I don't like that this is coming up, and I had no idea about this.

I mean, I support NRC in everything they do and and their building and always have, but I don't feel comfortable with this, so I am gonna be laying on the side with um all the other council members.

Any other council comments?

Public comments, Ronald Shackleford.

Um, I read through this whole ordinance, and what we're seeing right now, Mosquite is not just a simple code change, it's an update.

It's a fundamental shift in how development standards are applied, and it deserves serious scrutiny.

I think I'm hearing what the city council members are saying, and uh I agree with them 100%.

Ordinance B 2603 opens the door to sweeping flexibility, reduced parking requirements, increased density, reduced open space, and even fee waivers, all under the label of workforce housing.

Let's be clear.

Supporting workforce housing is important.

I support it.

Our compute our community needs it, but what I do not support is rewriting the rules in a way that lowers standards across the board to accommodate a single project or developer.

When you allow up to 50% reduction in parking, increased density beyond zoning limits, reduced parks and open space, and a broad discretionary power to override standards.

You're not just encouraging housing, you're changing the character and the livability of an entire neighborhood.

And the question we all ask is why now and who benefits from these changes.

Because from where uh I am standing and we are standing, it appears to the city is bending again to outside pressure, whether it's larger developers, casino backed interest, or projects like switchpoint, the pattern is starting to look familiar.

Standards get adjusted after a proposal struggles to meet them.

That's not planning, that's reacting.

Good governance means setting clear, consistent standards that apply to everyone, local builders, small business owners, and large developers alike.

It means protecting the people who already live here, not just accommodating those who want to build here.

If a project doesn't meet requirements today, the answer shouldn't be to lower the bar.

The answer should be to fix the project, not the code.

Because once these changes are made, they don't just apply to one development, they apply to all future developments and the long-term impact, traffic, overcrowding, lack of parking, reduced quality of life will be felt by every resident in this community.

Musquite deserves workforce housing that is done right.

Balanced, thoughtful, sustainable.

We should not be in the business of bending our standards to fit projects.

Projects should meet the standards that protect our community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ron.

Any other public comment.

Council Nick Elf and Suddy.

Coming from New York, yeah, we saw a lot of that.

We saw a lot of HUD operations.

Now they're vacant lots.

They built all these communities up to be just that, and they're vacant.

The only one that seems to work is the one that works based on income that bases on work payroll.

That will work.

The problem is right now that a lot of people, if you watch in the casinos, they're getting their hours turned back, they're having to work for less money, they're not making money, they can't afford to be where they are.

Now, my question is this we say affordable housing, workforce housing.

What is the amount?

If that amount is established, then we know that they can apply for that.

But not knowing what that amount is.

Well, you're too high, you're too low, you're this, that you can't you can't afford to be there.

And I say the last time I heard something was like 174,000.

I'm going, hey, somebody working at McDonald's with two people working at McDonald's, they can't afford no 174,000 mortgage.

The mortgage is basically double the money.

How long is it going to take them to try to pay that off?

And in it, they're going to get frustrated, they're going to walk away.

And that's the thing that we don't want.

Like you say, build something that's affordable, absolutely affordable for those people that are a workforce.

I think that's the first grounds that need to be established.

What is workforce pricing?

What are they going to have to pay to be there?

Talk about adding this, adding that, taking this out, taking that out.

You know, it's it's just insanity.

It's just nothing but a whirlpool, and it's not gonna work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nick.

Any other public comment?

CNN, we're gonna go ahead and close the public comment and bring it back to council to ask for a motion.

Councilman Wanless.

I'm gonna make a motion to leave Title 9, Chapter 7, and Article U of the zoning article, the same as it is right now, and make no changes whatsoever.

Can I get a second?

I second.

Call for the vote.

Building no.

Very sorry.

Yeah, sorry.

Oh, that was a no not to change it, right?

Okay, yes.

I'm yes.

I mean yes.

I was kind of surprised I didn't want to say it was kind of backwards.

Okay, that motion passes.

4.2 introduction of an ordinance number B26004 of the City of Mesquite, Nevada, amending the design standards for development in the downtown central business district, DB DCBD, aligning site plan parking provisions with a unified development code revising sign regulations for consistency with the city sign code, establishing a grant scoring system for the DCBD and Mesa area, including application review, and funding procedures for the facet improvement program and providing for other matters properly here and too.

Simon?

Yes, thank you.

So this is now we are talking about parking again.

Uh this uh design standards uh for the central business district that says that there are no parking requirements within the downtown uh central business district for the redevelopment parcels and the reserves were uh the uh Busin Valley Heritage Park.

So uh they built uh uh as much as the bigger uh buildings, but uh they complain about lack of parking.

So uh the actual uh the ordinance zoning uh says uh that the parking may be considered where uh combination of parking uh sources, including shared parking, on street parking and off street parking satisfy the requirements of chapter 8, Title IX, uh unified development ordinance, particularly in the downtown central business district area where providing sufficient parking supply may be difficult.

So this language would be helpful for providing more parking areas.

So this is the amendment to the parking section of the design guidelines, and then uh signs it says all signs in the downtown central business district must conform to section 9-10-8 of the unified development code for the city of Mosquit.

Uh and then they it adds a bunch of uh detailed uh requirements and limitations, maximum uh the phone size and all.

So uh step is recommending to remove all other requirements and just uh meet the what is required in the sign code.

Uh and then uh we move on to the uh adding uh grant scoring system for the downtown commercial uh central business district and the mosquite entertainment and service area, uh, and especially about the facade improvement program.

Uh when they apply, application is required the written statement of the proposed improvement, aside plan, uh building and or site allegations and uh narrative on applicable section of the grant scoring system.

Uh uh after the application step reviews and it goes to the architecture review committee and then rebuild redevelopment agency uh would review it, and then city council decide, and then there will be the funding agreement with the applicant uh with the project completion deadlines and inspection requirements uh so that it does not fail.

Uh so grant scoring system requires minimum score uh score for uh funding eligibility 25 points, and applicants must earn points in at least two different categories, and the score uh was uh placed uh on this uh so uh on this standard.

So if it is uh it it will create landmarks uh or destinations, it'll uh get the five points, and uh if it'll be significantly significantly enhanced the usability or character, four points.

If it is a general category, three points, secondary in uh enhancements, it'll uh get the two points, and uh bonus points will be issued uh to incentivize policy goals without distorting the base uh scoring.

So uh one example A would be architecture enhancement, so high quality facade material upgrade with the stock of brick stones.

So this is the general improvement so three points we'll get, and the restoration or preservation of uh of historic architecture elements, then uh it gets a five because it creates uh landmark and improved uh store front front uh transparency is uh adding more in windows than uh general improvement three, decorative uh facade articulation with corn streams detailing uh general improvement three and wood or wood loop windows, doors, then two is a secondary improvements, arched windows or doors, two decorative road ion two.

So the same goes to the public area improvements, and then landscaping enhancements, artistic and cultural features.

Uh there is a bonus.

If we uh utilize local artistic collaboration, then they get two more points, and then water pitchers and economic and functional impacts and accessibility and inclusivity and sustainability and resilience, and bonus will be given to historic building rehabilitation uh or private investment leverage.

If uh applicants will uh pay 50% or more matching funds, then they get the more points.

So um both the architectural review committee at their April 16th meeting and the master plan committee at their April 20th meeting, unanimous mostly recommended the city council approve this item and recommended motion would be uh introduce bill number B26-004 by short title and set the public hearing date for May 26, 2026.

Thank you.

Thank you, Simon.

Um, council comments, councilman one less.

Thank you, Mayor Tim.

Simon, that makes perfect sense.

We we need to have some unity in our downtown area.

You go certain places you can hardly get through because people are parked on the street.

There is an adequate parking.

Everything about this makes sense, and I think the city should adopt it for sure.

Thank you, May.

Thank you, Councilmember Wanless.

Any other council comments?

Public comments.

Step up and say your name, please.

Hi, my name's Lenisa Baca.

Good evening, everybody.

Um, so within the realm of construction, so I'm kind of new here to Mesquite.

So if this is a question that you want to answer now, or if I can get with like a private council that can kind of get me caught up to scope.

Um, so just based on specifically the downtown build.

Um, I think it's BP Trust, who is you know gonna be receiving the funding, I could be incorrect.

Um, but also for um the airport.

So all of you know, renovations and new development that they're gonna be doing there.

Um if you know, for continuous meetings, uh public hearings for approvals, denials, um, and if that's something that you know that you would be willing to answer here today, or again in private council.

I would love to get together with you know, members of your committee that could help facilitate that.

Okay, so that might be something you'll have to get with Simon about, and I'm not sure what project you're talking about.

Simon.

Oh, okay.

Um, yes, so um, you know, well, like I said, for the downtown build, and it looked like on the site.

Um, I am currently a trade coordinator for the Spring Hill Marriott.

Um, but it's you know, it's been a little bit of a hassle with the online process.

You know, I have you know the um APN numbers, I have the building permit numbers, and it's just not really letting me get through.

And that could be on me, you know.

I could not be doing it correctly.

So, but I do have all the information and I do have contracts like active contracts uh for them with general contractors.

Just uh for your information.

This is about the city's uh uh downtown facade improvement program.

So this is like a grant program uh for the redevelopment projects.

Oh, okay.

I'm so sorry.

I I thought it was okay.

You said it, you know, for the project, because I saw that you guys do have you know, at least what my research led me to is that you do have some, you know, you're gonna be doing development as well.

To lead you in the correct direction, you would contact Simon Kim or Travis Anderson and Travis.

Can you raise your hand the three names that she said?

No.

Travis, Simon, and that's who you'd want to talk to.

Perfect.

About any development that you're doing.

Okay, wonderful.

Well, I'll go ahead and get with them.

And I'm so sorry to disrupt your.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

CNN, we'll go ahead and bring this back to council for a motion.

Councilman Parrish.

I'll make a motion to introduce bill number B 26-004 by short title at the May 12th City Council meeting and set the public hearing date for May 26, 2026.

Thank you.

Can I get a second?

I'll second.

Call for the vote.

One or second.

Parish I NSI.

That motion passes.

We will move on to 5.1, consideration of a resolution number R26-014 of the City of Musquite of the City of Musquite, the City Council of the City of Musquite, Nevada, extending a temporary moratorium resolution number R25-054 on the acceptance processing and approval of applications for short-term residential vacation rentals.

Simon.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Pro Tem and uh City Council.

So uh basically this extension uh resolution uh allows the extension of 180 days.

However, however, uh, if the city council adopts the revised uh short-term rent title regulations earlier, then this uh extension expires on that day.

So uh by uh the seeing the schedules that the introduction will be of the uh short-term residential rental code uh that directed by the city council will be discussed at uh May 26th uh meeting, and then if it'll be adopted in June 9th meeting, then on June 9th, this uh extension will expire.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Simon.

Council member Wannless.

So at the last special meeting, the we had a special time here with a lot of special people.

We we approved the committee's recommendation.

And there has been a lot of confusion why we're extending this now another six months.

In reality, and I'm asking you, Adam, specifically, but because we delayed this whole process and had a special meeting that was after our tech review, it was going to put when we would be able to have a public hearing for this after the deadline of what would have been the first six months.

Is that not correct?

So uh the reason we had this on the agenda because we didn't know what you were gonna do.

And you acted during that meeting, and so I think what Simon was trying to explain is we can meet the right timing if you stay consistent with what with what you've already decided.

So in my view, it's it's moot at this point.

We don't need to extend it.

It'll it'll we have time to adopt the new version on the day that the moratorium expires.

So we're okay on the timing unless something goes unusual or different from in subsequent meetings.

So because there has to be an introduction of the ordinance and then a subsequent meeting where we have a public hearing.

And so as long as things proceed as as you've decided previously, then we have time.

Which would be the first council meeting in the month of June.

Yes.

So the next council meeting will be the introduction of the bill.

The first uh meeting in June would be the public hearing where we could adopt it and we'd have it all done.

And if that falls falls in the the time frame, I say we just table this and I think we should just table this and move on because we voted to accept the committee's recommendation.

And I truly believe a more majority of this council would take that recommendation.

Thank you.

Council member parrish.

Paul, you know I love you, but uh you're a little bit off on your days.

There's two days in there that this does not overlap, and uh I'm gonna point this at the city attorney.

What I'm gonna say is is if somebody with a short-term rental comes in here the day after the moratorium expires, they're under the old rules, and we do not want that.

It'll open a big can of worms.

We need to extend this moratorium, even if it's only for two days, so that we don't get somebody walking into Simon's office with a short-term rental application and it goes under the old rules.

And that's exactly right.

Uh am I not correct, Adam?

So and Simon can jump here too.

But when I was looking at it earlier today, we can we can introduce the so the prior decision to extend the moratorium would expire on June 9th.

And we have a meeting on June 9th, and um the ordinance uh can be adopted that day.

If you look technically at the charter, there has to be a publication following the um the formal adoption of the ordinance.

So technically, if we approve it on June 9th, and I don't know if we can publish it the next day, that's when it comes into effect.

And so I I'd agree that if we want to get real technical, maybe extend it another week, something like that, and then that would um that would cover any of those technical time frames.

Simon, do you have a different opinion or I'd be fine with that?

When people hear another six months, it's making a lot of people wonder what's going on or what we're doing.

If we did it a week, I don't think anyone would have any concern.

This doesn't actually extend this uh six months.

Right at some point, it could be the June 9th or uh a couple of weeks later.

But as soon as the city council adopts a new regulations, this um the extension expires on that day.

So this one is actually make everything uh actually continuous, rather than it actually stops and extends the moratorium at all.

Thank you, Simon.

So um I I feel the same with Councilman Parrish.

Um, even if we did it two days or a week, but my thoughts were to if we're gonna extend it to do 30 days and see and see what happens there, because I just don't know what's going to happen when we do the introduction because we can't discuss it.

And then it comes up on the June 9th, if we can make any changes there.

I mean, I've been researching a little bit more, and I would like to have a little bit more clarification in.

And so I that's what I mean, and I I think at the June 9th, we could clarify that and get those in if somebody else wants to um you know agree with those slight changes or clarifications within the committee that I mean that the one that we are adopting that the committee did.

So that would be that would be mine is to yes, extend it, but um, for 30 days in the event somebody does come up and want to make some changes, clarification inside of that recommendation.

So that's my two cents.

Any more council comments?

Public comment.

Rick McIntyre.

I don't think it can create any harm to extend it other than the perception that you're talking about, Councilman Wanless, is that people are antsy about this.

I get that.

And and I think you're you're right, but I can see a scenario if you have a council meeting and you don't have a quorum and you can't conduct business and it gets extended.

There are reasons beyond our understanding, really, I think that um could cause you to want to have some type of an extension in place, even though uh when you adopt it, the extension goes away.

And I think I think it would be wise, in my view, to give yourself a little bit of leeway here.

And 30 days might be a good idea.

I I I don't know, but I don't I feel like it's a good idea to give yourself a little bit of buffer here to to move forward and not lose your opportunity when the day actually hits.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rick.

Gary El Gordon.

Um there's no difference between 30 days and 180 days, except for perception, and the fact that maybe you don't get that quorum.

Maybe somebody brings a lawsuit in the meantime, and everything gets stopped dead, and in 30 days, then you're back to the old rules.

180 days could be two days.

If it gets adopted, could be a month if it takes a little while to adopt it.

But to pick such a short number, like a week or two days or 20 days, it doesn't matter if it if it expires the day you approve the new one.

Don't don't shortcut yourselves and have to do this a third time, you'll look worse than approving 180 days today.

Thank you, Gary.

Okay, public comment.

Mayor Pro Tem, City Council members, I'm John Rosen.

I am somewhat stunned by the direction with which this conversation is going.

I was at that special meeting, I listened as well.

Uh the uh citizen advisory committee produced a series of recommendations to to this council.

Those recommendations were very, very good, in my opinion.

They were very well thought out, and you approved those recommendations.

But the citizen advisory committee said there was an issue open which had not been resolved by them and was to be resolved by the city council, and that had to do with distancing restrictions.

There was a discussion and very robust discussion about the trade-offs of distance restrictions.

Should we adopt them now?

Should we wait for for court cases to be assigned?

And there was a proposal that eliminated the need for those discussions or that delay.

And that was to enforce zoning regulations for short-term rentals.

That was proposed.

There was no action taken on that.

There is no action taken that I'm hearing about being taken by that now.

It appears that this city council is getting ready to absolutely ignore that solution.

That solution, which does not cause us to depend on the settlement of pending litigation because it would be irrelevant to us.

It does not get rid of short-term rentals.

In fact, it provides for them as a valid part of the economy of mesquite.

And it also resolves the concerns of citizens who say if you don't do something, then tomorrow my house could be the next one that has a holiday in express in disguise, suddenly appear next to me.

I was hoping when I saw that this moratorium was being uh proposed that in fact you were going to take time to actually wrestle with this discussion and come to a very considered responsible decision.

And right now, what I'm hearing is you're on the verge of just not answering the question at all, which invites the current situation that exists now and many of the problems with short-term rentals to continue.

That's uh an extremely disappointing conclusion that I have come to.

Thank you.

Thank you, John.

Dominic Olivetto.

I agree 100% with John.

I do not understand why the only thing we're looking at here is more rules and regulations.

Staff's going to manage that.

One man staff.

The city's going to manage that with the police department.

We're short of cops now.

I mean, I'm sure that when I call up the police department and say the kids are running wild at the swimming pool driving me nuts.

Please don't go arrest that guy.

It's Robin Casa.

Come up and take care of this.

They're gonna have time for that.

They're not.

You guys are only looking to put on band-aids on it.

Zoning is the only way to cure this problem, so everybody's happy.

Every time I talk to somebody about this, you all tell me, well, somebody is gonna sue us.

What about us homeowners that somebody in the past changed zoning without notifying us?

Which I believe is not legal according to the charter, the code, or anything else.

So maybe us citizens that feel like we're being stepped on should hire an attorney and threaten you with a lawsuit, then maybe we'd get some attention.

And that's absolutely stupid for us to have to do that.

You should listen to what we have to say and try to come up with a solution that suits the short-term rental people that are trying to make money and the people are trying to live in single family dwellings.

Thank you.

Thanks, Dominic.

I'm gonna close public comment and bring it back to council.

Do we have anybody making a motion?

Council member Parrish.

Before I make a motion, um I think I need to answer some of the uh audiences issues.

Um this agenda item has nothing to do with a short-term rental.

It's only the agenda item is to extend the moratorium.

We are going to have two more hearings on the short-term rentals so we can discuss distancing and zoning.

We are not discussing that tonight, guys.

I'm sorry.

This is only about the moratorium.

So I'm gonna make a motion to extend the moratorium.

Um I'm gonna go with 180 days.

If nobody wants to second it, I'm sorry, but um the way the ordinance is written, as soon as we adopt the short-term rental ordinance, this goes away.

So I'm going to move to extend the moratorium 180 days.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gallo, I'll second.

Call for the vote.

Oh.

I didn't want us to say something.

But he called for the motion.

Right.

So we had and then I have a second, and then call for the vote.

Building aye.

Yanis, no.

Galloway.

That motion passes.

Okay.

Oh, what was it?

That's right.

Mess me up.

Um 5.2 consideration of bid award of mesquite airport road project.

And Travis, that would be you.

Yes, thank you, Mayor Pro Tem and Council members.

The item before you tonight, we've been working on our airport uh throughout the years on various improvements up there.

Just a little background.

Our airport was constructed in 93, and as you are aware, we redid the runway and the taxiways in the past years.

And this project is there is a service road behind our hangars, and on the exhibit that I've got is the project in question.

It is the blue area, adding an asphalt pavement section to that service road and a parking area that is shown there in yellow.

This project was bid on April 21st.

There were four bids publicly opened, and they range from 375,378 to 536,470.

Our engineer's estimate on this was 591.

Um, and it's quite high on a small section like this because the money uh 95% of the funding for this comes from an FAA grant.

And so there's lots of rules and regulations that the contractor has to do on this.

But again, 95% of this project will be funded through the Federal Aviation Administration grant.

Part of that grant process that we've been working with them is that you have to bid the project while they're writing the grant.

Um, and then they do the formal write-up of that, and then the grant is usually approved in late August, early September.

So the item before you tonight, it is our recommendation to award the project um for this mesquite airport reconstruction service road project to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, which was WRX contracting in the amount of 375,378.

So that with the notice of award, if it is approved tonight, and then once the grant is approved by FAA again in late August, September, that's when we would issue the notice to proceed and start construction on this project.

And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Travis.

Councilman Parish.

Okay, so we know where 95% of the money's coming from.

Where's the other five percent?

Is that that is coming from our airport capital front?

So from our lease, the existing leases that we have on the hangars and the fuel sales will pay for that approximately 18,000, 19,000.

Thank you, Travis.

Do we have any other council comments?

Seeing none.

Um, I'll open it up for public comment.

Seeing none, I'll go ahead and bring it back to council for a motion.

Councilwoman Gallo.

I'll make a motion to approve the consideration of the bid award of the mesquite um airport road project.

I will second that.

Call for the vote.

Very sorry.

Yeah, that's all I Galloway.

That motion passes.

We are down to our final public comment, 6.1.

Is there any public comment?

Mayor Pro Tem.

Yes.

I'm sorry, I I meant to speak during staff comments, but I needed to make a comment on the Canyon Crest Horizon Boulevard Roadway project.

Yes, that's what I wanted to.

So Horizon has been open for a few days, but the Canyon Crest portion is open today.

But here's the kicker.

So everybody is used to going on that one side of the road going both directions.

Now you will need to go on the other side of the median when you're going from horizon up to Mesquite Heights Road.

So please get out the message.

I needed to speak with our police officers to help.

Uh, I think there's been a couple wrong way today.

Um, we'll be putting that out on our website.

Um, to please remember that, but um, please let everyone you know go on that other side of the road now because it's two lanes down to the fire station.

The other lane is for the other traffic.

Thank you.

Just make sure everyone knows if you were going that way.

You don't just necessarily go to the other side of the road now.

Depends on direction of travel.

Right.

Right.

So the same thing happened today on Falcon Falcon Ridge.

We were on one side of the road.

Yeah, Falcon Ridge Parkway um is the project for the water district.

They are putting in that uh booster station that's just down from the um substation on Hardy Way.

So they're tying in the water line portion of that on Falcon Ridge.

They've been doing that work at night, and they had some complications uh last night.

They're supposed to be off of the road at five o'clock in the morning, but they were there till I think 11 this morning.

They're also gonna be working tonight, and then they'll be paving that um Wednesday night in that section.

Next week they'll be working on Hardy Wait for the next two weeks on that.

And so you'll see traffic control right there, but that's with the water district job, and that will be a great benefit to Sun City for if the main water line goes down, they'll be able to push uh water pressure up to so it's a it's a very good project that's happening with that one.

But that's what that was.

Perfect.

You're right.

Thank you.

Oh, you you didn't push your light.

I know I didn't I didn't run fast enough either.

So yeah, it is police week.

I just I wouldn't neglect it to get up and say that we enjoy a great community and a lot of support here.

And just if you see your local guys at work and if you see my guys out doing their thing, just say hi and tell them happy police week.

It's a good week to to reflect on what the what the men and women of our law enforcement do for us each day.

So thank you.

Thank you, Chief Fels.

Okay, public comment.

Please introduce yourself and you have three minutes.

Okay, thanks, Bob.

Hi, once again, Bob Bradbury resident.

Uh, regarding the horizon, whatever the other street, mountain crest, whatever it is, canyon crest.

Um, might it be an idea now that the new lanes are open, if we just leave a roadblock in that one lane for a period of seven days, ten days, until people that frequent that route realize the other side is open.

And then the other quite the other question is I know that there was a very faint double yellow uh traffic line there.

Has that been removed?

My understanding is yes, that took place today.

And you're you got a good um idea.

We'll take a look at that and see if that uh I think um once we get the word out to everybody, because they are so used to going that, but once um they get that traffic pattern.

But we will definitely take a look at that and throw some cones out there.

Roughly two-thirds of our population are senior citizens.

Roadblock might be a good idea.

Travis.

I actually drove on that road today and to answer his question.

All of the lines were removed.

All of them were restriped this afternoon.

The only concern I would have if you're if you're heading east on the new part of Canyon Crest.

Right after you make the turn, there's a place where it merges into just one lane.

Other than that, it's it's striped, it's marked.

It's it's actually not confusing, except it's been confusing for the last several months.

But you don't have to go through that hole in the dirt to turn right anymore.

So that's cool.

Yeah, and to speak to your point, not to drag this on, but um so we did that portion with the money that we had.

Um, just to let everybody know, we're actually with the um money that we'll have from this next year.

We'll do it.

I'm calling it Canyon Crest 2.0.

So that will take that second lane from where it stops now up to Mesquite Heights Road, and then also from Mesquite Heights down to Oasis.

So that whole when you're going in that corridor, you'll take that thing, and it'll be just like how that section is, but on that other leg.

So that's to be that's being with engineered right now.

So thank you.

And on a good note, the new fire station's gonna be open June 11th.

So if anything were to happen, they're only a minute away.

That's our ribbon cutting.

Yeah, ribbon cutting on the third.

Right.

Okay, any other public comment.

Sorry.

Thank you, John Rosen again.

Um I'm one of those people that lives right in that area with this construction that we've been talking about.

I am thrilled that it is to the state it is right now.

I think it's a huge improvement to our traffic flow.

I do, however, have to be honest and say, unlike most of the projects that have gone on, this one, the communication to the public about what was going on through the process has been woefully deficient.

Um I can't tell you the number of times that I have gone from my intersection all the way down to that intersection at Canyon Crest, only to find out that Canyon Crest was closed there, as opposed to being notified.

I mean, there's only one reason to go to that direction, is to go there.

And it's just been awful.

And uh even today to notify people after the fact that the lanes have been open and are now two way to then try to tell people that oh, there's been a change and you have to do that.

And I will guarantee you that the vast, vast, vast majority of people who live in Sun City and use that route aren't in this room here today to hear the comments that you made.

So I just think we can do better.

Thank you.

Thank you, John.

See another public any other public comment.

Evening again, Council Anissa Vaca.

Um your name?

Anissa Baca.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Um, just to clarify on the uh funding that got approved for the airport um for WRX.

So, you know, with city loans, uh, because I work with a bit more with uh corporations and private, um just clarification.

So if funds aren't dispersed until August, I'm assuming that bidding would be open right beforehand.

Um, but do they you know, any types of trades, because you know, they're a general contractor, so then they're gonna hire subtrades.

Um, you know, are they expected to have um workers in place and have development before August 1st?

No, so if I it might be good to speak with you after, and I can go through all of the so this was already as a general contractor, they're bidding this to do asphalt placement.

So the airport already has all the development.

This is just for road construction on that.

The monies that are funding this come from 95% from a grant that we're receiving from FAA, and then we're paying the additional five percent to equal that 100%.

But I'd love to speak with you and go through on that.

Um, but they do follow, we have to follow all of the bidding requirements for the NRS.

Um, they're required to have all of their trades to do that for the installation of the type two base and the asphalt placement on that prior to, and then they'll do the work and we pay them to do that work.

Correct.

Okay, thank you, Councilman.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Public comment is now closed, and this meeting is adjourned at 618.