Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Mesquite Redevelopment Agency Meeting – October 6, 2026

City Council & Committees — Tuesday, October 6, 2026

BodyMesquite, Nevada

SessionCity Council & Committees

DateTuesday, October 6, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 37:15

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

0:02

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Tuesday, October 6th, 2026, Mesquite Redevelopment Agency meeting.

Unassigned speaker

0:12

And

Speaker 1

0:12

we are gonna start off with opening public comment.

Unassigned speaker

0:22

Yeah,

Speaker 2

0:22

I'm Jeff Hoyt, citizen of Musquete.

0:26

And I wanted to remind a couple things.

0:28

Wanted to remind everybody.

0:30

I did an audit.

0:31

It's what I did for a profession.

0:33

I was a CPA and I did fraud investigation.

0:35

I'm not saying stuff was fraudulent, but I did audit the RDA funds from the last 10 years approximately of the last program and found that 96% of the money was spent on City of Mesquite projects, and only four percent went to in my mind what it was really for.

0:54

So that's I just wanted to remind people that.

0:57

Anyway, um I met with a tenant, the um

Unassigned speaker

1:00

the

Speaker 2

1:01

Catholic charity thrift shop, and they want to replace the signs on their buildings, which have been there for a long, long time.

1:09

And so anyway, so I told them I says, well, you can get RDA money from that, and they asked how I says, go down, and they've got a pack it at the city, and so you can go, and then I'll help you through the process of it, but go down.

1:20

So anyway, so I got an email from Rick at the thrift shop, and he said, yeah, he he did talk to somebody there at the at the city, and they told him that any monies that he got would reduce the amount of money I could get for things at uh by that shopping center.

1:45

I've already brought this up before the limitation, it's a 99,900 limitation, was put there for one purpose only, and that's to avoid having to pay prevailing wages.

1:57

It's a limitation by project, by project only.

2:01

I could have 10 projects, one after another, and each qualify for another 999,000 99,999.

2:10

It's not by developer, it's not by parcel.

2:13

And so people have to stop giving bad information out to the people.

2:20

And if anybody brings up the attorney general's letter that they got, I FOIA requested that.

2:34

We're really it was addressing a different topic entirely.

2:38

So anyway, so I'm gonna be coming down.

2:41

I don't know if I've got a meet with city manager, or I I talked with Adam about that, and I've read all of Code Section 2 NRS 279.

Unassigned speaker

2:51

I

Speaker 2

2:51

and I've been told by prior Bob Sweeton told me this, he agreed with me.

2:57

The prior city attorney before Adam.

3:00

I he agreed with me on this, and so it just needs to get straightened out so

Unassigned speaker

3:04

that

Speaker 2

3:05

people get good information and can utilize those funds like it's supposed to be.

3:08

Thank you.

Speaker 1

3:09

Thank you, Jeff.

Speaker 3

3:18

Dave Olwig, I want to uh reiterate what Jeff said when I was on city council.

3:23

I went through all of this, and it's it's strictly has to do with prevailing wage.

3:28

They have to jump through some additional hoops, but there's no we don't have a limitation of nine what whatever's you know $99,000 or $100,000, uh standard prevailing wage.

3:40

Uh so we really I want to reiterate what Jeff said because we need we we need this economic development, we need the stuff on on the on Besquite Boulevard.

3:50

And uh you just got the I mean, like I said, we have to um apply rules to it, but there's no limitation to 100,000.

3:58

Thank you.

Speaker 1

3:58

Thanks, Dave.

Speaker 4

4:09

Good afternoon.

4:10

Uh Bob Mazar, resident of Musquite.

4:13

Um it's hard to do what I'm about to do and keep it within the bounds of uh tech review, so I'm gonna count on Adam to

Speaker 1

4:22

this is actually RDA at the moment as well.

4:26

Oh sorry.

4:27

Yeah, thanks, Bob.

4:33

Okay, seeing no one else come forward, we're gonna move on to item 2.1, the consent agenda.

4:38

Consideration and approval of the Tuesday, July 7th, 2026 redevelopment agency meeting minutes and the Tuesday, October 6, 2026 redevelopment agency meeting agenda.

4:51

Uh any questions from the board on the consent agenda.

4:58

Any public comment?

Unassigned speaker

5:00

Oh, board member fielding.

Speaker 5

5:02

Thank you, board chair.

5:04

Um I think this is if if you have looked at the picture of the water tank for years, I've felt like we've

Speaker 1

5:13

we're just on consent agenda still.

Speaker 5

5:15

No consent agenda.

5:16

I'll take that back.

5:16

I'll go to the next.

Speaker 1

5:18

All right.

5:19

So um any public comment on consent agenda?

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Public Engagement███████████████████████████27%

Procurement Policy██████████████████18%

Parks and Recreation██████████████14%

Public Works████████████12%

Economic Development████████8%

Budget Equity Analysis████████8%

Historic Preservation██████6%

Public Safety████4%

Public Art███3%

Summary of Proceedings

Mesquite Redevelopment Agency Meeting – October 6, 2026 (2:15 PM)

The Mesquite Redevelopment Agency (RDA) held a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 6, 2026, at 2:15 PM at City Hall. The board considered three grant requests: a water tower mural ($15,921), a Jensen Park playground and shade equipment project ($110,105.70), and interior improvements at 110 E. Mesquite Blvd ($99,999). Public comment raised concerns about RDA fund allocation, bid consistency, prevailing wage rules, and park vandalism.

Consent Calendar

Item 2.1: Unanimously approved the Tuesday, July 7, 2026 RDA meeting minutes and the October 6, 2026 agenda. (Motion by Fielding, seconded, vote: all aye.)

Public Comments & Testimony

Jeff Hoyt (citizen): Stated he audited RDA funds and found 96% was spent on City of Mesquite projects and only 4% on what he believed was the intended redevelopment purpose. He also argued that the $99,999 grant limit was created solely to avoid prevailing wage requirements and that it applies per project, not per developer or parcel. He criticized city staff for giving incorrect information to a thrift shop about the limit.
Dave Olwig (former council member): Reiterated Hoyt's points, stating the $99,999 limit is strictly about prevailing wage and does not cap total funding.
Bob Mazar (resident): Began a comment but was redirected; no substantive remarks recorded.
Dave Baldwick (public comment on Item 3.1): Opposed the water tower mural grant, arguing it should be funded by the tourism grant program, not RDA redevelopment funds.
Jeff Hoyt (public comment on Item 3.2): Questioned bid consistency, noting that he had been denied RDA funding because his bids were not identical, but the Jensen Park bids differed significantly.
Dave Olwig (final public comment): Warned against "parting out" projects to evade prevailing wage, referencing past trouble experienced by another city department (OPD) for similar practices.
John (no affiliation stated): Suggested installing security cameras at parks and other high-value properties to deter vandalism and aid cost recovery.

Discussion Items

Item 3.1 – Water Tower Mural Grant ($15,921)

Proposal: Fund a public artwork mural by Patriot Painting on the Virgin Valley Water District water tower. The cost covers pressure washing, painting, and lettering; the final design includes "NV" after "Mesquite."
Board Member Fielding: Supported the project as a long-overdue beautification opportunity that welcomes visitors to Mesquite, and noted the one-year warranty.
Board Member One (likely Ennis): Expressed concern about security and paint integrity on a drinking water structure, but deferred to Virgin Valley Water District's months-long review; stated he would vote yes if the water district approved.
Board Member Gallo: Noted the tower is a missed opportunity, spoke in favor.
City Staff (Martine): Confirmed the contract will go through a separate approval with the water district if funded.
Outcome: Motion to approve (Fielding) seconded. Vote: ayes – several; nays – 1 (Board Member Ennis, conditional); motion passed.

Item 3.2 – Jensen Park Playground & Shade Equipment Grant ($110,105.70)

Proposal: RDA grant for a capital improvement project at Jensen Park, including playground structures, shade equipment, safety surfacing, concrete, lighting, and contingency. City employees will perform installation using RDA funds for equipment and subcontractor work (electrical, concrete).
City Staff (Martine & Lonnie): Explained the design uses multiple small metal structures for easier replacement and to avoid vandalism; the shade structure reduces heat. The lowest bid (Miracle) was $80,000; Big T's bids were higher. Remaining $30,000 covers electrical and concrete.
Board Member Gallo: Raised concern about metal equipment heat, but was reassured by the shade structure.
Board Member Fielding: Worried about ongoing vandalism and repair costs; Lonnie responded that metal is easier to clean and paint.
Board Member Parrish: Noted the total exceeds the $100,000 prevailing wage threshold. City attorney clarified that the $80,000 equipment purchase is under the threshold and city labor does not trigger prevailing wage.
Board Member Ennis: Questioned why the public is held to a standard of identical bids while the city used non-identical bids. City attorney explained it was a concept-based bid, not identical specifications; staff committed to consistent application in the future.
Jeff Hoyt (public comment): Asserted that the combined $110,000 project triggers prevailing wage regardless of who does the work, citing past trouble with similar practices.
Outcome: Motion to approve (Ennis) seconded (Fielding). Vote: ayes – Parrish, others; motion passed.

Item 3.3 – Grant for 110 E. Mesquite Blvd ($99,999)

Proposal: Grant to KDN Properties, LLC for interior improvements to a building at 110 E. Mesquite Blvd (across from City Hall). The building is part of a new construction project on a previously vacant lot, considered blight elimination under NRS.
Owner Dave Newfeld: Thanked the board; explained the project has taken 3.5 years. Funds will finish interior for three tenants ready to move in. He highlighted honoring Mesquite heritage: bricks from the former Chalet Cafe will be incorporated, and conference rooms will be named "Chalet" and "Granger."
Board Member Wandless: Noted it's a rare RDA grant for new construction but supported it as redevelopment of blighted property.
Board Member Fielding: Clarified the grant covers only interior improvements, not the purchase of the lot or shell.
Outcome: Motion to approve (Fielding) seconded. Vote: all aye; motion passed.

Key Outcomes

Approved consent agenda (Item 2.1).
Approved $15,921 grant for water tower mural (Item 3.1) – 1 nay.
Approved $110,105.70 grant for Jensen Park playground (Item 3.2).
Approved $99,999 grant for 110 E. Mesquite Blvd interior improvements (Item 3.3).
Directive: City attorney and staff to ensure consistent application of bid requirements for future RDA grants, addressing the discrepancy noted between public and city bids.
Referral (informal): John's suggestion to explore security cameras at parks was acknowledged; no formal action taken.

Meeting Transcript

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Tuesday, October 6th, 2026, Mesquite Redevelopment Agency meeting. And we are gonna start off with opening public comment. Yeah, I'm Jeff Hoyt, citizen of Musquete. And I wanted to remind a couple things. Wanted to remind everybody. I did an audit. It's what I did for a profession. I was a CPA and I did fraud investigation. I'm not saying stuff was fraudulent, but I did audit the RDA funds from the last 10 years approximately of the last program and found that 96% of the money was spent on City of Mesquite projects, and only four percent went to in my mind what it was really for. So that's I just wanted to remind people that. Anyway, um I met with a tenant, the um the Catholic charity thrift shop, and they want to replace the signs on their buildings, which have been there for a long, long time. And so anyway, so I told them I says, well, you can get RDA money from that, and they asked how I says, go down, and they've got a pack it at the city, and so you can go, and then I'll help you through the process of it, but go down. So anyway, so I got an email from Rick at the thrift shop, and he said, yeah, he he did talk to somebody there at the at the city, and they told him that any monies that he got would reduce the amount of money I could get for things at uh by that shopping center. I've already brought this up before the limitation, it's a 99,900 limitation, was put there for one purpose only, and that's to avoid having to pay prevailing wages. It's a limitation by project, by project only. I could have 10 projects, one after another, and each qualify for another 999,000 99,999. It's not by developer, it's not by parcel. And so people have to stop giving bad information out to the people. And if anybody brings up the attorney general's letter that they got, I FOIA requested that. We're really it was addressing a different topic entirely. So anyway, so I'm gonna be coming down. I don't know if I've got a meet with city manager, or I I talked with Adam about that, and I've read all of Code Section 2 NRS 279. I and I've been told by prior Bob Sweeton told me this, he agreed with me. The prior city attorney before Adam. I he agreed with me on this, and so it just needs to get straightened out so that people get good information and can utilize those funds like it's supposed to be. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Dave Olwig, I want to uh reiterate what Jeff said when I was on city council. I went through all of this, and it's it's strictly has to do with prevailing wage. They have to jump through some additional hoops, but there's no we don't have a limitation of nine what whatever's you know $99,000 or $100,000, uh standard prevailing wage. Uh so we really I want to reiterate what Jeff said because we need we we need this economic development, we need the stuff on on the on Besquite Boulevard. And uh you just got the I mean, like I said, we have to um apply rules to it, but there's no limitation to 100,000. Thank you. Thanks, Dave. Good afternoon. Uh Bob Mazar, resident of Musquite. Um it's hard to do what I'm about to do and keep it within the bounds of uh tech review, so I'm gonna count on Adam to this is actually RDA at the moment as well. Oh sorry. Yeah, thanks, Bob. Okay, seeing no one else come forward, we're gonna move on to item 2.1, the consent agenda. Consideration and approval of the Tuesday, July 7th, 2026 redevelopment agency meeting minutes and the Tuesday, October 6, 2026 redevelopment agency meeting agenda. Uh any questions from the board on the consent agenda.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com