All right, let's call the order of the Spark City Council meeting for Monday, October 13th with a roll call.

Mayor Lawson.

Here.

Council members Abbott.

Manderwell, here.

Anderson.

Here.

Baby, here.

Rodriguez.

City Attorney Duncan.

City Manager Louthin.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Okay.

And for our invitation today, we have Pastor David Solomon Hall Sr.

Welcome.

We begin this meeting.

Let us take a quiet moment to reflect on the privilege and responsibility of serving our community.

May wisdom guide our conversations and mutual respect shape every decision we make.

May we listen with open minds, speak with understanding, and act with courage and fairness.

Let our efforts today strengthen the well-being, unity, and future of Sparks.

A city where every voice matters and every person belongs.

Together, may we move forward with integrity, vision, and compassion for all who call this community home.

Amen.

Ums Banderwell, will you lead us in the pledge?

Yes.

Liberty and justice.

All right.

Thank you, Pastor.

Okay.

Let's move on to public comment.

I have Jim Kynis.

And that's followed by Martin Sudzinski.

Did I got it right?

Thank you.

Mayor Lassen, members of the city council for the record, Jim Kynis, resident of Winfield Springs and Sparks.

Here to ask you to reconsider closing down Fire Station Five.

Closing Station Five is going to put thousands of people that visit Golden Eagle Park each year, along with those of us that live in Wingfield Springs and surrounding areas and our homes in jeopardy.

I run the numbers for response times for our current station five and the future station six.

The difference in travel time responding from station six to Golden Eagle Park adds an extra four minutes and over two miles to the response.

Station six will be responding to the five ridges development that you all approved.

Each response to that area will leave our whole community unprotected with huge response signs.

You may think that an extra four minutes is no big deal, but it is.

Four minutes can mean the difference in saving a life from a medical emergency.

A person can only go 45 minutes without oxygen before permanent disability or death results.

Four minutes can mean the difference between making a save in a fire situation or a person losing their life.

Four minutes can mean the difference between a fire being contained to the room and contents of a house or to losing your whole house.

October 4th, I was volunteering in a high school cross-country race at Golden Eagle Park.

There were 32 different high schools participating in this 5K race with hundreds of high school runners, spectators, friends, and family.

What would have happened if she didn't have that inhaler with her and stop breathing?

She'd be waiting nine plus minutes for a response from Fire Station Six.

The announcement sent out by the city states the department will also implement dynamic staffing between stations five and six when call volumes require it, particularly during peak hours and large events at Golden Eagle Regional Park.

That's nonsense.

Made it sound like this was something that was always planned.

Let's be clear.

Closing station five was never planned.

There was a study done by an outside company when Chief Maples was the fire chief that specifically stated both stations were needed.

We paid over 20,000 to have that study completed.

If you haven't seen it, ask Chief White to produce it for you.

The need is even greater now with all the homes and businesses that have been built.

Another thing, the Northern Nevada Fire Code Amendments, along with Title 14 of the Sparks Municipal Code say the homes will be sprinklered if the fire department's travel time is greater than four minutes.

You approved all of the homes behind Golden Eagle Park, and none of those homes require sprinklers because station five was within four minutes.

Closing station five is going to leave those homes and many others unprotected by sprinklers or a quick response from the fire department.

With that, I'll just thank you for your time and attention in this matter, and I hope you all do the right thing.

Thank you.

Martin Sudzinski Martin Sajinski, Silver King Drive out Wingfield Springs.

It seems obvious, but can someone answer why you're closing station five?

No one can answer while you're closing station five.

This is public comments, sir, not public discourse.

Okay.

Well, Winfield Springs pays not only taxes but association fees.

In addition to that, we pay take care of our own sidewalks.

We have our own security, which reduces the calls for the police department.

We have our own landscaping, which reduces the services from the city during the fall cleanup.

And I've never seen a street cleaner out there machine.

So if you're gonna close the station, why don't you cut our taxes?

Look at all the services we're providing.

In addition, it was I missed maybe 10 years ago.

It was Mayor Martini and Ed Lawson set at the state of the base, the state um channel two Sunday afternoon, and you stated that uh all the infrastructure was in place for all those thousands of housing units that are gonna go up in Northern Northern Sparks.

Well, was the infrastructure in place?

Was the tax base tax base in place?

Doesn't appear like the tax base was in place.

This is going on for as long as I can remember.

The city of Sparks has never dealt with police and fire adequately.

How many years back?

Forever.

So now you're closing a station because you didn't do your job.

Well, when are you gonna do your job?

You're collecting a paycheck, right?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the public wishing to make a comment?

Okay.

We'll close with bringing back to the dias.

I'm looking for approval of the agenda.

Mr.

Rabbit, I move to approve the agenda submitted.

Mr.

Anderson, second.

Got a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, please vote.

Motion carries unanimously.

Looking for uh addition subtraction to the minutes.

If not, look for a motion.

Ms.

Vanderwell.

Move to approve the minutes of the Sparks City Council meeting for September 22nd, 2025.

Mr.

Rodriguez.

We got a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

See none, please vote.

Motion carries unanimously.

Uh 7.1 boards and commissions vacancy announcement.

Sparks Civil Service Commission, Mr.

Manager.

Thank you, Mayor.

The Sparks Civil Service Commission has one vacancy for a partial term ending June 30th, 2026.

Commissioners must be Sparks residents and cannot be a city employee or related to one within the third degree of consanguinity.

Applications for this vacancy will be accepted until 5 p.m.

on October 30th, 2025.

Persons interested in serving on these committees should complete a community service application online at the city's website, www.city of sparks.us slash get involved.

Simply complete the A volunteer application form and hit submit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Move on to 7.2 presentation on domestic violence resource center.

There's someone here for that.

Yeah.

Come on down.

Give us your name.

Good afternoon, Mayor Lawson and Council members.

My name is Kristen Kennedy.

I'm the executive director of the Domestic Violence Resource Center.

And we um serve Northern Nevada, including many families right here in Sparks.

Um, I just want to thank you for recognizing October as domestic violence awareness month.

Um, this is definitely more than something that's just symbolic.

Um, it's a vital step in really acknowledging this pervasive um issue and the impact that it has on our community, our families, our businesses.

Um last year alone, our organization served over 4300 individuals who were fleeing domestic abuse, many of them from Sparks.

Uh, we provided shelter, legal advocacy, counseling services, and other life-saving resources.

Yet for every survivor, we know that there are that speaks out and reaches out.

We know that there are many more who are suffering in silence.

So this month really helps break that silence and it sends a clear message that Sparks Nevada sees survivors and believes survivors and supports them to end abuse.

But it also reminds us that there's still a lot of work to be done to ensure that there's safe housing and trauma-informed services, and that we are working on prevention of violence in our schools through education and outreach.

He serves in advisory capacity for the Domestic Violence Resource Center on a project that we have going on right now.

We are building a new shelter and a whole new resource center, and it will quadruple our ability to shelter.

So we'll go from 25 beds to 100 beds.

So on November 4th, we're breaking ground on our new center.

And we hope you are all be there.

We sent you an invite, so hopefully you can make it.

And join us at that event as we work together to create a future free from domestic violence in Northern Nevada.

I just want to thank you for your leadership and for your commitment to safety and dignity and justice.

So thank you.

We have a proclamation for you, so hang out for a minute.

We'll have uh Miss Bobby read that for you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you, Krista.

Um, whereas domestic violence affects people of all ages, backgrounds, and circumstances, and its impacts are felt across families, neighborhoods, and communities.

Whereas the City of Sparks is committed to building a community where every person can live free from fear, abuse, and violence.

And whereas domestic violence awareness month provides an opportunity to honor survivors, remember those lost, and recognize the advocates and organizations who work tireless tirelessly to provide shelter, counseling, legal services, and hope for those in need.

And whereas ending domestic violence requires the strength of our entire community, neighbors looking out for one another, schools and workplaces, fostering safe places, and leaders promoting prevention and resources.

And whereas together we can break the cycle of violence and create a future defined by safety, dignity, respect, and compassion.

Therefore, on behalf of Ed Lawson, mayor of the City of Sparks, we hereby proclaim October 2025 as domestic violence awareness month in the city of Sparks and encourage all residents to learn more about domestic violence, support survivors, and work toward a safer and healthier community for all.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for that.

Congratulations on the facility also.

Thank you.

We're going to take a picture with Julie and you right over here, if you don't mind.

All right, let's move on to 7.4 community planning month.

Ms.

Vanderwell.

Do we have anyone here for that?

Come on down.

Good afternoon, uh, Mayor Lawson and Council members.

My name is Anne Marie Lane, and I serve as the vice president of the Nevada chapter of the American Planning Association.

On behalf of our chapter, I am honored to accept this proclamation with sincere gratitude.

We truly appreciate your recognition of the vital role that planners play in shaping communities across Nevada.

This proclamation fuels our continued drive to plan boldly, think innovatively, and improve the quality of life for all Nevadaans.

Thank you for this powerful acknowledgement.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Councilmember Diane Vanderwell, who has been selected as this year's recipient of the JBauer Excellence in Planning Award in the elected official category.

Councilmember Vanderwell is being honored for her leadership in advancing innovative zoning code amendments and her unwavering dedication to diversifying Northern Nevada's economy.

Thank you.

The um 2025 Excellence in Planning Awards will be presented during the awards banquet at the 53rd Annual State Planning Conference, taking place on October 23rd and 24th at the Carson Valley Inn in Minden.

For those interested in attending the banquet, tickets are available online through October 19th.

Congratulations again to Councilmember Vanderwell and thank you all for your continued support for planning across Nevada.

Let's keep the momentum going and continue shaping vibrant thriving communities.

Thank you.

Okay, Ms.

Vanderwell, you want to read the park commission?

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Whereas change is constant and affects all cities, towns, suburbans, counties, boroughs, townships, rural areas, and other places.

And whereas planners can help navigate this change with data-driven insights and expertise that provide better choices for how people work and live.

And whereas community plowing provides an opportunity for all residents to be meaningful meaningfully involved in making choices that determine the future of their community.

And whereas the full benefits of planning require public elected and appointed officials who understand support and demand excellence in planning and plan implementation.

And whereas the month of October is designated as National Community Planning Month throughout the United States of America and its territories.

And whereas the American Planning Association endorses National Community Planning Month as an opportunity to highlight how planning is essential to every community and how planners are uniquely positioned to identify solutions to communities' most difficult housing, transportation, and land use questions.

And whereas the celebration of the National Community Planning Month gives us the opportunity to publicly recognize the participation and dedication of appointed planning commission members who have contributed their time and expertise to the improvement of the City of Sparks.

And whereas we recognize many valuable contributions made by the professional community and regional planners of the City of Sparks and extend our heartfelt thanks for the continued commitment to build to public service by these professionals.

And whereas the Nevada chapter of the American Planning Association will be hosting the 53rd Annual Nevada Planning, Nevada State Planning Conference, October 23rd through 24th in Minden, Nevada.

And the theme for this year's conference is Homegrown Nevada, planning today for Nevada's tomorrow.

Now, therefore, I, on behalf of Ed Lawson, mayor of the City of Sparks, Nevada, do hereby proclaim the month of October 2025 Community Planning Month.

We'll have you uh come over here and we'll take a picture.

Just a moment.

And before I step down, I do want to I do want to say thank you for the award.

I greatly appreciate this, but I don't do it alone.

And I want to say what a wonderful community planning staff that we have, and I share this with them also.

So for the picture, I would like whatever community planning staff is here to please take it with me.

Got a couple of them.

Okay.

Move on to consent items.

Anyone wishing to pull a consent item?

If not, I'm looking for a motion.

Mr.

Anderson.

I move to approve consent items 8.1 and 8.8 through 8.4 is submitted.

Thank you.

Ms.

Vanderwell.

Second.

Got a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, please vote.

Motion carries unanimously.

9.1.

General Business Consideration Discussion of Possible of a Construction Contract AC 6154 with Centennial Builders LLC and the amount of 1,464,674 for the Golden Eagle Recreation Park or GRIP Fields 111215 Outfield Synthetic Turf Replacement Project.

Bid number 25-26-001.

Hello, Mayor, members of Council, Brandon Miles, Parks Development Coordinator for the record.

As you may recall, in previous capital improvement plan workshops, staff presented a long-term turf replacement plan for Golden Eagle Regional Park that runs through 2028.

Council approved this project in fiscal year 2026 budget.

This replacement plan does consider on-site review impact attenuation testing that is done annually.

The current outfields being replaced within this contract are aging and in need of replacement.

As noted in the map, they include the outfields on softball fields 11, 12, and 15.

Those fields are highlighted in red on the map.

The infields on these fields were replaced in 2019.

Four bids were received with Sentinel Builders providing the lowest responsive bid.4 million to 2,300,000, and compares to an engineer's estimate of over 1.7 million.

Staff is recommending Sentinel Builders be awarded the project in the amount of 1,464,674.

End of my presentation.

Do you guys have any questions?

Questions from the council.

Brandon, thank you for your work on this.

From all of us that uh if we're not doing sports ourselves, we're going to watch grandkids and kids, and there's adult sports and people from in town, out of town.

I mean, it just and it is busy.

Just about every every day you're out there.

And so the turf has to be safe.

And I know uh when I first came on council, we looked at we we knew we were going to need to replace turf, and it was overwhelming to look at that cost.

And I really appreciate the the um the plan that we put in place at that time of doing um, you know, in fields were worn faster, and then outfields and then flat fields.

And so, really, the cycle that we've set up and that you have worked on in assessing those fields too, because we want to keep it safe for everybody who's out there.

So I appreciate all of that work and the fact that uh we got four bids because a few years ago we only had one, and actually we didn't accept it at the time because it was so far above what we estimated.

So I I love seeing more companies coming into the synthetic turf.

So we have some competition in that we're able to do it 1.4 million versus 1.7 for engineers experts.

So that's a win on all sides, and keeping that you know, keeping it rolling out there and people utilizing it and the work you guys do on those fields uh is much appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I agree.

Anyone else?

The grass for grass program.

That's right.

Okay, uh, no further questions.

I'm looking for a motion.

Ms.

Bibee.

I move to approve a construction contract AC 6154 with Sentinel Builders LLC in the amount of one million four hundred and sixty-four thousand six hundred and seventy-four dollars for the Golden Eagle Regional Park GURP Fields 111215 Outfields Synthetic Turf Replacement Project, bid number 25-2601, PWP WA2025501.

Mr.

Rodriguez, second.

We got a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, please vote.

Motion carries unanimously.

Thank you, Brandon.

Uh 9.2 consideration discussion, possible approval of amendment number one with a consulting agreement AC5981 with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

and the City of Reno for Design and Construction Manager at Risk Support Services for the Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility Dewatering Building Project for an additional one, eight hundred ninety-seven thousand four hundred and thirty-eight dollars with Spark's share of the amendment being five hundred ninety-five thousand two hundred twenty-six dollars and thirty cents for a total amount not to exceed five million nine hundred sixty-three thousand nine hundred and thirty-four dollars.

AC.

All right, well, good afternoon, Mayor Lawson and members of council for the record, Casey Manser, treatment plant manager at the Recky Meadows Water Reclamation Facility.

So this item relates to an ongoing uh engineering project that we've been working on for uh for some time now.

Um, just as a quick reminder, the dewatering uh step is the part of the process where we fully remove the pollutants out of the water and you know turn them into biosolids for disposal.

This particular process was uh recognized as a critical vulnerability as part of our 2020 facility master plan, and we've been working since then to address the shortcomings.

Um we had looked extensively at expanding the uh capacity of our current dewatering building, but ultimately that was deemed to be impractical for a number of reasons, including seismic codes, the state of the mechanical assets, um, and just overall construction feasibility.

So the decision was made to construct a new dewatering facility, which is what we've been working on uh with Jacobs Engineering.

Given the magnitude of this project, we decided to hire a construction manager at risk.

And so we had gotten uh about 30% of the way through the design, and we had hired a construction manager at risk or a CMAR for them to be able to provide um additional cost estimating, uh, value engineering and constructability assessments, right?

These are contractors, they're out there every day, um, and they understand the true market conditions uh a bit better than our engineers.

So at the 30% level, um, the CMAR had come in with their own cost estimation, and it was roughly twice what the original engineers estimate were, uh, which far exceeded our available budget.

So as a result, uh staff, our engineers and the CMAR.

Uh, we massively overhauled the design of the project um until we were confident that we would be able to come in within the prescribed budget and still receive the product that is going to be functional for the treatment plant.

Um, so this amendment here, it looks to uh cover the additional costs that were incurred for us to go back to the drawing board, rework considerable amount of the design.

Um, and you know, so this covers those additional redesign efforts.

I do want to say that I feel like this showcases some of the strengths of uh having a CMAR and the CMAR process in general, because we were able to better identify the current market conditions far ahead of um having completed the design and you know, having bid a project that we ultimately couldn't uh couldn't build.

So uh with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

All right, questions from the council.

All right, seeing none, I'm looking for a motion.

Mr.

Anderson, yes, sir.

I move to approve amendment number one to the consulting agreement AC5981 with Jake's Jacobs Engineering Group Incorporated in the City of Reno for design and construction manager at risk support services for the Trekkie Meadows Water Reclamation Facility Dewatering Building Project for an additional one million eight hundred ninety-seven thousand four hundred and thirty-eight dollars, with Spark's share of the amendment being five hundred and ninety-five thousand two hundred twenty-six dollars and thirty cents for a total agreement amount not to exceed five million nine hundred and sixty-three thousand nine hundred and thirty-four dollars.

Okay, Mr.

Rodriguez.

Got a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, please vote.

Motion carries unanimously.

Thanks, Casey.

Thank you.

Consideration discussion of possible approval of an agreement AC 6155 with Keller and Associates and the City of Reno for design engineering services for the Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility, thickened primary sludge pumping improvements project in the amount of 600,000 with Spark Share being 188,220.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

Uh Mayor Lawson, fellow city council members.

Uh for the record, Austin Martin treatment plants engineer over at uh Tone Wharf.

Uh as discussed, this item was for the approval of engineering design services with Keller and Associates to handle the redesign of our thickened primary sludge.

Our thick and primary sludge is basically the first step in the treatment process of removing solids from the facility.

Uh, this was originally redesigned and constructed back in our 2004 expansion, but over the years have we've received increasingly higher levels of industrial waste, particularly through our sceptage receiving station.

That has caused more of an impact on this in this part of the process, um, including much higher pressures, which have frankly torn our pumps apart many times.

Uh include including one alcohol uh close to catastrophic failure uh with uh you know operators and maintenance staff walking up to their knees and well, let's call them solids.

Uh so we've rebuilt these pumps a number of times and ultimately uh chose to go forward with this project um with this uh design service as part of our um fiscal year 2025 uh CIP allocation uh for fiscal year of 27.

I uh apologize.

And um, yeah, for if there's any further questions.

Uh question from the council.

See none.

Looking for a motion, great presentation.

No question.

Mr.

Rabbit, I move to approve the agreement, AC-6155 with Killer Associates in the City of Reno for design and engineering services.

A C 6155 with Keller Associates in the City of Reno for design and engineering services.

The Trucking Meadows Water Reclamation Facility, second primary sludge pumping improvements project in the amount of six hundred thousand dollars with Sparks' share being 188,220.

Ms.

Vanderwell.

Second.

Got a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, please vote.

Motion carries unanimously.

Thank you.

Um 9.4 consideration discussion of possible approval for the purchase of two international CB515 SFA dump trucks with accessories as part of the fleet replacement program utilizing Sourcewell Contract 060920-NBS in the amount of 382,795 and 12 cents.

12 cents.

So forget the 12 cents.

Good afternoon, Council there.

Uh Mark Anderson, Public Works Manager here to ask for your consideration of a purchase of two CV515 dump trucks.

Uh the price for both trucks and upfit upfitting utilizing source well, it's just a little over a little under 383,000.

Uh these units are five-ton single rear axle vehicles.

Their primary use will be in public works for hauling material in steep terrain and tight spaces where our larger units simply do not fit or become too cumbersome to make it easy.

Um these vehicles are four-wheel drive and will give us more capability to perform maintenance in our open ditch system as well as snow removal.

Uh the four-wheel drive systems are necessary due to changes in uh design.

Our current units are midship, which limits how much uh hauling capacity they have.

So these ones are our rear spreader units and uh four-wheel drive.

The purchase is budgeted as part of our fleet replacement program, and uh it replaces two units that are from 1996.

So I think we got our useful IP.

So you got your use out of those.

With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions from the council.

All right.

See none.

I'm looking for a motion.

Mr.

Vanderwell.

I move to approve the purchase of two international CB515 SVA dump trucks with accessories in the amount of 382,795.12 cents as part of the fleet replacement program utilizing source well contract 060920-NVS.

Mr.

Rabbit.

The second.

See none, please vote.

Motion carries unanimously.

9.5 consideration discussion of possible approval for the purchase of a multi-hog CV 350 compact multi-purpose sweeper with attachments utilizing source wheel contract 11152 MUL in the amount of 260,002 and 57 cents.

Again, Mark Anderson for the record, uh, here to ask for your consideration of a purchase of one multi-hog CV 350, utilizing source well for a little over 260,000.

The unit will help staff efficiently maintain our narrower areas like cycle tracks, bike lanes, and pedestrian walking.

Um this unit as as it name as its name alludes to multi-use.

It is a sweeper, it also comes with a snow broom, a snow plow, and a pathway scrubber.

Um, these will help us obviously maintain those areas as well as our downtown event areas.

Um these units are are these units.

We like to be cutting edge, and uh, I'll be honest, we're a little behind the game.

Our partner city uh a little bit to the west has one of these units, so we uh got some first hand experience in how they work, and uh we hope it'll really help us in our maintenance.

Um the great thing about this purchase is that it is partially refundable by the Audi's Audi Wells RTC project in the 290,000.

Um, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions from the council, Mr.

Abbott.

Uh no good questions, just more comments.

I know we've talked about this.

We have a little history on an item of the all right, I guess this is equipment over the years.

So just excited that we're finally getting it.

Um, obviously for Audi for the marina path and everything else in town.

So just exciting addition to our fleet.

So good job.

Mr.

Anderson Mark.

I was just curious.

That's a pretty specific piece of equipment over the years.

What have we seen in mileage or linear feeder, however, you measure it?

How where that's going to be utilized?

So right now it'll be utilized.

Um, I don't have exact mileage.

I could get that to you if you would like it, but right now it'll be the Audi Corridor, Orion Corridor.

We're planning on using it on the river corridor, Parks Boulevard.

And we have several regional trails out in uh the Wingfield Hills area that are a little too narrow for some of our bigger units.

So it it'll be sub it'll be used in substantial areas, um, especially uh sweeping our units right now.

This is a lot lighter, 48 inches wide, so we can get it into the areas without doing our full site sweepers when we drive some of our regional trails.

They get on the edge of the concrete, which causes it to break.

This will allow us to stay more centered and keep those paths in good shape.

And if I understand correctly, you have like RTC that's a lot of their projects are working on the multimodal.

Is that part of the problem that we're having is trying to meet those requirements?

And that's what likewise where they're helping to buy it.

Absolutely.

Uh I'll use the Audi Wells project as a great example.

There are basically six different areas that are under five feet wide that would need to be maintained.

Right now, of those areas, four of them would have to be maintained by hand by our staff.

So this unit will help us maintain those without sending a basically a crew to go do what a piece of equipment can do.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

These are cool little units.

We had those at uh my university to keep the paths clear.

They work well.

Um, all right.

If looking for a motion, Mr.

Anderson.

I move to approve the purchase of multi-hog CV 350 compact multi-purpose sweeper and attachments as part of the fleet replacement program for the municipal maintenance equipment utilizing source well contract 11152-MUL in the amount of 260,000 29.57 cents.

Mr.

Rabbit, second.

Got a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, please vote.

Motion carries unanimously.

9.6 consideration discussion of possible approval for the purchase of a hardware and software retrofit for closed circuit television CCTV, our van 4801 from the municipal maintenance equipment as part of the capital improvement program utilizing source well contract 120721-RVL in the amount of 244,234 and three cents.

Yes, sir, three cents.

Three cents.

We add all those cents, that's a dollar.

Again, Mark Anderson for the record, uh, here to ask you for your consideration uh of a purchase of a hardware, uh hardware and software retrofit for a CC TV van 4801.

The current unit has been in service for 13 years.

And with uh the title hardware software, 13-year-old computer, and start having issues.

And that's basically where we're at with this is uh it's running on a 32-bit processor.

All the new systems run on a 64-bit processor, which brings it me in front of you to ask for an upgrade.

Um, as I said, the the current system's been in use for 13 years very successfully.

We build all of our cleaning schedules.

We use that also to build RCIP placement for our sewer.

Um we use it every day.

I'll just say that and I'll emphasize that we use it every day.

Um with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

And uh, this is part of our plan CIP for this unit.

So we knew this was coming and we plan for it.

Okay, questions from the council, Mr.

Bible.

Mark, can you explain for anybody looking at this, having no idea where the CCTV is, what that van actually does?

Because I think it's a fascinating use of some technology that has been really successful for us.

Absolutely.

Nobody wants to ever see this video, by the way, except for engineers and maintenance staff.

So basically, this is a camera van where we put camera down sewer lines, storm drain lines to assess the condition.

Um we also assess capacities, we assess leaks, we assess um plugs, anything like that.

We build our maintenance schedule for routes for plugs uh for grease.

So we put these down every manhole in the city, every chance we get before we send a cleaning nozzle down there because cleaning nozzle causes erosion of the pipe.

So we look at it before we okay.

Any other questions?

I'm looking for a motion.

Anybody, anybody?

Abbott, Mr.

Abbott.

I move to approve the purchase of a hardware and software retrofit for CCTV unit 4801 for municipal maintenance equipment as part of the CIP utilizing source wall contract 120721-RBL in the amount of 244,234 dollars and three cents.

Ms.

Bibee.

I'll second that motion.

Got a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

See none, please vote.

Motion carries unanimously.

Madam Clerk, 11.1.

We have no let me back up 10.0.

We have no public hearing and action items unrelated to planning and zoning.

Number 11, planning and zoning public hearings and action items 11.1.

Madam Clerk.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

This is public hearing discussion and possible adoption of resolution number 3478 to certify a comprehensive plan amendment to change the comprehensive plan use designation from intermediate density residential IDR to commercial C for a 0.79 acre site located at 2301 Sparks Boulevard Sparks, Nevada, APN 03601123.

Good afternoon, Mayor and members of the council.

For the record, Kobe Galano, planner with the city of Sparks.

Today we have two requests, a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning for a site located at 2301 Sparks Boulevard.

Mr.

Mayor, if it's okay with you, I'll cover both of these items in one presentation.

Please.

But it should be noted that two uh public hearings must be held and each requires a separate motion.

Sorry.

Sorry, Mr.

Mayor.

All right, we'll blame it on the court.

I'm almost there, I promise.

Perfect.

Back up around.

Uh on this slide, you can see the subject site located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Sparks Boulevard and O'Callahan Drive.

The subject site is 0.79 acres and was developed with a commercial building in 1987, subject to a special use permit that's allowed for the operation of a child care facility for the past 38 years.

Should be noted that the child care facility has recently closed and is currently out of business.

The applicant for this request is a looking to establish a new use on the site, which is a permitted um use within the proposed zoning district of PO or professional office.

A mix of single family, middle density residential, and commercial uses surround the subject site.

To the north across Sparks Boulevard or single-family homes and multifamily apartments.

Further north is the Bering Village Shopping Center.

To the south are single family homes in Van Meter Park, and single family residences are also located to the east and west.

The first request for 2301 Sparks Boulevard is a comprehensive plan amendment request that would change the land use designation from intermediate density residential or IDR to commercial.

The current IDR comprehensive plan land use designation supports a range of uses, including single family detached, zero lot line single family residences, open space and trail systems, schools, religious institutions, uh, private recreation facilities, and public facilities.

The proposed commercial land use designations supports a wide range of commercial, office, lodging, entertainment, institutional, and multifamily residential uses.

Commercial centers vary in scale and character, but should be within easy walking distance of those higher density land uses, such as high density residential, multifamily residential, and IDR.

Additionally, commercial sites should be located between uh residential land uses and major streets, such as Sparks Boulevard.

The second request is to rezone the site from MF2 slash PUD or multifamily slash planned unit development to PO or professional office.

Although the proposed commercial land use designation supports a wide range of commercial uses, the proposed PO zoning district supports a more uh limited range of non-residential uses, such as commercial office, restaurant, and institutional uses.

On this slide, you can see a comparison of some of the uses permitted in the MF2 and PO zoning districts.

Uh, the complete comparison can be seen in exhibit five of your packets.

As you can see, rezoning the site as proposed would reduce the number of residential uses that may establish on the sites and expand the number of commercial oriented uses that could establish in the future.

At this point, I'll move on to the findings, uh, which have been grouped together for the presentation.

Our findings for conformance and consistency require conformance with the Trucky Meadows Regional Plan and consistency with the City of Sparks comprehensive plan.

Starting off with conformance with regional plan.

Uh finding CP1 requires the comprehensive plan land use change conform with the land use and land use and intensity designation in the regional plan.

The subject site has a tier one land use designation, and on August 28th of this year, the Truckie Meadows Regional Planning Commission found the comprehensive plan amendment to be in conformance with the regional plan.

On the slide, we have finding CP2, which requires the Comp Plan Amendment, implement the goals of the city's comprehensive plan, and finding Z1 that requires the rezoning be consistent with the with the comprehensive plan.

The proposed commercial land use designation and rezoning rezoning supports a variety of commercial uses supporting goals MG1 and MG2 related to non-residential land uses and land use diversity.

The subject site was developed with a commercial building again in 1987 and is located in a previously developed area of the city where services are already being provided at acceptable levels, supporting policy uh CF1.

As outlined in the staff report, the current MF2 zoning does not conform with the adopted IDR land use designation currently.

However, the concurrent request before you today would bring the site's proposed PO zoning into compliance with the proposed commercial land use designation and thus into compliance with the city's comprehensive plan.

Uh moving on to compatibility, the findings on this slide each focus on compatibility with the surrounding land uses, finding CP3 for comp land land use and finding uh Z2 for their for the rezoning.

Changing the comprehensive plan land use and zoning for the subject site as proposed is compatible with the surrounding land use designations and developed uses that are generally middle density housing product products, including uh small lot single family homes.

The site is adjacent to Sparks Boulevard and the placement of commercial uses between major arterials and residential uses can act as a buffer from potential light noise impacts caused by traveling vehicles on those res.

Moving on to finding CP4 and Z3, which require public notice.

Uh for both requests, the planning commission and city council meetings function as the required public hearings.

For the comprehensive plan land use amendment, the statutorily required neighborhood meeting was conducted by the applicant on May 31st.

Uh, three members of the public attended that meeting.

Attendees expressed some concern regarding the previous child care use and impacts they were caused from that previous use.

Um, in addition, public notice of this meeting was uh published in the Reno Gazette journal and mailed notice was provided to 390 uh individual property owners on July 1st.

For the last slides, I included the some photos of the site taken in May.

In conclusion, uh staff and the planning commission believe that the proposed comp plan amendment to change the land use designation from IDR to commercial and the proposed rezoning from MF2 slash PUD to PO or professional office is compatible with the area surrounding the subject site.

Additionally, the requests are consistent with the site being developed with a commercial building in the late 80s and utilized for commercial operations for the past 38 years.

The planning commission recommends the city council certify the comprehensive plan amendment and adopt resolution number 3478 and recommends the city council approve the rezoning and adopt bill number 2840.

And with that, I'm available for any questions as is the uh applicant.

All right, we take questions on 11.1.

Any questions from the council?

Okay, this is a public hearing.

Anyone in the public wishing to speak on 11.1.

Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dias.

And I am looking for a motion on 11.1.

Mr.

Rodriguez.

I think Mr.

Mayor, I move to approve adopt the resolution number 3478 to certify the comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation from intermittent design presidential IDR to commercial on the 0.79 acre site located uh 2301 Sparks, uh APN 036 dash 011-23 based on the findings of CP1 through CP4th in the staff report.

Ms.

Vanderwell second a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

See none, please vote.

Motion carries unanimously.

Let's go to 11.2.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

This is second reading public hearing discussion and possible adoption of bill number 2840, an ordinance to rezone real property, approximately 0.79 acres in size, located at 2301 Sparks Boulevard Sparks, Nevada, from MF-2 PUD multifamily planned unit development to PO professional office, APN 03601123.

Does the council need any more explanation on this?

So we will go right to a motion.

I'm looking for a motion.

Well, R could go to the public hearing too.

When the public wishes to speak on this item, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dias.

Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dias.

And now I'm looking for a motion.

Mr.

Rodriguez.

I think Ms.

Mayor, I move to approve adopt bill number 2840 to rezone real property, approximately 0.79 acres in the size.

The size located at the 2301, Sparks Boulevard Sparks, Nevada from MF2 PUD to PO professional office based on the fighting Z1 through Z3 SF4th in the staff report.

Mr.

Anderson.

I'll second the motion.

We've got a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, please vote.

Motion carries unanimously.

Madam Clerk, moving on to 11.3.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

This is public hearing consideration and possible action on an appeal of the planning commission's denial of a request for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback to nine feet from the required 20 feet and to reduce the front yard setback to 14 feet from the required 20 feet on a.176 acre site located at 1045 Union Street, APN 036, 44101 in the SF6 PUD single family residential planned unit development zoning district.

PCN 250010-V2501.

Mr.

Perry.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, members of the city council for the records.

Scott Kerry Development Services Manager.

Before I jumped into the item today, I did want to make a voluntary public disclosure regarding this item.

My home is located within 500 feet within the radius of this item.

It's a block away and around the corner.

I do not believe that I'm materially affected by this project.

And I can review this case in an impartial manner.

The full disclosure is included in the meeting packet for the public's information.

So thank you for that, Mr.

Mayor.

For the council's review and consideration today is an appeal of the planning commission's denial of a variance for a request for a reduced rear yard setback from nine feet to 20 feet.

We're and to reduce the front yard setback from 14 feet to the required 20 feet for an existing home located on 1045 Union Street.

Go over the the findings and the planning commission's decision.

We do have the applicant, Miss Terry Morris, she is calling in from Ireland.

We have a uh video testimony that we'll play, and uh she'll be available on the phone if you have any if there's any questions from the council, and there'll be a public hearing and ask for the council to make a decision.

Uh in terms of a little bit more um, this is a uh appeal.

So this is uh it's what we call de novo, and that's basically means the city council's considering this variance request from the beginning and can make a decision on its own, regardless of without deference to the planning commission's decision.

Um the options available to the city today, city council today are that to affirm the planning commission's decision of denial.

You can reverse the planning commission's decision and approve the variance request.

Uh, you can modify you can approve and modify um that that approval, or you could remand this back down to the to the planning commission.

So a little bit of background on this um property.

It's located at 1045 Union Street.

It's a single family home that was originally constructed in 1981.

Um, this property does have a PUD overlay or plan unit development overlay.

And that overlay um did allow for some zero lot development.

You can see throughout this neighborhood, there's there's duplex duplexes that have been constructed right on the property line.

Um, that is what that the PUD overlay is.

Um, basically the standards for setbacks deferred to Sparks Municipal Code in the SF6 zoning district.

There's uh three unpermitted structures that are on this lot, two of which are the subject of today's variance uh appeal.

There's area A in the rear of the property, it's 557 square feet, and that is encroaching into the required 20-foot yard, 20-foot setback in the rear by 11 feet.

20 feet is required in the rear, it's nine feet away from the property line.

There's also an area B, which is an addition added on to the home, unpermitted, 516 um feet.

Um, that is within the required setbacks.

It's not part of this um variance variance request.

But there's also this area C, which is in the front of the home.

It's an addition that was built to the garage.

It acts as a carport structure.

And so that encroaches 14 feet into the setback, 20-foot setback is required in the in the front.

This case came to the to the city's attention as part of a building code and complaint and subsequent investigation that came to the department earlier this year.

And the applicant intends to obtain a building permit to properly permit these unpermitted structures.

In May, the applicant submitted a application for this variance.

In July, the planning commission considered the variance.

During the public hearing, the planning, or after conducting a public hearing, the planning commission determined that the site does not exhibit any unusual circumstances that would preclude the applicant from adhering to the setback requirements of this zoning district.

During their deliberations, members of the commission also expressed that concern about approving this variance request, could set a precedent for other similar applications citywide, and may be perceived as granting a special privilege to the applicant, and perhaps could encourage other property owners to build structures without building permits.

Here is a picture.

This is the rear of the property.

This is that area A that's nine feet from the from the rear property, addition to the home.

Here is another shot of the rear of the home.

This area here is that addition area A that is encroaching into the required setback.

This is the wall, the back wall of that area B that's within the setbacks, but not part of the variance request.

And then here is a is a shot from the street of area C, which is that carport structure that's been added to the garage.

We have three processes in our code that allow for deviations of required setbacks and other development standards in the zoning code.

The first one is a minor deviation.

And so a minor deviation allows for uh allows for some flexibility up to 10% of a measurable standard.

So in the instance of a hypothetical example here, um, say there's a uh a patio cover that's being added to a home, and then the zoning code requires a 10-foot rear yard setback for a patio cover.

So under the minor deviation, it's it's 10%.

That could it's an administratively approved item.

It doesn't go to city council or planning commission.

So that would allow for a one-foot encroachment into that required setback.

So 10%.

The other avenue that that's available is what we call major deviations.

And so this is a mechanism in the zoning code that allows for deviation of a measurable standard of greater than 10% but less than 50% of a measurable standard.

So using the patio cover example, if you have a 10-foot required setback, that major deviation, if it was granted, and major deviations go to the planning commission, um, that would allow for a maximum of five feet into that required 10 10-foot setback.

And then finally, we have variance requests, and that allows in the zoning code of a deviation of greater than 50% of that measurable standard.

So using the patio cover here, um, it would allow for greater than about 5%.

That's kind of where the territory we are here with that rear yard um setback.

It's 20 feet, they're encroaching 11 feet.

So it kicks it into that variance um setback.

So variances, there are there is a very high threshold with both state planning law as well as Sparks Municipal Code.

And they are designed to provide circum there to provide flexibility in rare and unique circumstances when there is a determined hardship.

Variances are requests are not granted to relieve hardships that are solely personal, self-created, or financial in nature.

Typically, hardships are can be based on size, shape, dimensions of law of a lot, or can also include geographic or topographic features and physical conditions, such as there's a if there's a uh slope, high slope on it, or if there's body of water that it that is adjacent to.

Um, one thing I did want to point out is uh under me under Sparks municipal code, cost to the applicant shall not be the sole reason for granting a variance.

So there are seven required findings for a variance that that are that are needed to be met in order to grant a variance.

Um when it came to the planning commission, they they felt that they could not meet findings V1, V2, V3, and V4.

And I'll I'll dive into the required findings now, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh the first finding is V1.

So this is exceptional or extraordinary circumstances on the lot.

Staff and the planning commission do not believe that strict interpretation or enforcement of the current code would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners within the SF6 zoning district.

Granting this variance would allow the applicant special privileges not available to other property owners in this zoning district by allowing significant encroachment into the rear and front yard setbacks.

During its deliberations in July, the planning commission and their motion specified that the site does not present unusual size, shape, dimension, or topography, or otherwise demonstrate that compliance with Sparks municipal code step requirements presents a peculiar or exceptional practical difficulty or the exceptional or undue hardship.

Finding V2 is strict interpretation would deprive the applicant of privileges.

Due to the size and conforming shape of the property, denial of this variance would not deprive the property owner of privileges granted to other property owners who do comply with the setback requirements of the SF6 zoning district.

In their deliberations in July, the planning commission could not meet this finding as they believe that strict interpretation and enforcement of the code would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties within the SF6 zoning district.

To back up, this is this is kind of showing the this is the original plot plan from 1981 when this when this property was was originally constructed.

You can the roughly here is the addition in the rear, that area A, area B would be here, and then that carport structure.

So you can see from this, this is a conforming lot.

It met all of the requirements of the of the zoning district at the time.

It's a flat property.

There's no topography or other geographic limitations.

The third one, V3 is the granting of the variance would constitute or grant a special privileges.

Staff finds that because all properties within the SF6 zoning district are subject to the same standards.

Granting this development would constitute a special privilege.

Granting this variance would allow the applicant privileges not allowed to other property owners in the SF6 zoning district and would allow significant encroachment into the rear and front yard setbacks.

In their deliberations on this on this item in July, the members of the planning commission expressed concern that by allowing these non-permitted structures to be granted a variance, it would set a precedent for other non-permitted structures throughout the city.

This is a photo taken earlier this summer showing the front area C that carport structure.

We'll we'll note that working with the applicant uh over the course of the past year, uh they were able to remove this um unpermitted roof addition from the side of the house.

There's two uh sheds that are on the side of the house that are in the process of being moved by by the applicant.

But we thought this picture showed a good shot of the front area C encroachment.

And then finally, V4.

Granting this variance will not substantially impar public health, safety, or welfare.

The primary goal of setbacks requirements when within the code are to prevent the spread of fires between buildings and provide sufficient space for the fire department to effectively combat fires.

Other purposes of setbacks is to allow for drainage so that it's doesn't impact surrounding properties.

Although the unpermitted structures identified in area A and C would not block either side um side of the side or rear property lines in a manner that would impede the fire department access or drainage on the site.

The variance requests would likely would not likely substantially affect this.

However, staff in the planning commission believe that given the unpermitted nature of these structures, these structures could impair public health safety and welfare of surrounding properties.

It's just an aerial of the shot here of the property.

Um finding V5 deals with natural resources.

The subject site has been developed with the single family residence for many decades.

The site has been assigned an intermediate density residential land use.

Um through the process of this variance request, it's been determined that available natural resources would not be impaired by approval of this variance request.

Finding V6 is affordable housing.

This variance request involves one single family residence and does not impact the availability of hoard affordable housing or the accessibility of housing for persons with with disabilities.

And then finally, V V7 is public notice.

Public notice was published of the planning commission's public hearing, the Reno Gazette Journal and to all property owners within 500 feet back in July.

In addition, a total of 164 property owners within 500 feet of the subject site were notified of today's public hearing for the city council on September 30th, and that was also published in the Reno Gazette Journal on that date.

At the time of writing this staff report, we've received a total of five letters of support of this variance request.

No comments have been received by staff from the public for this variance appeal.

So there are some alternatives available for the for the city council's um review today.

But overall, the the reason why we're we're here today is that there are uh buildings that have been constructed on this property without permits.

If those pro if those pro if those buildings were constructed with permits, we could have ensured that the setback requirements could have been met.

Overall, the planning commission believes that the portions of the house that violate these setback requirements are a set are result of these unpermitted additions, and that because compliance of these setback requirements is feasible given the size, shape, and dimensions of the subject site.

Uh the planning commission believes that the stand and recommends that the uh city council firm their decision of of denial.

Um the city council want to reverse the decision of the planning commission.

Staff has prepared um potential conditions of us of approval for the council to consider.

Um with that, be happy to answer any technical questions before the applicants presentation.

Thank you, Scott.

Um, I do have a question with moving the sheds in the roof, or the sheds and the roof on the same side, first of all.

Yeah, that that's correct.

Council member, uh, there's there's two sheds, they're under 300 square feet.

Okay.

Um, so they're located on the on the south side of the property.

Okay, so removing those in the roof, does it then put the property within the setbacks on that side of the house?

Correct.

There's no setback violations on that side of the house on the south side.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, I guess I don't have a technical question, I guess.

Um we call Foy and Standard for the public watching.

Well, initially set this off again.

It was regarding a code complaint, but can you kind of elaborate to the nature of how this castor is what that complaint was?

Sure.

Yeah, council member, we were the department received uh a complaint um of unpermitted buildings on on this on this lot, and from that complaint, the building department did initiate an investigation into that.

And so the ultimate goal here is to um to to get a building permit to have these permitted, these structures be permitted, reviewed for compliance with building code and fire code um requirements.

And so kind of the first step is to get around the issue of this the setback encroachment for for for the zoning.

So should this be approved, um, we would ask that the city council approve conditions of approval that would require a building code or building um permit to be issued.

Okay.

Um, and then just like when was the last addition to this um this property?

When was the last edition built again?

Yeah, we believe uh these structures have been in place since it since at least 2002.

Okay, and we just received this complaint.

The city received this earlier this year, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions.

Okay, let's uh bring on the applicant then too.

Okay, I have uh video uh testimony here from the applicant.

I believe Perry is on the line as well, too.

I'll I'll hit play.

I grew up in Sparks but now live in Ireland.

The property at issue is my late mother's home at one.

Sorry, Terry, let's play the video here first and then we'll turn it over to you.

Hi, my name is Terry Morris.

I grew up in Sparks, but now live in Ireland.

The property at issue is my late mother's home at 1045 Union Street, but I still think of it as my U.S.

home.

Thank you for taking the time to hear my appeal.

This is our home.

It evolved over more than 40 years, not as a single project, but through many small changes that reflected our mom's deep community involvement.

She hosted cultural and community gatherings, which is part of what makes it unique.

The main structures of this appeal are located to the back of the property and are not visible from the front.

This is the code.

It authorizes the planning commission to grant a variance if certain conditions are met and allowed to prevent exceptional practical difficulties, which would result from a strict application of the code.

This may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of the site, and financial burden shall not be the sole justification.

There are a number of findings for authorizing a variance and denial was based on not meeting one to four.

I'm appealing this as I believe it was incorrectly applied.

First, ownership.

A code violation legally attaches to the property, regardless of ownership, and that is well understood.

But variance criteria are not meant to punish current owners for past owners' choices.

They are meant to consider whether an applicant now faces an undue hardship because of the site's current condition.

This did not happen.

These violations were described as self-inflicted.

Secondly, a 1981 map was used to argue that no hardship exists, that since the house once had space around it, the layout could be changed without difficulty now.

This ignores the lived reality.

Over decades of time of multiple changes, some on top of each other, these additions became fully integrated into the functioning of the house.

Removal of them does not restore it to the original house.

It would require partial demolition and extreme reconfiguration.

Commissioners had to ignore both for denial.

And how do we know?

If we do not punish applicants for the actions of a previous owner, then words like self-inflicted have no place in the variance process, and comments like to ask for forgiveness and not permission are not appropriate and should not be allowed as part of the assessment.

How different would my application appear if only my hardship was considered.

This chart and the very small area in yellow shows why we're here.

We're just one foot over what's considered a deviation.

So technically it's a variance, but there's no substantive difference or practical impact between the two.

Yet that single foot with strict enforcement would impose extreme hardship that is disproportionate to its significance.

The variance code says hardship may result from size or shape of the site.

May gives you discretion for situations like this, where hardship isn't tied to topography, but rather to the reality of how the property has been used and lived in over time.

In fact, it's more appropriate for a structure like ours, which has been in place for 20 plus years and has evolved with changes that were integrated over time.

Substantial justice is a well-established principle in variance law and is used in deciding whether to grant variance.

It weighs the benefits to the applicant against potential harm or unfairness to the community.

In the case of inherited structures, it ensures that hardship is focused on the applicant so that he or she is not punished for a previous owner's actions, and it looks at current property conditions.

If we look at the code again with this in mind, V1, denial would mean partial demolition of existing structures, a complete reconfiguration of a long-established home, and exceptional hardship.

V2, it deprives us of basic privileges enjoyed by others.

The ability to occupy a functional residence in practice without significant and extreme reconfiguration.

V3, variances are lawful exceptions, and they are available to everyone who meets the high bar for approval.

And V4, the relevant departments concluded that this condition had been met.

The legal standard is substantially impair.

In the public hearing, Commissioner Sperber asked if I could apply for a deviation.

So the house is not destroyed.

This shows recognition that the outcome under strict enforcement would be extreme.

Commissioners understood the severity of the impact.

Commissioner Kramer said, I feel for the applicant.

I have empathy for you.

Unfortunately, you got stuck with what your mom did.

This shows that they did not question hardship.

They empathized and understood that it was inherited and not self inflicted, even though they voted for denial.

The denial was not based on whether hardship exists, but on how it's being interpreted.

Commissioners were also concerned that approving this request would set a precedence that someone could build first and ask for permission later.

But I believe that the greater risk is in denial.

Denying a variance when genuine hardship exists, safety is insured, and community sport support is clear, sends a message that the process is arbitrary.

This undermines both fairness and confidence in the variance process itself.

I understand that staff don't receive many variance requests.

And I think that may be one reason they see this as a privilege.

When you combine this with their concerns of setting a precedence, it becomes easy to see how they could incorrectly apply the title.

Exceptional or practical difficulties resulting from enforcement is the standard for approval.

Commissioners understood the hardship and also understood that this isn't about special treatment, but of resolving a situation that developed decades ago.

The title was misapplied, and denial of this variant serves no public interest.

Rather, it would severely disrupt a home that has been long established and well regarded in the community, a hardship that arises directly from strict enforcement.

It also risks undermining confidence in the process itself.

I'd like to suggest the following motion to reverse the prior decision and approve the variance.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Thanks for that, Ms.

Mr.

Ranning.

Do you have Terry on the phone?

You'd like anything else to add, Terry.

Terry, are you available?

Oh sorry, I had it on mute.

Sorry, can you hear okay?

Yes.

Sorry about that.

I had it on mute.

Um, I just want to say to the council members that I appreciate their time and attention, and I do believe the title has been misapplied.

So I would appreciate the opportunity to clarify any questions that you might still have.

Um a couple of other things I would just like to add as well, just that in terms of the areas that Scott went over, I did say to Scott Um several times actually, although I know it has to be presented that way as part of the variance, but the area in the struct in the front that we would be happy to remove that, because I didn't want that to be an issue.

But if we could leave it, I would like to leave it.

But I don't want that to be an issue.

The main issue is the structure in the back.

So technically, we could not, you know, as far as we understood that deviation process was not available to us because technically it fell outside of the deviation.

So that's why the variance was applied.

And it was only applied for the section where we felt there was no feasible, no other feasible path.

And we have been trying to work with the city with this.

We have also voluntarily removed structures, and we're trying to get the property into compliance.

So where there was no feasible path, that's why we applied for the variance.

I have to say as well that I don't think it helps us, like uh some of the charts that were shown by staff on the differences between the variance and the deviation.

And I understand there was a question that was asked about it, and I think it's quite you know useful for learning tool.

But I think that the way it was presented, and I know it does say it's not the scale, did not help us in that case because it looks like the encroachment is much more severe than it is.

Uh, and that's why I presented the other chart where we were told in our situation, if it was a deviation, because um because there were no health and safety issues, uh, and also because we got support from all adjoining neighbors, that it would have been approved.

Um, so the difference seems the difference between that approval and what we have applied for is one foot.

And to me, that seems more technical than substantive.

Um, because the the difference in what would have been approved uh, you know, having this strict interpretation only considering topography.

And I did trying to do my homework, I did research a lot into variance laws.

So although I understand it's not done very much here in you know, in Spark, um, it is it it is done.

It is a process that is available.

And I think that it is important that people see that you know that uh that the process uh that there is fairness in the process, um, and that they do consider things outside of topography.

And so in this situation, they did not.

And I felt that it was more appropriate.

Um, you know, if if you have a a new structure, we this is not a new structure.

This is a structure that was built many, many years ago.

Um and um uh, you know, if if it was uh a request for a variance on a new structure, that may be appropriate.

But in this situation, um, where the lived reality is that these structures have been in place without any um complaints or anything uh for literally you know 20 some years.

Um as regards the I suppose complaint that came in this year, uh it was I was told that it was a walk-in complaint.

Uh it's quite interesting because uh you can't see the structures from the road at all.

Um and so uh normally if there are public complaints, a lot of times they would be for something like uh, you know, someone's view is being blocked, or there's access problems uh, you know, maybe it affects the valuation of uh other houses in the area.

Um so I was curious about this to find out what was the issue, was there something I could sort with this issue?

So I submitted a public records request for this, and um I was told um that the only thing that they had, the only record they had of it was that someone um said there were unpermitted structures at the back of this house.

That's literally what it says.

So I just find that um interesting because you can't see the structures from the front of the house.

And it it's um, you know, as I said, the structures have never had any complaints.

Um, you know, so if there was a complaint saying there's unpermitted structures, so be it, you know, we're working towards it so that we can get everything in compliance.

And I have been um working uh with the city.

Uh I hope to continue to work with the city no matter what way this goes.

Um, you know, I I would hope that they would sort of lean with us because we are doing what we can.

And I know a lot of times in other places, anyways, if you voluntarily remove structures, if you try to work with the city, if you haven't had complaints, if you you know, do what you can to try to make the thing right, a lot of times people lean with you.

So I would hope that's what I was hoping.

You know, um the main if you look at the main criteria of this, it is there hardship that is due from strict and interpret uh strict enforcement of the code.

And I think that if anybody looks at that, I don't see how you can't um see it any other way.

Uh oh.

Mr.

Anderson, do you have a question?

Yeah, I was actually going to ask that of Terry if she's still on the line.

No.

She's been instructed to call back in yes.

Okay.

So do we do we want to wait till she gets back online or how do you have a question, Ms.

Vanderwell?

Yeah, I have it.

Does it require the applicant?

Yeah, I do.

I have other staff too.

Okay.

Okay, so sorry, I got cut off.

Sorry about that.

If you have questions, I probably have spoken long enough.

I'm sorry.

Um Mr.

Anderson.

I'm back here anyways.

Hi, Terry.

This is uh Paul Anderson.

Um first off, I just want to say thank you for taking time to meet with me and uh show me the facility.

And um I'm I'm sorry for your loss, and I cannot imagine the the trauma of losing a loved one and then um to find yourself in this situation.

Um, but I I appreciate you taking the time uh presenting the video and and meeting with me.

And um after you and I met, uh both staff and I recommended that you um contact a structural engineer to get some directions and and help from that.

Have you been able to do that thus far?

Um uh thank you, um council member Anderson um for your question.

I uh what I did was I did try to contact a number of different people.

Um there was um uh, you know, I'm just trying to think like a lot of them said they were gonna come back to me.

There was one person who did come back to me.

Um he wasn't a structural engineer.

I'm trying to think of what he said.

I think what happened at the end of the day is when I when I started looking at this, I I actually focused my presentation to the commission on um the hardship argument because that is the core of the code.

Uh so I focused it on that.

And the more that I thought about this, I thought it just seemed obvious to me that no matter how much I present even more evidence of hardship, that was already recognized.

It was recognized in the comments.

If I can't get past this thing where they're gonna look only at topography, or if they're going to say that this is self-inflicted, then I'm then I'm at nothing.

I it actually, you know, I never thought anyone would consider this as being self-inflicted when I had nothing to do with it.

Now I looked at the variance law um as regards this, and it they do use this principle of substantial justice a lot.

Um the um what they normally say is if the applicant in some way supported the owner's actions, then you could hold them as self-inflicted.

But in general, if they had nothing to do with it, like in my case, it should not be considered as self-inflicted.

And that that was a major thing that happened during the planning commission.

Right.

Thank you, Terry.

And and then if I may, uh one question of staff.

Um so I just want to make sure I understand and and uh I think I have a pretty good handle of it, but um as far as planning commission's uh perception, Scott, of the precedent, and I want to just make sure that my understanding is is in line with where they were going with this.

So say, for example, next week I decide to add on to my home without any permits or anything, and and just build on another room.

If we overturn Planning Commission's decision today, um would that actually set a precedent?

And I maybe this is more legal leaning towards our city attorney.

Um, but to me, that's what I'm hearing from them is that precedent that now I can just come before city council or planning commission and go, well, you guys approved it before.

You know, yeah, shucks, I did this, but I I guess I just kind of want to make sure I understand the comment in regard to precedent.

Yeah, I mean I I don't know that it would strictly legally bind the city council for future applications, but I think you could expect that a future applicant would point to this to say these are similar situations.

There's no size dimension, topographical issues with this, so we should be treated the same.

At the end of the day, you know, we have the the standards for the variances here, the seven required findings.

And it's whether the council believes that we can make those seven required findings.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your help there.

Of course.

And actually, then I'll just close with a comment and just to say that I'm uh moved to affirm uh the Sparks Planning Commission decision.

Okay, we've got more comments to go.

Ms.

Vanderwill.

I just have a really quick question of staff.

So area B.

We move these sheds.

Sorry.

Can can someone please um maybe uh just summarize what was said because it's I'm having a hard time hearing it, please.

If they can speak into the microphone and summarize it.

Terry, this is Brandon Sendle at the city attorney's office.

I I basically said I didn't believe it would be a uh a strict precedent, but that I would expect the um a future variance applicant in a similar situation would certainly point to this to argue for for similar treatment for similar situations.

Did you hear that?

Yeah, you think that someone would argue for similar treatment and similar situations?

Yes, you use that is usually the case.

People look to prior approvals or denials to argue what the parameters have been and how the code has been interpreted.

I uh okay, I I would uh I would agree with that.

I probably would like, I mean, the thing is they would look at previous cases, but they still have to meet the high bar.

They still have to get they still have to uh show the hardship.

They still have to um uh you know, show that they I mean, I I you know there there were certain things that we were asked to do, like even getting approvals and stuff from people who were uh around us and we got those approvals.

Uh we you know, we did I mean uh there's there's not uh that you know that I I would imagine that's that's one aspect is that you look at what other cases were, and I would hope that if they looked at this case, they would say, okay, the they met the the bar for exceptional hardship.

Um what we presented at the commission meeting was how the House was unique in that uh the House was added to and uh changed over a period of decades.

And actually, my my mother's service to the community.

She lived in the house for 40 years.

She never began the the reconstruction and and building until she became an international goodwill ambassador uh for the city of Sparks and the state of Nevada.

And then she started adding um, it wasn't one big re uh renovation project, but she started making those changes, and they occurred over a 20-year period.

I didn't know whether they were permitted or not.

I would come over there sometimes and see something new.

Uh, you know, she's an adult, she was responsible for that.

Um, you know, I I think it's uh it's it's important that if someone looks at this, that they're gonna see fairness.

You know, why would you hold somebody responsible for something that somebody else did?

Ms.

Vanderwell.

You done?

We have any other Ms.

Bible.

Um, this is a question um question for uh for Scott.

So let me understand on options here.

Uh obviously you've laid laid out what we can do with the actual variance request uh that's been turned down by planning commission.

Can we get there another way?

I mean, you showed us a minor and major deviation.

Would major deviation request be a little bit um not have the the bar that's quite as high?

And would it accomplish for that setback?

Because right now we're down to the last the you said there's two building, two structures being considered.

Terry just mentioned that they they don't want to take out the um building in the front, but they would take it out.

So we're back we're to that building in the back.

Would a major deviation um alleviate that?

Could it address that with just a major deviation instead of a variance request as far as the numbers and how close we are to what those numbers need to be?

Uh thank you for the question, Councilmember Bibee.

Jim Rundle, community services director.

That's a it's a tough question for staff to be posed at this at this time.

Uh as described uh in the staff report and in the presentations from the applicant and staff, this exceeds the major deviation uh parameters, the thresholds of a major deviation.

What what I what I want to be careful of at this opportunity, let's just run the scenario that the council isn't able to make the findings and it's denied.

Would staff uh be willing to work with the applicant on a major deviation?

They would.

However, I want to make it very clear that uh we also run uh this is not just uh potentially concerns with the zoning ordinance with the city of Sparks, but also with the building ordinances and potentially engineering ordinances and swales and drainage from the properties that could affect the other properties that have probably been interrupted by some of the uh impacts to the to those setbacks.

So with that said, could we have someone apply and work with them?

We could.

But as council member Anderson spoke, asked earlier of the applicant, have you had a structural uh engineer or a residential designer look at this to see if these perponsions could be permitted under today's building code because they were built in a different year, not today.

And that is something we would need to know before we could let you know what our recommendation would be our uh as a department, uh, but what planning, uh, what Scott's representing could represent on a major deviation.

So it's very difficult.

But is there the opportunity?

There is, uh, but I don't I would uh ask the council, don't just get um uh uh zoomed in, if you will, on the setbacks, because there's so many other parameters to what is being uh and I appreciate that.

I guess that brings me to a question on the structural um structural question on the buildings themselves.

Do we have uh codes that are grandfathered in?

Because obviously we've got older buildings compared to anything that's newer, and our codes are very different than they were 40 years ago.

How does that impact uh say this building if they brought it into compliance for Terry or for anybody?

Do you have to come under the all the brand new codes, even though it's a 40-year-old building?

Very, very perceptive question, Councilmember Bibee.

When a structure is legally established, and let's just say it's legally established in 1976, and the code changes in 1977, that's where the grandfather clause comes in.

It's something that was legally established.

So they are grandfathered in because at one point they got the permits they needed to construct it at that time.

What we have here is not a grandfather issue because they did not get the permits to legally establish it at any time.

So to your question very specifically, they would have to comply with all of today's building ordinances, engineering and planning ordinances.

Okay.

So the original, the original home, uh, but this is not the original home.

These are additions that were unpermitted additions, so they don't fall under any code because they weren't built under code, just the original house was correct.

We couldn't tell you what they were built to because we don't have a permit that they were reviewed to be.

Okay.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Brandon.

If I could just clarify one thing, Mr.

Rundle mentioned the interplay versus of the setbacks versus the building permit issues and building and safety and fire codes.

And I think you said something that could be misconstrued.

Don't just focus on the setbacks.

I think you were meaning even if this were to be granted or a major deviation were to be granted, that doesn't mean a structure can be there, the parameters of the structure, because then at that point you have to go in with an approved either variance or major deviation so that the building official could approve a building permit within those setbacks.

But then that would necessarily be step two of the process.

I just want to make sure that you you're not considering a future building permit or whether that would be allowed at this point.

It is uh a setback issue under the zoning codes.

With the variance, correct.

Uh, I just don't want the council to walk away thinking if they approved a if staff said yes, we could support a major deviation that this is done.

Just one more comment.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I uh I I appreciate that.

I also appreciate uh Terry the work that you have done.

Uh you have exhibited a lot of um willingness to work with staff and staff, Scott and and Jim and your staff to work with the applicant on trying to resolve like a really difficult situation.

And yes, it wasn't hers.

It happened, you know, it's it is hers now because it was her mom.

But um I I really appreciate the effort on both sides to try to find uh and and remedies that she's already done to the property, which is much appreciated instead of just asking for variance and not changing anything or willingness of her willingness to work with us is much appreciated, and I think our willingness to continue to work with her regardless of the outcome today.

I I would hope that we would still move forward and see together what what we can do to find a resolution that works and is safe and is um you know that that anyway, but whatever decision we come to today, I think continuing to work uh with the applicant is important uh for staff and for the applicant as we work through an unusual and unusual situation.

You we don't find these very often, so I think it's a case-by-case type thing, and I appreciate the work that you've done, Scott, on this.

Thank you.

It's very can I see something?

It's very can I see something uh I I appreciate that uh council member by being very unique situation here, and you're right on uh staff will continue to work with them through a different venue and explore like we do with all of our entitlements and permits uh the appropriate way to get there.

Mr.

Rodriguez.

Uh thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

I just I guess have uh one quick question and then just a quick comment.

Um I guess the first the question, uh just a very freshman question asked here.

Um there any if someone like for instance I want to build a two-story add-on, something like that, a hire a contractor.

Is there do we have a local ordinance or a law in place that says that that contractor has to or I as applicant has to get this approved through the city or county or wherever I may live.

Yeah, thank you, Councilmember Rodriguez, for the for the question.

Scott Carry Development Services Manager.

That is correct.

Um when you're looking to construct a structure in the city of Sparks under the building code that does require a building permit.

And additionally, um our staff at the building division will look to make sure that it's that it's done by a licensed contractor and it's done per code.

Okay, so basically hopefully anyone in the city of Sparks doing something like this, for instance, um like this project, hopefully won't be repeated in the future.

That's correct.

There are some there are some limited um situations where you can also under the building code do what we call owner-builder.

And so in those in those circumstances, um there's the the property owner takes on a lot of risk in in building it, making sure that it's that it's up to code.

But to correct myself earlier, it's for the most part licensed contractor with limited exceptions for owner builder.

Right.

So borrowing hiring a shady contractor or subcontractor.

Right.

Understood.

Um I think this is a quick comment.

Like I do feel for the applicant.

Um unfortunately, sometimes these things do happen.

You know, you inherit a piece of property, um, whether it's a business, you want I I personally want to make sure that um this building is safe, or if I inherited a casino if I was so lucky.

You know, um and if there was code violations or things of that nature, that would ultimately be my responsibility as adherenting it.

So I do feel for the uh for the applicant.

Um I agree with a lot of things that councilman uh Anderson stated earlier.

Uh but I mean, heavens forbid, you know, you rent this property out and we don't know if the structurally sounds.

I I you know this, you know, really just the safety aspect of it.

So uh regardless of whatever comes of this vote.

Um I I hope that we the city keep you know keep working with this applicant.

So thank you.

Mr.

Rabbit.

Yes, thank you, sir.

Um Terry, I just want to say thank thank you to yourself for taking the time to answer a few of my questions ahead of today's meeting.

Definitely was um very appreciative to have that have uh information ahead of the ahead of time.

I have probably a question probably for you, Scott.

I think um so just for my own understanding, what would be obviously staff's recommendation right now is uh denial.

Um what would be the next steps if we were to pass if it was to pass today for denial for say a major deviation, would they have to come back or I guess what what are those steps?

And I think you mentioned a little bit, Rundle, but uh just I can get that all on the record.

Yeah, thank you, Councilman, council member.

Um so essentially, should the variance be um denied by the by the city council today.

The the other there's a couple options.

The other option, the first option would be to um have the applicant come in and apply for what we call a made major deviation.

That under that scenario, what that would involve is on the the area B.

They would have to remove portion of that structure to get it under that 50 percent standards that'd be either be you know 11 feet or 10 feet away from from the property line.

Um under that scenario, um that would go I would move forward to the planning commission.

They would they would have a decision on it or could be appealed to to this body.

Should that be approved, um the applicant would then proceed with the building um permit process, and then that they would have a so a professional engineer or licensed contractor can construct the the additions and make sure that it meets all the code requirements.

So just sorry, go hurt rundle.

Yeah.

Uh council member Abbott, Jim Rundle.

Uh as Scott out uh very quickly outlined the major deviation there.

R it is a public process.

It it would be noticed to all to uh the property owners, I believe it's within 500 feet of the parcel.

And uh staff prior to that public hearing would be required to analyze the findings just that you have in front of you today.

So as Scott said the maximum it could go is up to 50 percent.

However, uh with an application and working with the applicant like we talked about council member Bibe staff would be in the position to be able to potentially support up to a 50 percent reduction.

But without without the analysis of the findings of today it would be I don't want to predispose what staff's recommendation can be without the opportunity to analyze that and the findings surrounding properties because the way staff presented and approached this analysis to the planning commission and to the council today was on a recommendation of denial.

So they were not able to make the findings that came in.

They have not attempted essentially to make make a recommendation of approval to major deviation findings but Scott has appropriately outlined what the maximum they could do through a major deviation process.

And that's what we were I was attempting to articulate earlier is should that application come in staff would then take it as we said earlier.

And Scott said a de novo a new presentation or excuse me a new application that we would be able to look at how do those findings work what could the they do if they find it it should be mitigated approach those conditions and through that a recommendation.

But maybe for some reason they can only support up to uh a 40% reduction.

I don't know just wanted to not predispose that it could be supported at 50 and understood.

So I guess just so I fully understand it.

Let's say so let's say there's a major deviation it is approved just obviously all in um hypothetical at the 50 percent but then on the building side we realize that we cannot have a building by that the 50 percent due to runoff or whatever whatever there is then I guess how would that work?

Like how would that process does that like obviously the building permit say you need you can only be 13 you do you have to be 13 feet away instead of the 10 feet that originally was the hypothetically approved.

Way in the weeds okay I'll do my best to answer what we're here to talk about is either supporting or denying what the planning commission ruled on I right there we go.

That's that's as simple as it needs to be there's uh pathways for the applicant to move forward based on either decision sorry can I say something yes please um yeah so there's just I I've kind of been listening and I have to say it's been a bit difficult.

I don't know why it's coming across as a bit muffled um but I appreciate the opportunity sorry am I still on my okay can you hear me?

Yeah we can hear you okay okay okay thanks um but but uh I just I suppose just wanted to make a couple of points the thing about the standard deviation it was brought up like the first time it was actually discussed was on the day of the planning commission and the reason why we hadn't applied for it was because obviously the the structure felt outside of that but this is an application that was made no one told us to apply for anything else or to do anything else different this is the new process for us and the application needs to needs to stand on its own um you know um regardless of what other applications may have I I do feel that we have made uh a very strong case for this variant but I feel that there is a reluctance for whatever reason and I would ask what is the reason I I know a lot of it has to do with precedence what if someone else comes but there's a specific reason you know rules where this is a lawful exception a variance is a lawful exception it's allowed and um you know if people meet the bar if they meet that lawful exception they should be able to feel confident that the law will be applied fairly and and that's all I'm asking in this situation and I think that you know um yeah I I think you need to think about why is it that you're having this hesitance is it the thing about precedence like I actually got this impression when we had the planning commission oh no no no it's not done I get that they don't want other people to you know look back and look at the case but like the thing is they have to make not just hardship but that there is something different and unique about the property and there is something that is different and unique about the property it has been changed over time as it has developed it's had integrated changes uh as her role uh you know in support of the community you probably won't find any other house in the whole in the whole district in the whole zoning area that is going to be a house that is like that so there are some very specific things that actually the for the bar for the criteria to be able to grant the variant and if someone else has met those variances they should feel confident that they too can get the exception this isn't a random thing

It's had integrated changes as her role uh, you know, in support of the community.

You probably won't find any other house in the whole in the whole district in the whole zoning area that is going to be a house that is like that.

So there are some very specific things that actually the for the bar for the criteria to be able to grant the variant.

And if someone else has met those variances, they should feel confident that they too can get the exception.

This isn't a random thing.

I'm not asking for favors here.

I'm asking for the law to be applied fairly.

And I thank you.

I thank you.

To me, sorry, I just I strongly believe in this.

And I um, you know, as I as I said, I I I wish it could actually think about why is it that you, you know, if you're thinking about denying this, what are the reasons?

And when I think about what happened in the planning commission, it really comes down to the fact that they're thinking this is all self-inflicted.

What if someone else does this?

And then they came back with these comments of you know, it's like asking for forgiveness and not permission.

I did not do this.

And if you look at variance law, there they they don't hold someone else accountable for the other person's actions.

I don't know what law does that.

Okay, are you are you finished?

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

Thank you for listening to me.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other uh questions from the council?

All right, I'm gonna move on to public hearing.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone in the public wish to speak on this item?

See none, I'll bring it back to the dias.

And we are looking for a motion, Mr.

Anderson.

Uh yes, Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to make a comment before I make a motion, please.

So as I stated earlier that uh I do plan to to vote um to affirm this planning commission's decision, but I do want to say thank you to the staff.

Um, I know you've spent a considerable amount of time with me and the other council members as we've been pondering this and asking questions upon questions, and likewise, even the city manager allowing me to bug him.

Um and likewise, Terry, thank you for your time and helping us understand where you're coming from.

Um, but with that being said, I just want to say as I get ready to read a motion that I want to encourage you to continue to work with staff.

I believe they've been very clear in their willingness to continue the conversation, and hopefully there is some other solution beyond this that uh that we can um come to that that uh will put the city and uh that home in in a good place.

So with that being said, um I move to affirm the Sparks Planning Commission's decision to deny variance v 25-0001 without prejudice based on the inability to make findings v1 through v4, because the property in question does not present unusual size, shape, dimension, or topography or other uh demonstrate that compliance with the Sparks Municipal Code setback requirements presents a peculiar or exceptional practical difficulty or exceptional hardship or uh undue hardship, Ms.

Vanderwill.

Second, you got a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

See none, please vote.

A motion passes unanimously.

Okay, let's move on to 12.1 public comments, comments from the public, madam clerk.

Do you have any comment cards?

We did not receive any additional.

Wild Bill in the audience.

We can arrange that.

We'll have the police chief arrest you first.

Anyone else in the public wishing to speak?

All right.

Announcement from the mayor, city council and city manager, Mr.

Manager, anything?

None today, Mayor.

Thank you.

And city council, you have any Mr.

Abbott.

I do real quick.

Uh we have a veterans day observance over at the Spark Senior Center happening Friday, November 7th from 11 a.m.

to 1230.

So any veterans in the community, they're welcome to show up while Rupert floats.

Uh, you know, the best high school in Sparks, the JRTC program will be helping out with the flag ceremony over there too, Rest Parks High.

So it should be a great time.

Um the first ones we've done in a while over the senior Spark Senior Center.

So anyone else?

And I have nothing.

So we are down to adjournment.

Thank you.