Okay, is everybody yes?

Um and then Councilman Abbott, does he count as okay you've got the two on Zoom City of Regional Parks Recreation Advisory Board, City of Parks Parks and Recreation Commission, Washville County Open Space and Regional Parks Commission.

We will start with roll call established for each of the political boards.

We'll be starting with the city of Sparks.

Tracy Gale's absent.

Sheena Harvey.

Jill Short is via Zoom.

Terry Frugoli.

Moby Michael is absent.

Matthew Robinson, I believe is via Zoom.

And also on Zoom, we have Councilman Donald Abbott.

For Reno, Lucas Ingwolstadt.

Appears to be absent.

Jerry Wager, I believe is via Zoom.

Yes.

Ian Anderson, Chair.

Elsie Demingsall, I believe is via Zoom.

Yes.

Carla Carla Warning House.

Vice Chair Marie Krueger.

Kathleen Schneider.

I am not sure if she's here.

I believe she's absent.

Tara Webster.

And Cheryl Gynan, I believe is on Zoom.

Cheryl.

Present.

And for Washoe County, we have Tracy Kaczynski.

Vice Chair Sean Hill.

Present.

Miles Kinsler is on Zoom.

Miles.

Okay, I see him on Zoom.

I just am not hearing him.

Kevin Joel, I believe is on Zoom.

Chair Neil Jones.

Chris Baker is absent.

Jennifer Uvira.

I believe is absent.

Nicole Flangus present.

And in attendance, we have Commissioner Mary Luce Garcia here.

And Chaz Lehman, Deputy District Attorney.

Okay.

And you have a quorum for Sparks, Reno, and Washo.

Thank you.

Now that we have established forum for all three political boards, we will now go to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Commissioner Gaussian, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

Thank you.

Moving on to item three, public comment.

We'll read the public comment.

Comment heard under this item may be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the commission agenda.

The commission will also hear public comment during individual action items with comment limited to three minutes per person.

Comments are to be made to the commission as a whole.

No discussion amongst commissioners may occur during this item.

And I respectfully uh ask that all commissioners identify themselves prior to asking questions.

Number four, approval of the agenda for April 30th, 2026 joint parks commission meeting.

This is for possible action.

Chair.

Do we know if there was any public comment?

We may have just zoomed past it.

I just want to make sure that we're very you're correct.

Do we have any public comment?

We do have one person um in chambers, Julie Conway.

Thank you very much.

Go ahead.

My name.

No.

Yeah, it's not okay.

My name is There we go.

My name is Julie Conway, and I'm a uh longtime resident of Washoe County.

Uh I have lived or worked here on and off for over 45 years, and currently have been here the last uh almost 19 years.

Live in uh South Reno in Washoe County, and been very active in parks and recreation, open space, natural areas, trails, and at uh a uh very strong advocate of item number six.

And I'm speaking out at this time, even though I have not heard the presentation yet, because number one, I wanted to thank you for what you do as volunteers.

Very, very important to step up and speak out and advocate for our natural areas, our open spaces, our parks, um, because that's our livability.

That's our economic vitality.

Very, very important to our region.

Uh, specifically to item number six, I'm very much interested in in listening to the presentation tonight.

As I said, I've been a strong advocate of the special district proposal for many, many years.

And uh in particular, after we hear tonight, and as hopefully this moves forward, I am strongly in support of the next phase of this, which would be to develop a service plan to identify the funding sources.

And there are three items with the funding sources that I'd like to suggest.

Number one, that the funding be sustainable over time, that it be a a of strong foundation of a variety of sources so it can be sustained over time into the future.

That is what we're lacking now.

One of the things we're lacking now in our system are our um overall system.

Number two, that it needs to be sufficient to not only go after the shiny object of new facilities, new land, whatever that may be.

I call that the shiny object syndrome, but that it also be very strong towards maintenance and operation, both for our facilities, for our capital investments, as well as our recreation services, and so it needs to be sustainable.

And thirdly, it needs to be fair to all concerned.

So fair meaning that we share the load.

The and I will finish my statement in saying that those who came before us, those who came before us 20, 30, 100 years ago in the case of in the city of Reno, when certain parks were purchased and developed, for example, Stewart Park, um, that was a hundred years ago.

They invested in our system, they donated land, they invested in money and resources that they didn't have.

It is our time to do that now for the future for our generation, both now and into the future.

So those three items sustainable, sufficient to address everything we need, and fair.

Thank you again, and again look forward to the presentation.

Thank you.

And um, if you are on Zoom and you would like to uh make public comment, please raise your hand.

I do see that we have Iris Julie Peppard, um, who I will allow to speak right now.

Can you hear me?

Hello.

We can hear you.

It's a little, it's a little light.

Okay, can you hear me now?

I'm one Truckie River, and I we run a watershed coalition that represents 31 partners uh from 23 agencies and nonprofits.

And I we run a watershed coalition that represents 31 partners from 23 agencies and nonprofits.

And on May 5th of 2023, that uh body built consensus to recognize the need for sustainable and sufficient funding for capital improvements and ongoing maintenance for the Truckee River Corridor, open space, trails, and parks regionally, and that OTR supports exploring various tools the region can utilize to provide ongoing improvements and maintenance to these spaces.

And so I'm really excited to see item six on the agenda.

And I thank everyone for making this possible tonight.

And I look forward to future action to really provide that sustainability to the spaces we all love.

Thank you.

Do we have any?

Do we have anybody else on Zoom?

Do we have anybody else on Zoom that would like to speak?

Please raise your hand.

Okay, it looks like that's all for public comment.

And just for the record, Councilman Um Donald Abbott joined us at 610.

Very well.

Thank you.

Moving on to number four, approval of the agenda for tonight's meeting, April 30th, 2026, Joint Parks Commission meeting.

I will entertain a motion.

Commissioner Hill, Washoe County.

I move to approve the agenda for tonight's meeting, April 30th, 2026.

Thank you.

Commissioner Daig, I'll second that.

Motion has been made and seconded to approve the agenda for tonight's meeting.

Do we have any public comment?

We have nobody signed in.

Very well.

All those in favor, say goodbye by saying aye.

Aye.

Oppose.

Motion carries.

Moving on to number five.

Do we excuse me, Chair?

I believe Reno and Sparks also need to do motions for this item.

Very well.

Um City Reno, members of uh advisory board.

Is there a motion?

Is there a second?

Cheryl Guynan for the record.

I'll second that.

Um in favor say aye.

Aye.

Agenda for tonight's meeting.

Commissioner Tina Harvey for the record.

Motion to approve.

I have a motion.

Do I have a second?

Not all second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion's unanimous.

Very well.

Thank you.

Uh the motion uh from all three uh political boards have now approved the agenda.

Moving on to the approval of the City of Sparks draft minutes for the joint parks commission meeting of June 26, 2025.

This is for possible action.

I move to approve the City of Sparks draft minutes for the Joint Parks Commission meeting of June 26, 2025.

Thank you.

Does this one require?

Just City of Sparks.

Is there a second for City of Sparks?

Jill Short, City of Sparks, all second.

Jill Short, City of Sparks, I'll second and there's uh no public comment for that item.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Very well.

I would like to uh introduce uh Nathan Oliet of the uh Reno Recreation and Parks Director to introduce um the presentation by a pros consulting.

All right, there we go.

Thank you, Nathan Olivet, Parks and Recreation Director for the City of Reno for the record.

Thank you for the introduction.

Um, just here to uh pass it to the to pros consulting, but also uh add a little guardrail about um it's gonna be very tempting to get into what could be in this conversation.

Uh, what we want to really do as a part of this presentation is tell you the steps that we've taken.

Um, I think when I was in these chambers, gosh, it's almost been a year, probably, maybe has been a year to talk about the funding coming from the county for this.

Uh, we talked about a path that was laid before us well over a decade ago.

Julie was a big part of that path, and um now we're walking that path, and this is another big step, but this isn't the end of that path.

Uh, we want to talk about what we heard from the public, what we heard from the stakeholder groups, um, and also talk about what NRS does and allows us to do as next steps and make sure that as a part of those next steps, it's clear where uh each of these boards will be a huge conduit for the public in defining what happens next and what happens in a proposed park district.

So um so with that, we are on schedule, so we're on the right part of the path according to our contract and scope, but uh, I know everybody's excited about getting to what could be and what would go where and how would it look and things like that.

That will come and Leon's gonna do a great job of explaining that.

I just want to help all the excited people in the room to understand that that we're at a point now to take those steps towards a framework that we'll present in a few months.

So, with that, I want to introduce Leon and his team, and they'll go through the presentation.

And I think we're gonna get some exciting news today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Nathan.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Leon Younger, president of prosulting.

I've got uh other people who are going to be presenting with me tonight.

Um, Andy Belkap with uh Baker Tilly is here.

He'll be uh part of the presentation.

Mike Shellito with Teleto Consulting, but he also works with pros.

He'll be making a presentation as well.

And then uh Nick is over there, and he also is our analyst, and he uh was with me during our meetings out here this week.

Um, so I want to just uh start with and remind everybody that our work is a is a feasibility study.

We're evaluating the feasibility of actually doing a uh a service district, and uh tonight I'm just sharing with you the findings.

There's no recommendations, it's just right across the board everything that we've done to date.

Um, so you're up to speed uh with our process.

So we're the agenda tonight is the feasibility study progress, the case for a special district, uh a little bit about stakeholder interviews.

A lot of you I interviewed uh personally.

Uh survey results, level of service analysis, operational assessment, uh talking about establishing a special service district, and we'll talk a little about that.

We'll talk with Michael, focus on summary of findings and guiding principles and next steps.

So where are we today?

You know, obviously we had the project kickoff.

We conducted stakeholder and focus group meetings on interviews with people.

Uh we conducted uh complete demographic and recreation trend analysis for all of the region as well as other three agencies involved.

We did two surveys, a statistically valid survey which matches the demographics of the region, plus or minus four percent.

And then we also did an online survey as well.

Um we collected inventory from each of the agencies and conducted multiple level service analysis for each of the agencies involved to really compare those against best practices, and and then we began an operational assessment of KPIs for each of the agencies and then developed the case for a special district.

So we're just really at a point now where we can take all of this information, share it with you, but then also start building uh the discussions.

So today's objective is just basically give you a progress.

Not now that findings have been compiled.

We will present that.

We are not here to make any final decisions or have uh all the answers.

We're not there yet.

We want to be there, but we're we're not there.

There will be uh unknowns that will you want to talk to us about right now.

We're just basically trying to get our arms around everybody's feelings.

We had meetings with the staff so they could understand what our findings were so everybody's up to speed, and the goal is to provide evidence gathered that supports establishing a service district and provide information that will enable the respective commissions to understand where we are today and what's next.

So the case, first of all, um we have strong and measurable public support for a regional approach.

70% of the residents believe a single district would improve efficiency and service quality, and a majority likely to vote in favor.

Nearly two-thirds of support a dedicated funding source, signaling readiness for long-term investment.

There's clear demand for equity and consistency across the system for parks and recreation.

People recognize the differences.

Current funding and service levels vary widely across the jurisdictions.

So per capita investment ranges from $21 per capita to $58, well below what National Recreation Park Association for median park systems are cities and counties at $77 per capita, creating a lot of disruptions, which you all know, and I know you're all in tune with this, and it's not, but I'm just repeating it because it just brings forward that we also recognize that.

And a shared district offers a framework for rebalancing on investment, aligning with spending with national benchmarks.

So operational efficiencies and economies of scale are achievable.

I think this is one of the things everybody talks about that creating a service district works, but sometimes when you're already what I call challenged to meet your own demand, there's not a lot of efficiencies that can come from it because everybody's so stretched already.

And the ability to make it work is present, but big abilities to actually have big levels of achievement money is limited because of the current uh stretching that the systems are under right now.

They're stressed.

Maintenance and asset stewardship are the top priority.

People want a system that works, they want to be safe, they want to feel like the that the recreation experiences are positive, and that the equipment and all of the various elements of managing a park system is uh meeting their expectations for a quality experience.

So it doesn't have to be over the top, a quality experience.

So why district, a special district is the most effective way to deliver equitable and well-maintained parks for all residents by aligning public support, stabilizing funding, and capturing efficiencies that uh no municipal agency can achieve alone.

So we had our stakeholder interviews.

We had about 40 people that I either interviewed you individually or as a group.

Some of you I didn't, but whoever wanted to talk, I was willing to do that.

Of all of you here, but also city and county officials and various business people across the system.

Uh, and people gave us a lot of information, which we helped use that information to devise the survey that went out to um both online and the statistically valid survey.

So from that key themes again, equitable governance and representation, sustainable transparent, transparent funding, operational, legal, and cultural complexity.

Everybody knows there's a lot of challenges in doing this.

This isn't easy, um, but I think it's achievable.

Um, what I always say if everybody's fair to each other.

Um, consistency of services is an issue.

That's not as consistent as what people think.

Uh, maintenance before expansion, people overwhelmingly said, take care of what you already own before you build new.

And so part of our work in the future, if they move into a special district, is basically service district is where is the life cycle of all your assets?

Where are they?

Because everything has a life cycle in parks and recreation.

And knowing that really helps uh set the groundwork, the baseline for where a service district needs to be and where their priorities need to be.

Um preservation of community identity and local control.

Everybody recognizes that these are three different agencies that have three different ways of approaching management of park systems, and it's respectful of that, and we um we want to make sure that those characteristics get played out in our work, and then we want to build public trust, buy-in, and understand the social challenges that are associated with that.

Those were the themes that people talked about.

Now the survey results, uh, this was a five-page survey was mailed out randomly.

We had uh 400 from uh from Reno, Sparks 184, WASHO 164, margin error was 3.6 percent level and 95% level of confidence.

So do you believe a park and recreation services are consistent?

So between Reno, Sparks, and Washoe, you can see how closely though in each one of those categories, most respondents, regardless of where they live, believe park services are not consistent across neighborhoods.

Second, how important is it to your quality of life that all the residents in the region have equal access to quality park and recreation?

94% of the respondents believe it is important to have equal access to parks and recreation opportunities, which is really strong.

So by area, 96 in Reno, 94 in Sparks, Washu 91.

Again, people are getting it across the system.

And then what type of recreation amenities do your family use most often?

Regardless of the area, most of the respondents prefer the same recreational amenities that were listed.

And there's really not that much differences between the three entities as the survey went in relationship to what people's priorities were in terms of what do they use most often.

And so, by whether it's trails, multi-surface, hiking trails, uh the riverfront, playgrounds, uh you can see across that they're all relatively close.

Do you believe the single park service district that serves the entire region could improve efficiency and quality of park and recreation services?

Overall rating 70% yes, 30% or said no.

Most of the respondents, regardless of area, believe that a single district could improve the efficiency and quality.

Which three of the audiences below do you believe are most important?

And so, again, I'm just showing you that the consistency between the three entities, whether it's the operation and maintenance, or the expanded enhanced parks and facilities and programs almost across every question.

The three agencies from three different communities are saying relatively the same thing.

How would you would you support uh creating a dedicated funding source to fund a regional service district?

Uh, overall ratings very supportive, 28%, supportive, 44%, not supportive, 14%, not at all supporting 14%.

So you can see again, very supportive or supportive was relatively strong at 72%.

So, what level of additional annual costs would you be comfortable with?

Most of the respondents would be comfortable with $25 to more than per household per year.

Uh so that was in Reno Sparks and Washoe County, and so most of it was in the 25 to $50 per household per year, is where it fell out in terms of people's support across the system.

And then how likely would you vote to establish a regional park service district?

Very likely, likely, uh not sure, Reno 70%, Sparks 65, and Washoe 55.

Overall, that's a good proportion of the response are very likely to.

And you can kind of see the reasons combining resources saves money, it would help create fair system-wide uh system that works.

Almost every one of the categories, a single district could plan and maintain parks more efficiently.

They're all relatively close together in terms of how people responded to those questions.

And if you indicated you were either not sure or not likely, how would you vote for an established park system?

Please select all the reasons.

And so you can see I don't trust the new district, I need more information.

I would like to rather see my community's existing uh departments fix their own problems.

But as you look through that, you can see some variances there.

It could be my mean higher taxes or new fees, but as you look through this, you can see where Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County folks felt in terms of how they viewed that question.

So the online survey, it's not statistically valid, but it was conducted uh on everybody's website, so we had 502 people.

Strong alignment with the survey, the regular survey.

There's similar levels of favorable support for creating a dedicated funding source.

However, the online survey indicated respondents desired lower levels of funding in terms of annual household money to be spent.

The big issue here is that it wasn't statistically valid.

It wasn't tied like the statistical value in terms of age income levels and rates across the system.

So we got good information, which we used, but was most important was that how closely aligned in program need parks in terms of maintenance, in terms of trails and improvements, such as that.

Now we did a level of service, and why we want to do a level of service that really describes how well the system is supporting the residents and who they represent.

And uh this is very hard to see, but I just highlighted those things in yellow.

And uh across the system, park systems are measured by acres per thousand, by neighborhood park, community park, regional park, trails, sports fields, shelters, basketball courts, all the things that park systems provide.

And when you look at the standards that were our population-based standards, these aren't these are just right at the minimum level.

They're not over the top in terms of the standards that we were created for these three agencies.

And right now, in our PA standards is 12 acres per thousand, and uh right now uh you guys are at a much lower rate than that.

And so when we talk about that, it makes it difficult sometimes when you're saying that the rates are um well below that.

And it just all it's demonstrating is that there's a need for your younger uh a county and city, and a lot of young people are moving here.

Expectations are high that these resources are going to be available to them.

And so when you get into acres needed for neighborhood parks, community parks, regional parks, you can see in the yellow across the system, that's how many acres short to even meet the minimum standard.

Likewise, uh in trails, um you can see where that falls out in terms of uh additional 29 miles of trails, and then just in terms of indoor space, that showed up in a lot the amount of in uh square footage of indoor space that this region is lacking uh to be able to support it.

And that I realize this is information, and when you look at it across the entire region, it's a little bit different for each of the Reno Sparks, Sun Valley, Washoe.

You can see the differences there.

From an operational perspective, we went through and we looked at population, operating budget, earned revenue from each of the agencies, their cost recovery levels across the system, what their CIP budget is, and then per capita investment, and how that plays out between Reno Wash U Spark and what this does, it just tells us more about the level of investment, how much of their operating expenses are per capita, and that also gives us a good understanding the way that their culture works, how they fund their system, and really what's most important.

Um, so the these numbers are lower than the typical medium uh level of annual price standard.

So we just wanted to be able to demonstrate that in the through these findings that there is a uh a lower level of investment now than what we would normally see at a medium level through National Record Park Association.

Terms of staffing, we did the same thing level of staffing per 10,000 residents with Reno, Wash U Sparks.

You can see the differences that are there, also the operating butt expenses per FTE, and you can kind of see where that breaks out as well.

And so what happens is all of this puts stress on systems and their capability of taking care of what they already own, but also trying to live up with what people's expectations are.

And uh so we did this again to show where the inequities are.

But if you're creating a service district, balancing resources is really important.

And then maintained acres, you can see uh FTEs per maintained acre in Reno 108 acres, uh Wash U, 115, 24 in Sparks, and Sun Valley, and uh so we just wanted to again looking at the amount of maintenance uh operation FTEs, developed acres, and kind of developed acres per FTE.

And so this again shows the stresses that the organization is under to try to maintain and keep up with public's expectations.

So establishing a special service district.

This is Andy.

Thank you.

I'm Andy Balknaff with Baker Tilly.

I'm going to talk a little bit about the possibility of a special district.

And as Leanne was going over the survey results, you no doubt saw that there was a significant majority indicating they would be supportive of a regional approach to forming a parks district.

And two-thirds supported a dedicated revenue source for a regional parks districts.

And this is something you do see across the United States, and there are some reasons for it in terms of operating efficiencies, although I want to stress that there are not huge economies of scale when it comes to operating parks and recreation because most of the work is done sort of at the ground level.

That's where most of the expenses are.

Yes.

There are some economies of scale when it comes to management, technical support, IT, those sorts of things, support services like HR.

There are some areas where there are some economies of scale, but it's not where most of the money is spent.

So that's a caution.

Another caution is that while we have a nice statute on the books, NRS 318A that talks specifically about a parks, uh trails, and open space district, and it has a nice uh approach to basically how it's created.

It's a modern statute.

It was it was put on the books in I believe 2017.

It's not been done so far.

So we don't have a model to follow.

There is no existing uh parks and open space and trails district in the in the state.

Um but we're gonna talk a little bit about what's required to form one.

Uh and the biggest thing is the creation of a service plan, and the service plan really spells out how are the services going to be provided and financed.

That's number one.

And you need obviously you need a boundary of the district with the assessed valuation and the population, need a description of the facilities, as well as any improvements to be discretion constructed.

Very importantly, there's a provision that any agreements or proposed agreements between the proposed district and any city or county within the boundary be spelled out, and then the service plan has to be filed with each of the local governments in the boundary for their for them to make consideration.

Um let's go to the next slide because it talks about the uh if there the governing board that is considering creating a district has to hold a public hearing.

Uh so each each of the uh local governments involved would have to hold a public hearing, but the county, because there is a county planning commission, would actually be in charge of sort of making the final decision based on the actions of the other local governments, and the service plan can be approved, modified, or disapproved.

Uh also there's a check on formation of this kind of district.

It can't happen if a majority of the property owners within the proposed district uh submit protests.

Um local governments within the district have to consent, as well as uh you can't have opposition from any um general improvement districts because they're also authorized to provide in some cases recreation and park services.

So then formation is accomplished in a very fairly straightforward way.

There's an ordinance that has to be adopted that sets forth various operating parameters, and then this is kind of an interesting wrinkle, and you're probably familiar with what's known as dependent special districts and independent special districts.

This is kind of an interesting case because the uh the uh trustees, the first board of trustees is not chosen at an election, it's actually appointed by the local governments underlying the district.

Uh and then they do stand for elections, um, but that's not until their first term is coming up.

So it's kind of an interesting wrinkle in terms of how the board of trustees is selected.

And in terms of powers, the uh the powers are very broad.

Um can acquire and construct and improve all kinds of parks, trails, and open space.

Then there's a long list of what that means.

Um any local government within the boundary may contribute uh facilities or revenues to the district.

Then but the district can also levy fees and assessments, and subject to an agreement with the county, they can also levy ad valorum taxes, although I don't think that's going to be the case here because we're already at pretty much at the cap.

Um and it can issue debt.

So it's got broad powers.

And I will stop there and turn it back over to Leon.

So we know we're gonna have to deal with some guiding principles uh in terms of how we would approach this.

Um just kind of an overall summary.

What it is thank you.

Uh again, I'm Mike Shellito.

I was I worked with uh Leon and Pros Consulting for well over 35 years.

I most of my career I worked for the city of Roseville and the parks and recreation departments, a large city and uh a big system, but then my last couple years I served as a city manager.

So as I evaluated this or part of this team, I sort of look at it with multiple lenses at the same time.

So I want to really um talk about some of the what did you learn?

So you've been have a lot of data, and I don't know, Leon, you covered 30 something slides, so there's a lot of information.

But the the reason you do a feasibility study in the first place is is it feasible?

Can you do this?

Right?

And the short answer is yes, you can.

But the key question is should you do this, right?

And I think that's the question that remains in front of you.

And I think some of the reasons that point to maybe why you should consider doing this is the fact that you know, 90% plus of your residents highly value your respective park systems in the two cities and the counties.

People love your parks and use your parks at a very, very high level.

And notwithstanding why they love them, you the cities and the county have spent billions of dollars in terms of land value and assets and improvements, and you have things that the people really value and treasure.

One of the things I think is unique to Sparks and Reno and Washoe County is your folks that live in your communities already use the park system as a regional park system.

It's not like you know that the everybody's contained.

People matriculate back and forth and use each other's systems, either each other's sports facilities, certainly the trails are a regional amenity, even though they might transit different jurisdictions, but you really already have a regional systems that use that way.

You're a growing community.

When we looked at demographics, you're a young and growing community, and to recognize as a commissioner, demand will increase because of that.

So this it's not built out.

You're still growing, and you have to figure out a reason how can we meet that future demand in addition to today's demand as you do that.

The good news is your residents and the survey overwhelmingly support the idea of a uh of a service district to provide a regional approach to this.

And so when they asked, they said, yeah, that's this seems to be a good idea, right?

And we would not only think it's a good idea, we're even willing to put in a little bit more money in to enhance or expand the service levels that are provided.

And that willingness to pay extra beyond the taxes they currently pay in property tax is a really important good signal that you should understand and appreciate.

And the reason that people want that, I think they want things to improve.

They want to expand or enhance the park system, in particular levels of service and levels of maintenance that take care of what you got, and people want it to be better because they use it so much.

It's the one, it's the one part, not the one part, but it's one of the parts of government that people voluntarily choose to use what government offers, right?

And they use your system in the millions of visits a year.

Um, and so that quality, the consistency of maintenance.

Some of the challenges that you each jurisdiction faces the two cities in the county that new money to invest in existing infrastructure and existing parks and existing facilities, amenities is challenged already that you're there, and then new growth for those new residents also is challenged because of uh some of the limitations on park construction tax or are those things that provide new money.

Um and as Leon said, that you know, sort of a little bit of a negative.

The current levels of service are need improvement, should get better, right?

Should be better.

There has to be a new money, a new approach, a different approach to doing it to that cases.

Um, and you know, the workers and the approach to doing it, I as Leon said, are stretched, right?

Um, and I I think in every jurisdiction, and um there are the there is a need again to develop some new parks and new facilities or enhance existing ones.

So as we look to develop the service plan for the the district, there's a couple of guiding principles and goals that we've been talking about internally.

Said how would we approach doing this?

Um so the next slide.

Next slide.

Oh, I've got the clicker.

I can't next slide, Mike.

Hit the button.

Um said that the reason you could and should do this, it it should be better.

If you're gonna do this, it should be a service level that's equal or better than you have now.

Otherwise, don't do it, right?

If you're gonna get what you got, then you you know there's no reason to, but it should improve the system.

Um that's sort of a given.

Um, we we propose and we think that the cities and the counties should fund the district at the current levels um that are provided, and that the additional money that could come from uh other uh money that would fund the district would augment that or improve that.

So additional monies would come.

Um we we one of the ways we identify it is that the cities and the counties should need to in the service plan to identify a funding mechanism or a way to uh take the money from the cities in the county that's currently being spent for parks and recreation and move that uh to fund the district and then augment it with an additional funding sources through assessment or some other thing that would make sense, and we still have to that will be figured out in the service plan, uh trying to propose and probably maybe some different options to doing that, and that using so one mechanism is this idea of a joint powers agency, doesn't have to be that, it's one right answer, but there needs to be a mechanism by which you do that, right?

Um and the um part of the idea is a transitional structure, and again, this is part of the service plan of identifying how to use this and that as um Andy shared this idea of a dependent to becoming an independent district, kind of identify that structure, how it would work.

Um, the service plan needs to identify service levels, what you're gonna achieve in those service levels through the funding and through your approach to that.

A new work, you know, uh a consolidated organizational plan from staffing and service levels and maintenance standards, all of that has to be identified.

What you're gonna fund, what would not be funded, that how it has to all be figured out.

One of the things we're really sensitive to is you know, as you can consider a consolidated organizational structure, we're very much mindful that each agency has your own employees and your own work thing.

And I think you know, you want to be cognizant and sensitive to that.

And so one of the things we've said as a guiding principle is that we need to develop a plan that's not going to create a really adverse effect and layoffs and those kind of things would be pretty hard.

But you still want to work to a consolidated approach to a consolidated system.

And so some of those things would be some guardrails that say, look, we we want to do this, but it may take a little bit of time to work into that to that consolidated plan.

Uh, and then part of that also would be in addition to maintenance and operation strategies for future improvements, uh capital improvements, new growth, new development, and funding mechanisms that frankly uh a district in terms of bond measures or other things has uh many districts have very good track records in terms of passing bond measures to improve the district because it's a single purpose that people get it, right?

That we could go that way.

And so that's part of the idea about CIP funding for the future, not only to reinvest in existing park assets facilities, infrastructure, but also the new things that are needed as the community grows.

So with that, I'm gonna turn it back to Leon and don't forget to hit the button as you move things to talk about next steps.

So our next steps are uh is uh starts with the framework.

So in the next month we want to put together a framework of what this might look like.

And this requires uh all of the staff and Andy and Mike's Nick's help.

We all put this strategy to find a clear menu of services, operations, maintenance programming with a baseline of standards.

We want to make sure that we identify how the services would be uh launched from day one so everybody knows how it would work.

Um district boundaries and participation options.

So we'll so we have three agencies now.

Do all three stay connected to this to make this happen.

This is something that we all want to get confirmed.

We want to make sure that all the analysis that we've done of population assessed value and asset contributions are all present and that we've accounted for them correctly.

We want to make sure all the funding and governance structure is done in the next two months to really demonstrate how it would work and evaluate dedicated revenue options.

Um working with Andy and all the alternatives that are available, which in some cases is limited, in other cases is open.

And we want to create a governance model focused on equitable representation, transparency, and local identity protection.

We want to also assist and staffing transition planning to find how existing assets and staff transitions are managed through this agreement through a functional process and establish maintenance capital priorities.

Um I mentioned earlier about how all of these assets are in their life cycle and what where they are so that it's a clean slate.

Everybody knows exactly if this goes into place where the starting point is.

And then we want to create a service plan with engagement milestones.

So we want to build the statutory requirement service plan supported by a financial model and a public outreach, and then engage all of the elected officials, park wards, public to refine assumptions and build confidence.

So we create a plan, you you feed it back to us, and what do you like and what do you don't like?

So that's where we are.

That's the update.

I know it's a lot of information.

Well, thank you, Leon and Andy and Mike.

That's a ton of information.

Um that we're looking at and digesting.

Uh you know, one of the things off the top of my head is uh normally in a um organization, about 75% of the budget is personnel, uh, roughly.

And we're already being stretched right now, as you said, with all three entities.

And it just concerns me that uh we can't lose anybody.

Um, but yet 75% of the budget is people.

So how do we work with that?

Uh your experience, I know you have vast experience.

Um, how do we work with that?

Well, every every position's got an accountability and everything's tied to a standard.

So, how well and how functional is every position working.

Uh, so part of our work is evaluate the cost per experience, cost per acre, cost per, and by doing this, we're able to say how effective or efficient the organizations are, and be able to talk about how to make them more efficient.

Every organization, I'm saying this in a nice way, maintains things that hardly nobody uses.

So you have to ask yourself, why do we do that?

Because we always did it.

So the intent is just be able to really start evaluating how that could work.

And the other thing is the partnerships make a big difference, and a lot of not just the three entity partnerships, but other partnerships within most of the uh systems across the country contribute greatly to helping park systems manage forward.

And um, you know, there's not you have some really, I mean, like a truck river group is really strong.

You've got some really, you know, your downtown group is really strong.

They all people want to help.

It's just you got to put them in a place where they can.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Um, we'll open it up for questions.

Chair, I have a question.

Can I start us off?

Um, Commissioner Flingus for the record, uh, thank you very much for your presentation.

I have just a couple questions.

Um, the first is uh I saw you kind of had that basis of rate increase of $25, $50, and above.

And I was wondering where those numbers came from, if it was like a sliding scale and why you kind of based it on that that amount.

Well, we could.

That was a that came out of the survey.

Yeah.

Of what people would support.

Yeah, was it selected options like 2550 or was it a sliding scale?

Because I'm just curious when you, you know, when you suggest a minimum, people often pick the minimum.

Yeah.

Well, I thought people were, in my opinion, based on what they said in the survey was pretty strong that they want to invest more money in your system.

And uh they don't even know what what it was going to go for.

It's just that they saw it as a good thing.

And in the when people see that, that indicates to me that they know the system needs the resources and they're willing to do it without any plan.

Okay, very nice.

Thank you.

And then my second question is I and this might go into your next month planning, but I'm curious about how this parks district, its five governing trustees, how do they interact with the current like planning commissions that exist in all of our localities?

Um, and like how would what how would their authority, their recommendations, their approvals, how do those interact with the current governing bodies?

Well, I'm not we Andy.

Well, a little bit um it's that's um like I said, there are there is not a functioning uh parks district in the state at this time.

So some of this is unknown.

But eventually these are independently elected trustees to the parks district.

So they would be independently elected officials.

Um, in terms of how they would how the parks district would relate to the planning commission, there would be a lot of uh uh lot of work with the planning commission, I would think, because their projects would, like any other, would come through and be reviewed by the by the planning commission.

That's typical.

Um so I would think there'd be a pretty close working relationship between the planning commissions of the cities and the county and the parks district.

I guess I'm just wondering, and maybe this is a part of your wonderful research that you do, is ultimately whose authority decides the approval of those things when you have an independently elected body, um, and then that authority crosses over into Washoe County and Sparks, you know, where it who has the ultimate authority, and so just understanding that really I think that's an excellent question, and I think that's probably one of the reasons that the state legislature specified that there can be an agreement uh embedded in uh the approval of the new district.

So, for example, if it's important that the district um gain approval for new projects through the planning process of the local governments, that could be part of that agreement.

Thank you.

Any questions from the cities or county?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Commissioner Garcia for the record.

Um, the survey, the statistically valid survey plus the online survey was um that's like a A plus plus on your part, because to get those numbers, 748 um folks that participated in the statistically valid survey plus the 502 for the online.

That's a very nice litmus test of what's happening in the community.

So I just wanted to acknowledge your work.

We're doing a lot of other regional uh studies, and I doubt any of those will come close to that um type of a response rate.

So um thank you for all the legwork you did on that.

But um, maybe this is a question for legal.

Uh as we look at the staffing slide, you know, we're talking about if we put everybody together, all of the four jurisdictions, about 250 FTE.

Um, at what stage in the game do we start talking about the the varying labor unions that represent those entities?

Is is that done in the service plan stage, or is that done separately uh through the district attorney's office?

How does that work?

Well, having been involved in several consolidations, um, it's really important to involve the employees early.

And uh, I mean, they're really some of the biggest stakeholders in all this, and clearly what we're putting forward is the intention is don't make anybody worse off.

Um, and and that becomes fairly complicated because you've got three different collective bargaining agreements, they're all a little different.

And in my experience, we have to put together kind of a working group of HR executives and um collective bargaining group representatives to work through all that stuff to make sure nobody has made any worse off.

Um, but it's uh it becomes a fairly uh a detailed process.

And that that's that's the human resource part of it.

Then there's the financial part of it, and there's a whole bunch of details that would have to be uh carefully worked out, and there would be some attorney time spent on this so that we do make sure that not only are existing bargaining agreements um followed, but whatever the new uh agreement is with employees tracked.

That's that's our operating premise.

Thank you.

And it be it becomes very it becomes a fair amount of work and it's fairly detailed when you're trying to take an organization from three different local governments and put it into one, but it can be done.

Thanks.

Uh I have a follow-up to that.

This is Commissioner Hill.

So in this new world, there's a governing body, this uh independently elected officials form the district board.

Uh does that mean that there's a whole staff that is coming from this body, or are those the staff that we're talking about meet still with the three governing bodies?

Well, I think uh the way we've conceived of it is they would transition to be employed by the new district, but they would be employed under terms that are no worse than what they have now.

Now that's where it gets tricky, right?

Because there are three different local governments, all of the collective bargaining agreements and MRUs that you work with are a little bit different.

But having um having gone through this with um consolidations before involving fire departments and other service delivery um mechanisms like that, it can be done, it's just very detail-oriented, it takes some time.

But they'd all be working for the new district under the way the way we can conceptualize it.

What about uh ownership of the land?

That's another one of the one of the provisions of 318A is that uh cities and counties can dedicate resources and land and facilities to the new district.

Now that's also complicated because in many cases, your land that is parkland was dedicated to the city or county with strings attached, and so each one of those uh parks uh or land holdings is gonna have to be evaluated somewhat independently so that we can maintain integrity with whatever the uh original terms of however that land came into the system because that's very important.

There'd be another working group working with all the land issues.

So this is uh as as Leon said, this is this is not uncomplicated, it's actually pretty complicated, but um, it can be done, and at the end of the day, um while it may take uh some time, and it is complicated, it might be a really good thing for the region.

So in in sorry, I'm gonna keep going on this.

Um at the end of the day, new board, staff underneath that new body, this district, and ownership of land transfers to this district.

Either by fee title or maybe by lease, or maybe through some type of agreement, because we have to be faithful to however that land was originally conveyed into the public.

And you know, having been involved with this stuff for almost probably 40 years now, the the way land can be conveyed to a city or county, it's infinitely complicated.

And those um conditions have to be respected.

So there's always a way to do it, but it may have to be a contract, it might have to be a lease, maybe it's a fee transition.

But um keep in mind that we're also looking to the future here, and as time goes by, as as the region continues to grow more and more would be handled by the by the district uh itself, and these complications would slowly and would take a long time, but they would slowly go away.

But we have to respect all the conditions for the land, we have to respect all the collective bargaining agreements and for the employees, all that stuff has got to be respected, or we won't we won't be able to do it.

It just won't work.

Thank you.

And there's more complications having to do with uh keep in mind there's a bunch of agreements and contracts that each of the city and the county has with different vendors, some of which are long term, those also has to be respected.

So there's just there'd be suffice to say uh a half dozen working groups going through all these complications and figuring out solutions, but you know, having been on the ground floor, there are solutions ordered.

Uh bigger board members that you need to order uh on the equity piece uh maybe for equity or creation.

So is the equity piece essentially across neighborhoods?

Yes.

Well, equity in terms of access, um access to trails, access to parks, um, and the and where they're not equitable in terms of also program opportunities, you know.

There are barriers in every town in every region, and how do you overcome those barriers?

And part of the equity piece is identify where those are and how to overcome them.

It's most of the time it's taken care of in a in a master plan for our system.

Um I know Reno just finished up their master plan a couple years ago, and maybe they outlined in an equity strategy within that, but in our work, we try to take what's plans that have already been adopted and approved and build them into the into the service district.

Um parts here is that there's not three different parts systems and one parts and we see that it's in athletics where it's all bringing one meeting or one type of store to be seen out all over the place.

Obviously, we're not on trail and river, you're on that 250 port, but it can sort of see business parts and see that into alignment.

That's a great trait, a great trade.

And uh we observed that early on that people just share.

I mean, that's uh that culture is hard to build.

So and the leadership of all three agencies really demonstrates sharing.

So that's good.

I don't know if these are on.

Uh Reno Board Member Tower Webster for the record.

Um, I have a question about AB 96 was a piece of legislation that was passed um this last session and goes into effect on July 1st, which requires uh jurisdictions to um create a heat mitigation plan.

And so if we are now going to be forming a new district, what would that look like in implementing that state policy?

Uh I'd have to take a look at that mitigation of what heat mitigation, so heat mitigation.

Washington County would have to create their own heat mitigation plan that includes parks and rec.

Absolutely.

Yeah, I would I would imagine that I would imagine parks would be a big part of the of the mitigation plan.

And so, like a lot of regional efforts, they if there was a district, the district would need to be brought into the regional planning around the climate mitigation, the heat the climate mitigation plan and play a big role.

And um, and that can work very successfully.

Um again, that's another thing that maybe needs to be spoken about in sort of the foundational agreement in terms of creating the district that it will be a partner in regional planning efforts, and we'll will see itself in that way and will actively participate.

I think that's an important consideration.

Thank you.

All right, yes.

Um, I have another question, okay?

Um, Commissioner Flingus for the record, um, in addition to kind of understanding how the authority of these trustees would operate.

Um, I also kind of want to just put on the record and challenge you a little bit about the contribution from the different entities.

Um, because there's like an ash aspirational future we have, right?

Where there potentially is more funding for local governance.

Um, and if that's the case, I don't want us to set uh ceiling on the funding.

And so I just challenge you as you're coming up with this mode.

Um I completely understand keeping levels consistent, but understanding a future wherein potentially those funding levels shift, and the contributions are not tied to some arbitrary rate we set here in 2026.

Well, I couldn't agree more, and I think we need to we need to travel to Carson City and talk uh a little bit more about loosening the restrictions on local governments because it's so restrictive right now in in terms of what local governments can do.

And right now we have to work within sort of those restrictions.

But um there are there are some there are some areas within state legislation where we might be able to make some little changes that would really help uh with a new district.

And I gotta believe that the state legislate state legislature didn't create this statue without hoping that a parks district could be created.

And exactly what we're talking about doing here must have been what they had in mind a rationalization and an improvement of service delivery.

So maybe there's an opening.

Thank you.

But it is it is uh the financing, it is quite challenging because Nevada is not a home rural state, and so local revenue options are so so limited, and mostly uh especially with respect to property tax already at the at the cap.

Thank you.

Any more questions from the bodies.

I do, Chair.

Um, a question about how um if this would need to go before the voters on as a ballot initiative, or is this something that the jurisdictions have the authority to form under the existing NRS?

If you can kind of clarify that.

I think that I think that technically the jurisdictions have the authority, but practically there needs to be some new revenue, and then you start thinking about having to go to the voters, and so I don't know that you're making yourself any better off if we don't create some kind of mechanism of creating additional revenue, which usually means uh some voter approval.

So um we need to study that more.

Uh so technically I I think no, it could be created, but if it's created without any new revenue, I'm not sure that we're making the situation better.

Do we have any more questions from the commission board?

Uh Councilman Abbott.

Um, you guys talked to the two GIDs, Sun Valley and Incline by chance.

Yeah, we've reached out to Sun Valley because they have uh done something I think that's pretty interesting in terms of an assessment for parks.

And so we've reached out to Sun Valley about that.

Uh and we need to reach out to the other one too, because um they have a role.

So but Sun Sun Valley at least is looks like they've done something pretty innovative with a uh an assessment to support parks, and we might want to take a look at that as an option here because uh there's not not a lot of options under uh NRS.

Gotcha.

One more if I may, Chair.

Um, so just let me show you understand on the operational capital cost.

Um, so I see our total between Reno Sparks, Washoe County, and Sun Valley, $68.19.

You I guess what we're saying is if we were to to do a park certain direct regional commission, we'd be looking at that plus that $25 per capita, or am I way off on this?

Well, I think uh that's one of the options but but we're looking, we're gonna look at at least four different options in terms of how are we uh you know how what's the funding look like.

So we're gonna look at a variety of options for for funding, and so that that's one, but there's gonna be others too.

And I I guess across looking at the different options, would they all be equal-ish between all the municipalities depending on where you live at, or is it still gonna be like where Wash County's 2118 and Sparks is well, I think one I actually, you know, one of the benefits of this park district approach would be eventually everything would sort of level up and everybody in the region you know conceivably would be you know paying about the same.

And that's but but right now that's a decision that's made in different places for different populations, and everybody is different, but um that's not gonna happen right away, and we don't know you know, there's there's like I said, there's all different kinds of funding options and approaches to funding the district, uh, everything from having it start from scratch itself to having to get some funding transferred on a uh on a temporary basis to having it funding transferred on a permanent basis, and how much is that?

And you know, there's all kinds of options.

And we're gonna look at at least four of them, probably in the process make everybody mad at us, but that's kind of what our job is too.

Thank you.

Any more questions from the commissioners?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh Councilman Martinez.

I was curious about how parks district would play out with current um, and as you said, the cities and local jurisdictions don't have much power in the state, but one that we do have is with land use and how that sort of plays out because sometimes there's been developments that have occurred where a park is required as part of that application process through the land development code.

And so at what level, I guess, would these trustees be involved in that process, or is this outside of the scope of the process of the process of the process?

Well, they wouldn't.

They wouldn't have land use planning authority, but they could be in a in a position to work closely with the planning of the cities and the county.

And that's you know, that's normally how it's done is there's a close working relationship uh within uh by the by the parks district and the uh city and county.

And and one of the things that's invaluable is that uh we'll look at all the existing parks master plans and try to roll that the new district would obviously take that as a starting point, but eventually they'd probably want to come up with their own parks master plan for the whole region, and then they'd want to bring that in front of the planning commissions in the region so that everybody understands what they're driving towards.

And so when they when they do present a project to a planning commission, it's coming, it's not coming out of nowhere, it's being driven by this master plan that the that the planning bodies have already had a look at and hopefully had a role in uh in producing.

I think it's very intergovernmental coordination becomes very, very important.

Yeah, we get the benefits of a regional service delivery, but that that means that you got to work really hard at intergovernmental cooperation.

And uh the new, we've already talked about the new district would have to work really hard at cooperating in all kinds of ways with the local governments.

I just might make a comment.

I was a special service uh district director in Ohio.

We had 23 cities in our county, and so as a as a park district, every time we wanted to do something involved, one of those, we went through their planning commission.

Right.

So it was a process.

And you and you reported to them annually, yeah.

Of what we did.

One follow-up, if I may, Mr.

Chair.

Last question for me.

I know in your one of your slides about the formation of the Board of Trustees.

Do you spell out that they're appointed by the counties and cities within the district, and there are five members.

How is that spread out through each jurisdiction?

Oh, I'd have to go back and look at the statute.

It's kind of complicated.

But there is a it does spell it out.

Okay, and it's uh uh it does spell out a way that the initial appointments are made.

Uh it's not done by the voters, it's done by the local governments, but then eventually it transitions to uh an independent uh district where they're elected every two years.

Uh initially, some of the trustees will have a two-year term and some will have a four-year term, but then they will eventually they were stand for election, uh, just like any other independently elected official.

And all of that would be spelled out in the circuit plan.

Yeah, yeah.

I can't off the top of my head, I can't remember how the how the it's kind it's complicated because uh the legislation had to be written in a fairly general way.

It didn't contemplate, for example, three agencies forming a district.

It was much more general than that.

So we have to go back and look at it and figure out okay, how would it work in this instance?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So um uh identify yourself.

Oh, Commissioner Hill, thank you, Washoe County.

Thinking about the staff, there um there would need to be an administrative team.

Uh yes.

So I mean it's it's a whole it's the whole thing.

There needs to be administration, there needs to be leadership, and there needs to be boots on the ground.

Yeah, I mean it's conceivably um the the special district could look at all different kinds of way of service delivery.

Conceivably they could contract with, let's say they could contract with the county for HR and payroll services.

Maybe that's a good way to go.

Um the important thing to keep in mind is they have a little bit of a clean sheet of paper to start off with in terms, okay, what's the best way for us to deliver these support services?

Do we want to have a uh contractual relationship with one of the two cities or the county?

That often makes a lot of sense.

Uh or do we want to try to do it ourselves?

Or do we want to start off having a contractual relationship with one of the the for example the county um until we get you know our feet on the ground?

Uh but all of this is going to take a lot of work and there'd be plenty of ad hoc committees working on the details.

Thank you.

Uh Tracy Kazanski, um, Washa County Commissioner.

Um, so sort of in a related question, and maybe you said this in the summary of your survey, and I missed it.

Um, when you spoke with staff, were they interested in pursuing this in general?

Was there a buy-in?

Was there wariness?

I I I think they probably have a lot of questions.

Yeah, I think I mean, because it's a it's a big, it's a big deal.

But our posture is we're not gonna make anybody worse off in terms of their employment arrangements.

In fact, some people may be made a little bit better off because typically what you do is you look at the collective bargaining agreements and what they say, and and just for practical reasons, you sort of have to pick well which one's the best one because we don't want to make anybody worse off.

I don't think they're gonna vary that much.

My experience is you're already kind of doing that when they bargain, because they always look at you know what what what's going on in these other nearby jurisdictions, but and and they're experts at it, by the way.

Um, but um so things are already probably pretty close, but um the devil is in the details, and we have to uh we have to get into the details in all in all these ways in the human human resources, the land, contracts, there's a whole bunch of stuff.

Any more.

You guys are policymakers, so uh we'll let this we'll let the staff and various consultants worry about all these details, but at the policy level, um, you're thinking about you know, regional stuff.

Any further questions go ahead.

Uh Councilman Abbott.

So what if things don't go well?

Well and I hate to be out of the cover, it's always half full of my life, I promise.

Yeah, but what if we get two years down the road and things are not going so just like more of a boom?

It's like, wow, uh things don't go so well for us.

Uh is there an exit plan and has it been has it been done before another uh um what's created can always be dissolved for sure.

I think that um if if I were if I were one of the local governments thinking about this, I would definitely want to make sure that we knew what happens if things don't work out and we have to somehow um you know revert.

But what what is what is created can always be um reversed.

Um but the uh I think I think that's one reason that the uh state legislature is this is kind of a weird blend between like a dependent special district and an independent special district and for the first four years, it's gonna have folks appointed by the local governments actually on the board of trustees.

So there's gonna be a pretty close linkage there.

I think they actually did that thinking that the local governments need to work closely with the new district in the first few years so it gets off to a good start.

But I I do think um uh the the two cities in the county will be thinking about your question, and I I would be surprised if there wasn't some thought put into it into the agreement.

Remember, there can be any there can be agreements embedded into the um constitution, if you will, for the new special district that speak to things like what happens if we have to dissolve this.

And so those agreements can be memorialized in the founding documents of the new district.

And I think the legislature was thinking about these kind of what ifs when they talked about those agreements.

So have any other district, or councilman Abbott again, sorry.

Uh have any other districts been dissolved, you're aware of?

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Usually usually because of insolvency or looming insolvency.

Okay, uh local governments do not like to go out of business.

But uh, you know, it has happened, and even in Nevada, it's happened in some of the r rural uh counties.

But so there are provisions for that.

And you know, we've uh we've been down that road, we know how it's done.

You can always unwind something, but it's not always it's not always easy.

And I think one like I said, I don't want to go back repeat myself, but I think one of the key reasons this provision about agreements from the local governments uh that are sort of sponsoring the formation of the district was to anticipate a number of what ifs.

And I think that's why it's in that's why it's in the legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you again, uh uh Leon and Andy.

Um questions.

If you have a question, now's the time to ask.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much for your time.

Not yet.

Uh it's something that um it's pretty obvious that this is not a simple process.

That this is a very, very complex process, and of course, the devil's in the details, uh, land acquisition, those types of things, cooperative agreements between uh the government bodies.

Uh I have no idea how long it would take to get all this in place, but this is a challenge.

Uh but it appears based on our surveys that the public is in favor, and they are enthusiastic and are willing to actually pay.

And I think this is something that uh all three bodies here need to take this seriously, understand this is gonna be a journey, a process, and there's gonna be some ups and downs, and there's probably gonna be some hurt feelings here and there, and all that.

But I think this is something that we need to keep moving forward and uh keep going ahead and push this stone in the right direction.

So thank you again, uh Leon, Andy, and Mike, for your services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Very well, thank you.

Uh we will now move on to item seven, uh public comments.

We have nobody signed in in chambers.

Is there anyone that would like to speak on Zoom?

Please raise your hands.

Good evening.

Again, for the record, Julie Conway, uh, live in Secor Court, Reno, Nevada, Washoe County resident.

Um, I wanted to uh thank you for your attention and your thoughtful, thoughtful questions.

I've tracked this with you all for since we passed the legislation in 2017.

I noticed a lot of faces at the table that I recognized, and we contemplated when when we got this legislation passed in 20 uh 17 that it was not going to be easy.

What we said is the time has come.

Now we didn't know the time has come would be nine plus years to be to this point.

But I'd like to commend the consultants for getting us to this point with this plethora of information.

There's a lot to review.

I understand that.

Uh, and and we I am encouraged by the results um that the chair has brought up uh especially.

And I am familiar with these districts and other areas and realize that it it is not gonna be easy, but I also know that this region works together um to do hard things.

We've done in in particular um the unhoused issue.

We're not done, but we have pulled together an amazing amount of resources for the unhoused.

RTC, the airport, all of those over the years seemed insurmountable.

This is not insurmountable.

We continue to focus on the goal and work together, and I see our electeds here tonight.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you for supporting this.

And the option of not doing anything in in my mind is not an option because we're gonna go backwards even further with our livability, with our economic vitality of our resources with our open spaces, and that's not what the public wants.

And we now have seen that.

So this is gonna take time.

Bozeman Montana did it, and it was about a five-year ramp up to do it.

And they did it during the worst of times, and they were successful.

I also am pleased that uh the county and the cities have hired prosultant.

They've done other plans like this so they understand the pitfalls and also where to find those successes and also all of the potential opportunities for funding.

So I'm going to be here.

I'm going to support you in moving this forward.

And I and I would hope that you would continue to do this within your communities when and also when you talk to your electors about this.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Mac Rossi.

I hope I wasn't following Julie, but I ended up anyway, Ms.

Conway.

So my name is Mac Rossi.

I'm a resident of City Areno.

And then we're talking about revenue.

There's many apartments that are being built around this area.

There's uh owners who are paying taxes towards the parks.

There are residents in those apartments that are using our parks, our parks.

And a bad thing is to say increase the rents.

But they are using our parks.

And I think that might be another source of revenue, even at a couple dollars a unit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Tina Knappy, and I happen to live right next door to Rancho San Rafael Park and enjoy it very much.

And that was a vote of the people, too.

So uh and I am very excited by this process that's going on.

I really thank two key people, Julie and Karen in particular, for all these years of working on this process and being hopeful.

And it looks as if there's a huge challenge ahead for all of you to get this going.

But I think it's worthwhile because our parks are really desperate for attention.

And uh it we need more parks.

And I wanted to comment or ask a question on one part of this.

Uh under unfortunately, this uh I read it at home, and these pages are not numbered, so I have to read this.

Um maintenance and asset management are a top priority.

Stakeholders and the public agree, maintaining existing parks must come before expansion.

I'm not sure any of these parks are ever going to be fully maintained.

And they're always going to need new buildings, they've got new constituents.

Think about soccer and how it's come to our community or pickleball.

We don't have enough pickleball carts, but we don't have enough parks, and we don't have enough trees either.

And their parks are so important for events.

I think more and more events are going to be at parks, and particularly during the summer, it is so lovely to be under the trees for having a park.

But I work a certain amount in with a land trust, and we have bought property for parks.

So I am concerned about that statement that maintaining existing parks must come before expansion.

Does this mean that we're not going to buy any more parks?

We're not going to have any more parks.

If the opportunity comes up to get land, particularly for a regional park, are we going to say, well, we haven't maintained our parks?

I I think uh we need more regional parks.

We need far more parks.

And this statement in particular bothers me.

So I would hope for some clarification of that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Karen Mullen.

Thank you.

It's good to be here tonight.

And thank you for all of your time in listening to these big processes that Julie and I've been involved in for a long time.

Um, I wanted to thank Leon and the whole team here for recognizing that the staff and the budgets are stretched so thin, and that they will make sure that the staff is made whole in the future as far as you know not having anything reduced.

I think that's really important in the long run.

I I just want to encourage that the board move forward to hear what the options are, and let's, you know, let's just really visit how this can be done and how it can be funded.

I think the people in our community, we hear it all the time, and I know you hear it.

Um they're just wanting new parks.

I'll say that for Tina, and I agree, and more open space and more trails, and and they want their facilities maintained.

And we're just here to be cheerleaders for what you do and for what the community wants.

And um, the devil's in the details.

We all understand that, and it's a long haul.

Um, but I don't know, Mike or Leon, there's like 1,400 other districts around the nation that have done it, and I think we we can do it here too, and we can make our community better for our kids in the long run.

And I think that's what's most important for all those young families, young people just moving in here.

You know, we want to make sure that this community is livable in the long run, and that what we're enjoying today is passed on to them, and all of the environmental issues are are helped as we go.

I think that was a great point that was brought up.

So um, thank you, and I wish you luck on this.

I think it's uh it's a challenge and and something that we'll watch all the way through.

Thanks.

Thank you.

We have nobody else signed in chambers, but I do have Iris Jaley Peppard that would like to speak on Zoom.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, sorry, I didn't get the little button.

I'll be Papard, Executive Director of One Truckie River, and I also wanted to share a thank you to the consultant and everyone focused on this topic.

This topic is so important for the Trekkie River, and the river is so important to our region.

It's not just nature, it's not just a recreational trail, it's our drinking water.

It's 85% of our drinking water.

So this topic is so important for the Truckee River, and there's so many improvements from maintenance to capital to restoration that's needed for the Truckee River, that there's very little resources for.

So I got the takeaway that yes, this topic is very complicated and hard to walk through, but I think our region, our river, our community deserves to have this process be followed through.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If anybody else on Zoom would like to speak, please raise your hand.

I see nobody else that would like to speak.

Very well.

That brings us to item eight, adjournment.

I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

This is an inaction item as the chair of each each board member can just can just adjourn.

Very well.

The time is now 7:38.

Uh the joint meeting is now adjourned.