BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA
TUESDAY 10:00 A.M. JUNE 25, 2024
PRESENT:
Alexis Hill, Chair Jeanne Herman, Vice Chair Michael Clark, Commissioner Mariluz Garcia, Commissioner Clara Andriola, Commissioner
Janis Galassini, County Clerk Eric Brown, County Manager
The Washoe County Board of Commissioners convened at 10:00 a.m. in regular session in the Commission Chambers of the Washoe County Administration Complex, 1001 East Ninth Street, Reno, Nevada. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our Country, County Clerk Jan Galassini called roll and the Board conducted the following business:
24-0416 AGENDA ITEM 3 Public Comment.
Mr. Rod Dimmitt provided documents that were distributed to the Board and placed on file with the Clerk. He said he volunteered at the Wilbur D. May Arboretum for ten years and was an eight-year member of the May Arboretum Society. He remarked that the May Arboretum Society was the nonprofit that supported the arboretum. He invited the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to join County Manager Eric Brown for a tour on July 12, 2024, from 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. to learn about new features at the arboretum. He asserted that greenspace became more valuable to Reno's attractiveness as the community grew. He declared the May Arboretum Society had 600 members ranging from individual families to corporations and was slated to spend about $230,000 on the arboretum in 2024. He opined that the arboretum was a gem in the community, and its preservation and expansion were pivotal for current and future Washoe County generations.
Mr. Terry Brooks read an original poem about the benefits of social interaction for people experiencing homelessness.
Ms. Elise Weatherly opined that disorder and confusion existed everywhere. She spoke about information technology (IT). She mentioned Mr. Keith Emerson and alleged that his keyboard was in a local music studio. She discussed the Sun Valley Citizen Advisory Board (CAB) and issues in her homeowners association (HOA). She asserted that she filed an ethics complaint against Mr. Charles Mark Neumann to try
and remove him from the Sun Valley CAB. She declared she wrote a song about IT and divulged that she might dye her hair black and white in August.
Mr. Troy Regas expressed disappointment about recent negative rhetoric toward the Reno Toy Run (RTR). He opined that the only people hurt by that dissension were underprivileged children, veterans, and abuse survivors during the holiday season. He pointed out that the BCC did not investigate the photo that was taken. He alleged there were countless examples of unethical and deviant behavior from elected officials, and he planned to expose them all. He declared that the Northern Nevada Confederation of Clubs (NNVCOC) held monthly meetings where order, respect, and love were maintained between a vastly diverse group of individuals. He thought the same could not be said for the BCC meetings. He announced that he planned to run against Commissioner Garcia, and Ms. Candy Greene would manage his campaign.
Mr. Bill Miller read from a document that was placed on file with the Clerk.
Mr. Oscar Williams provided documents that were distributed to the Board and placed on file with the Clerk. He offered his condolences to the Hicks family regarding the recent passing of Judge Larry Hicks, who Mr. Williams opined was a brilliant man. He expressed concern about the advice given to the Board by its legal counsel because he disagreed with the counsel’s claim that the Canvass of the Vote was a ministerial act. He noted that one of the documents he provided was an attestation of the Dominion Voting System tabulation equipment from the Washoe County Elections Accuracy Certification Board and the Computer Program and Processing Accuracy Board. He pointed out that the document was dated November 6, 2020, even though the election occurred on November 3, 2020. He wondered how voters could have confidence in the elections when mistakes like that happened. He read from his distributed documents, which outlined duties and obligations assigned to the BCC to ensure that the Canvass of the Vote was accurate. He asked who provided the Board with information on the election results. He questioned whether the BCC knew who the Washoe County Elections Accuracy Certification Board members were and whether the body was bi-partisan.
Mr. Roger Edwards appreciated that the Board took public comment before it voted on action items. He thanked Community Outreach Coordinator Candee Ramos, who contacted him about his Golven Valley Water Recharge program complaints. He thought Ms. Ramos did not understand that he quit making payments to the system and was charged a late fee. He said he was an eight-year Planning Commission (PC) member who had served several years as the chairman. He spoke about homelessness in the County and opined that the Development Code did not encourage or require accommodations for low-income people.
Mr. Nick Martin spoke about election laws and rules. He did not think there were checks and balances against fraud. He discussed election integrity and speculated it was being ruined. He asked the Board to work more seriously to tighten up elections. He claimed former President Donald Trump exposed leftist plans for America, and Mr. Robert Beadles was doing the same with elections in Washoe County.
Mr. Roger Scime read from a document that was distributed to the Board and placed on file with the Clerk.
Ms. Heidi Anderson said she worked for the Truckee Meadows Parks Foundation (TMPF). She thanked Commissioner Garcia for her donation to the TMPF’s youth program. She opined that Commissioner Garcia was a true advocate for parks, trails, and open spaces and their impact on the community’s health. Ms. Anderson declared the TMPF’s youth programs turned local parks into learning libraries about community science. She asserted that 3,000 students could participate in the program with donations from the County. She thanked the Board for its investment in the education and well-being of local children.
Ms. Allyson Ford spoke against the use of hand counting as the only method of ballot tabulation. She believed the process had several flaws, including cost, time, and accuracy. She asserted the mechanical counting of votes had been in practice for many years and was introduced to reduce errors and fraud. She remarked that studies showed that machine counts were more accurate than hand counts because machines were good at repetitive tasks and, unlike humans, did not get tired. She spoke about the hand-counting experiment performed in Nye County, Nevada, and noted that Channel 3 News, Las Vegas, reported a 25 percent error rate in the count on the first day. She said that a study by Rice University found that hand-counting ballots returned a 58 percent accuracy rate. She recalled that when New Hampshire utilized hand counting, results were off by eight percent, but machine counting was only off by 0.5 percent. She pointed out that when Maricopa County, Arizona, performed a recount of its 2020 election results, it had nearly identical results as its original machine tabulations. She stated the Board regularly heard public commenters who expressed their concerns about election integrity and voiced their desire for hand counting. She alleged those concerns were fueled by evidence-free accusations generated in hopes of a partisan-driven attack on elections. She asked the Board to stand for true, free, and fair elections.
Ms. Joni Hammond believed that paper ballots enhanced election security and transparency. She said it was possible to find data that showed that paper ballots were more credible in places such as Florida and France. She declared that paper ballots created a physical record of each vote that could be audited and recounted, reducing the risk of fraud or errors associated with electronic voting systems. She thought paper ballots were easier to understand and more cost-effective. She claimed paper ballots would eliminate the need for specialized technical support during elections which would further reduce financial impact. In the event of a recount, she asserted the process was more straightforward and less expensive with paper ballots than electronic systems.
Zeus, no last name given, said Zeus was not his real name. He stated he was a member of Bikers Against Child Abuse (BACA), and he used the name Zeus for anonymity because the organization dealt with abused children and their perpetrators. Therefore, BACA members did not give out their real names. He spoke about struggles he faced while growing up, and the pain children felt when they were unable to fully experience the holidays. He asserted that he participated in the RTR because he believed
in giving to children who would not otherwise get presents on Christmas. He claimed that the City of Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve chose to no longer ride in the lead RTR car because RTR members decided to protect some businesses downtown during the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. He said the Reno Police Department (RPD) ceased to provide police escorts to RTR members while they delivered toys. He thanked Commissioner Clark for his donation to the organization. He pointed out that a Board member asked for the donation to be rescinded because someone wore a patch that apparently represented hate. He thought it was more hateful to tell a child they did not deserve presents during the holidays. He wondered if the Board asked the individual who wore the patch into the Commission Chambers what the symbol meant to him. He asked the Board not to rescind the donation.
Mr. Cliff Nellis challenged the Board to call for an election recount using hand counting. He questioned the victories of Mr. Alex Woodley and Ms. Beth Smith. He spoke about the Democratic Party and thought it planned to re-brand as the Democratic Socialist Party. He claimed that in order to have a real democratic republic, people needed to have confidence in elections; however, he had zero confidence in them. He speculated that the Board hired the Soros Group to control the elections through voting machines that could be easily hacked. He alleged the County had software that could change a voter’s selection to a different candidate when the ballot was scanned in. He noted that 25,000 ballots were returned to the Registrar of Voters (ROV) and wondered how many more were not returned. He opined that the Board could restore the people’s confidence if it performed a recount by hand counting. He remarked the Republican Party performed a caucus and hand-counted the results at the precinct level.
Mr. Rich Bissett spoke about a recent high ozone alert he received several days after an event. He wondered why there was a delay and opined the alert should have gone out as soon as the Northern Nevada Public Health (NNPH) was aware of the ozone increase. He remarked that the San Francisco Bay area regularly hosted a spare-the-air day where people were encouraged to reduce their pollution output for a day. He noted that some employers even gave employees the day off to cut down on pollution from commuting. He declared that the Fourth of July fireworks regularly increased the air quality index (AQI) value because they released heavy metals into the air and asked the Board to do something to mitigate the issue.
Ms. Renee Rezentes mentioned the RTR donation and asked the Board to investigate what a swastika meant to the group that had a member with one on its patch. She knew that many people found a swastika offensive and declared that she found it offensive that three Board members voted to certify the election despite mistakes. She listed other matters that were offensive to her.
Ms. Penny Brock read from a document that was placed on file with the Clerk. She recalled Interim ROV Cari-Ann Burgess’s reference to issues during the Primary Election as hiccups and declared that voters did not want hiccups. She alleged that the Board’s vote to canvass the election failed because Commissioner Garcia was not
present at the meeting and opined that board members running for reelection should have recused themselves.
Mr. Scott Finley declared that when people made cash deposits at a bank, the teller was supposed to run the money through a machine and count it twice because machines were not foolproof. He asserted that people wanted a parallel hand count for elections to ensure the voting machines worked correctly. He claimed that when people elected a person, they felt a sense of responsibility for that individual's actions. If people did not have faith in the election system, he believed people would view those in power as appointed, not elected, and would not feel responsible or invested in those individuals.
Ms. Candy Halbig asserted that her father was a veteran who fought in World War II (WWII), Korea, and Vietnam for the rights of American citizens. She declared she had worked as both a manager and assistant manager at the Damonte Ranch polling location. She remarked that in 2020, she helped process ballots at the ROV’s Office, where she tabulated mail-in ballots. She noted that mail-in ballots were how military members stationed overseas voted. She thought the County had trouble getting people to volunteer during elections and claimed there were plenty of Democrats and Non-Partisans but not many Republicans. She invited anyone who believed there were no checks and balances to volunteer with the ROV’s Office and learn how the County processed elections.
Mr. Nicholas St. Jon declared that many conservative community members had applied to volunteer for ballot processing but were turned down. He thought the County would not struggle to find volunteers if it did not turn so many people away. He spoke about discrepancies between the SOS and ROV databases and wondered if the Board was concerned about them. He opined that the Board should have investigated the issue before approving the election. He believed there were a lot of problems with the election. He demanded that the Board remove the metal detectors outside of the Commission Chambers and take down the signage that informed people they could not have signs or placards displayed during meetings.
Ms. Donna Simpson said she started hearing questions about the elections a few years ago, so she did what she was taught by the military, which was to get involved and see it for herself. She declared she had held nearly every position at polling places. She opined that the ROV was very professionally run. She thought if more people volunteered, they would learn that the election system was fair. She believed people should be able to accept election outcomes, even if their political party did not win.
Mr. Alan Jordan read from a document that was placed on file with the Clerk. He opined there was a lack of accuracy with hand counting and thought it created an opportunity for ballots to be manipulated. He said Esmeralda County, Nevada, spent more than seven hours hand-counting 317 ballots, which he did not think was cost- effective. He remarked that the United Kingdom (UK) did not have much trust in hand- counted ballots. He asked the Board to consider other technological advances that made people’s lives easier, such as microchips in televisions, electric windshield wipers, and cell
phones. He believed machine-counted ballots increased efficiency and streamlined election results.
Mr. Trevor Macaluso said he was the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Eddy House. He thanked the Board and Commissioner Garcia for the $5,000 donation to the organization. He declared the Eddy House was a nonprofit that served homeless and at-risk youth in the community to help them achieve sustainable skills for independence.
Ms. Betty Thiessen remarked that she received an email from the County about volunteering to help with elections. She asserted that she responded affirmatively to the email but did not hear anything back. She declared that after a couple of months, she followed up on her email and still did not receive a response. She speculated that the County had flagged her name and did not want her help.
24-0417 AGENDA ITEM 4 Announcements/Reports.
Assistant County Manager (ACM) David Solaro announced there were vacant positions for the Library Board of Trustees (LBT), which would be open until July 15, 2024, and for each of the citizen advisory boards (CABs). The CAB positions were available on the County’s website and would be open until July 8, 2024.
Vice Chair Herman said she had not abandoned the election integrity resolution and asked that it be included on a Board of County Commissioners’ (BCC) agenda for the Board’s consideration.
Commissioner Andriola requested the inclusion of an item on a BCC agenda to discuss the use of discretionary funds. She was surprised by the discovery that each Commissioner had the ability to allocate up to $100,000, which she noted totaled
$500,000 in taxpayer funds. While she acknowledged there were many outstanding nonprofits, she believed there should be a discussion regarding possible government overreach, being good stewards of taxpayer dollars, and the use of those funds to fulfill the Commissioners’ obligations. Commissioner Andriola expressed gratitude for the opportunity to use the funds to help consider ordinances that governed the equine business; however, she chose not to use the discretionary funds in the manner traditionally practiced. She also wanted the Board to discuss the possibility of refocusing the associated budget line item with the fulfillment of government responsibilities.
Commissioner Garcia announced the 105th annual Reno Rodeo was in progress, and the proceeds from the raffle tickets purchased the following day would assist the Truckee Meadows Firefighters Association (TMFA). She stated the association supported firefighters and families who were burdened by a serious illness, accident, loss, or injury.
Commissioner Garcia recounted the tragic incident that occurred at Rancho San Rafael Regional Park involving the fatal shooting of a rottweiler by another dog owner. She informed that the owner of the rottweiler named Reeva, raised $4,800 that was donated
to Options Veterinary Care. Options Veterinary Care reserved funds to sponsor a free dog park safety talk, which was organized for Thursday, June 27, 2024. The presentation was scheduled to start at 6:00 p.m., and the question and answer (Q&A) portion of the event would begin at 7:00 p.m. The event would take place at the Washoe County Regional Animal Services (WCRAS) classroom, and more information about the event was available online.
Commissioner Clark described a CAB meeting that took place in the Commission Chambers on May 13, 2024. He stated that $300,000 was the figure relayed to him regarding the cost of the Cares Campus for several years. He said that when he mentioned that figure during a BCC meeting, County Manager Eric Brown and Chair Hill informed him that it was incorrect. At that point, he asked for the correct numbers associated with the Cares Campus. After at least a week, he communicated his request in writing. Commissioner Clark had not received a response and requested that those numbers be provided to him. He asked Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) Mary Kandaras how he could obtain the referenced figures in writing. He questioned if he would need to hire an attorney to sue the County so a judge could rule on whether he had access to that information. CDDA Kandaras did not think it was necessary for Commissioner Clark to hire an attorney. She was aware of an upcoming meeting regarding the matter, during which she believed written material would be provided. She said there were various methods for Commissioner Clark to use in order to obtain the referenced numbers and suggested making a public records request (PRR). CDDA Kandaras assured she would follow up with Commissioner Clark regarding the request and assist him with obtaining the correct figures. Commissioner Clark wished to be provided with concrete numbers and did not believe a meeting was necessary. He voiced his desire for the data from the Comptroller’s Department and the head of the Accounting Division to be compiled and detailed on a list. He described a scenario in which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was asking the same questions as Commissioner Clark and asked if the County was able to provide another government official with the information being requested. CDDA Kandaras was certain the information was available but speculated it was retained by different sources within the County. She informed that one records database containing all of the County’s records did not exist, so all the information would need to be collected from those sources. She indicated she would cooperate with the Human Services Agency (HSA) and the Comptroller to explore potential courses of action. CDDA Kandaras informed that the County asked for PRRs to be submitted so the information being sought could be monitored by the District Attorney’s (DA) Office.
Commissioner Clark referenced public comments indicating that hand- counting was a waste of time and said all the data should be stored in a computer database somewhere. Furthermore, he believed multiple staff members from different departments should be able to compile the requested information in less than a month. He inquired about the amount of funds the County received from the federal and State governments and local donations. Commissioner Clark wanted answers to his questions and did not wish to be stalled by an extensive process. He pointed out that when he stated the cost of the Cares Campus was $300,000, he was immediately notified that the figure was inaccurate. He speculated the individuals who pointed out the inaccuracy were knowledgeable about the
actual cost, and he asked how they obtained the information and could be certain that the correct figure was not $300,000. Commissioner Clark expressed exasperation at the delay in receiving the information and commented that the requested data should not be that difficult to assemble. CDDA Kandaras stated the DA’s Office did not have the relevant documents in its possession and assured she would coordinate with the various County departments to promptly provide Commissioner Clark with the requested information. She acknowledged Commissioner Clark’s frustration. Commissioner Clark clarified he was not asking the DA’s Office to assume the accounting role of the County but was inquiring about the method through which the information would be made available to him. He added the costs associated with the Cares Campus should have been recorded and believed the taxpayers had a right to know how much the Cares Campus cost them. He expected the DA’s Office to encourage the Office of the County Manager (OCM) to collect the data from the different departments on Commissioner Clark’s behalf.
24-0418 AGENDA ITEM 5 Presentation and update from Cari-Ann Burgess, Interim Registrar of Voters, on the progress of the election year process. (All Commission Districts.)
Interim Registrar of Voters (ROV) Cari-Ann Burgess informed that the ROV Office’s previous mail sorting machine had been inoperative since the day prior to the meeting and was currently being removed. The new Vantage mail-in ballot sorting machine was in the process of being delivered and would be functional by the following week. She mentioned this was the cause of the increased activity in the back room of the ROVs Office. Ms. Burgess revealed the new sorting machine was capable of sorting 45,000 ballots in roughly an hour, and the former sorting machine was able to process 30,000. Additionally, the ROV Office would increase from 36 bins to 48 bins of ballots for processing. She noted the new sorting machine could process ballots at an accelerated rate without the concern of it becoming inoperable.
Ms. Burgess announced that the four OPEX mail-in ballot opening and extraction machines would be arriving the following day to assist the ROV Office’s staff with the ballot extraction process. She divulged that instead of having 18 people divided into nine teams perform the extraction process, the ROV Office would have the four machines in addition to the teams as needed. She said the extraction process was the most significant obstruction to the ROV Office when processing ballots, as it required the longest amount of time to complete.
Ms. Burgess stated the Voter Registration and Election Management Solution (VREMS) system would be implemented in August 2024. Based on a discussion with the Nevada Secretary of State (SOS) and the number of commissioners around the State, especially Commissioner Clark, bringing attention to voter registration list maintenance, the ROV Office requested a postponement of the system’s implementation. SOS Francisco Aguilar was willing to honor the request so the ROV Office could carry out voter list maintenance in one system rather than two, which would be helpful to the ROV Office as it would not need to duplicate its efforts. The ROV Office could also update information on the voter lists as needed.
Ms. Burgess informed the 8D2 cards would be sent out per the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) during the day of the meeting and the following day. She indicated the 8D2 cards were intended to be dispatched the day before, but the staff took longer than anticipated to finalize over 20,000 updates for the ROV Office’s Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) system. The 8D2 cards would be mailed out for the Primary and Presidential Preference Primary (PPP) Elections. Ms. Burgess provided an explanation about the timelines being tight between the PPP and Primary Elections. By law, the ROV Office could not send anything out until after the canvass. The ROV Office was currently conducting voter list maintenance for the PPP and Primary Elections.
Ms. Burgess reported the ROV Office was in possession of two large petitions that were constitutional amendments. The ROV Office obtained 13 boxes of signatures for one of the petitions and three boxes of signatures for the other petition. The 13 boxes were received prior to the election, and the three boxes were delivered the day before the meeting. The ROV Office was in the process of completing a raw count of the three boxes that would be sent to the Office of the SOS to ensure there were enough signatures from the County. Once the signatures were returned to the ROV Office, a verification process would be initiated. Ms. Burgess specified there were a total of 27,000 signatures for the petition that was received prior to the election, all of which needed to be reviewed to verify them. Before the signatures could be checked, the staff had to ensure the signatures were dated, referred to the correct county, were notarized, listed the signees’ physical addresses, and were actually signed. Additionally, the addresses on the signatures could not be Post Office (PO) boxes. Ms. Burgess mentioned the process needed to be completed for every petition.
Ms. Burgess indicated the ROV Office received over 3,000 applications within 90 days, which included name changes, address changes, new registrations, and political party changes. The ROV Office was currently processing the applications because when voter information was updated, the voters would be sent a new voter registration card. The voter registration cards would need to be dispatched by July 4, 2024, leaving a short amount of time to update the information.
Ms. Burgess announced the ROV Office doubled its staff in order to address the referenced tasks. She said the ROV Office had talented staff who were overseeing and training the new staff members, thereby ensuring the duties of the ROV Office were carried out correctly.
Chair Hill thanked Ms. Burgess and her team for their efforts and conveyed the Board’s appreciation.
Commissioner Garcia thanked Ms. Burgess for attending the meeting. She noted some of the Commissioners had the opportunity to tour the ROV Office during early voting after it had been reconfigured. She requested Ms. Burgess’s perspective on whether there was anything she wished to adjust before the General Election commenced. Ms. Burgess replied that the ROV Office would need to make slight adjustments because of the arrival of the new machines, for which she expressed excitement. She had been speaking
with some of the ROV Office’s vendors in order to procure a few more machines because the ROV Office was anticipating at least a three- to four-card ballot during the fall. She explained there were currently five questions from the State that would be included on the ballots in addition to the options for the local, State, and national races and the question from the library. Ms. Burgess stated the ROV Office was considering securing two more scanning machines to add to the ROV Office’s five scanning machines to assist with the volume of ballots. She mentioned the ROV Office’s layout would be modified to ensure visibility in the back room was still the same and everything could be viewed. She believed the configuration would be beneficial because of the new machines and how they would worked as well as the enhanced visibility.
Commissioner Andriola wondered if the cards Ms. Burgess mentioned were a part of the spreadsheet that Mr. Chuck Muth or his team provided. Ms. Burgess responded that the information from the spreadsheet was not included for specific reasons. She added the ROV Office assessed each of the locations identified by Mr. Muth to review the voters associated with those locations. She stated she could not discuss the locations at this point, but having multiple people affiliated with one business location was problematic and a matter that the ROV Office was investigating. Ms. Burgess indicated she brought Memos 2024-004 and 2024-006 from the Office of the SOS, which were placed on file with the Clerk. She indicated the protocols for addressing the issue were specific. Additionally, she confirmed that voter registration cards were being sent to the individuals at the identified addresses to ensure that the ROV Office was exercising due diligence in verifying the accuracy of the information. Ms. Burgess mentioned many of the ballots that were returned as undeliverable were from those locations, as the information was cross-referenced during the weekend.
Commissioner Andriola asked if there was a central logging repository of every signature, voter registration, and every other piece of information that could be tracked in an auditable manner so authorized personnel had the ability to track that information from every process. Responding to Commissioner Andriola, Ms. Burgess indicated the ROV Office had a tracking form from the United States Postal Service (USPS) that was used from the moment the ballots were received. She mentioned most of the tasks that took place in the back room of the ROV Office were completed by paper, not machines. She explained the information was tracked only when the ballots were processed through the ballot sorting machine, which photographed the signatures and the envelopes. The AVR marked each ballot as received. Ms. Burgess stated the ballots could be tracked through the signature verification, but from the point of being entered into the AVR, the ballots would not be tracked again until they were tabulated. Commissioner Andriola asked if there was a central repository that could be tracked and audited through the entire process, starting when the ballots were delivered to the voting location, to which Ms. Burgess responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Andriola thanked Ms. Burgess’s team for their hard work. Commissioner Clark commented that Picon Press Media Executive Director
Larry Chesney supported Ms. Burgess’s work and was complimentary of her. He was
aware of an instance in which a senior individual’s ballot was challenged because it was not in a privacy sleeve, and he pointed out the sleeve was actually a form that was supposed to be used as a sleeve. He asked whether sleeves would be supplied during the General Election as well as detailed descriptions so the voters were able to understand what the sleeve was. Commissioner Clark explained the referenced individual did not insert his ballot into the sleeve because he did not understand the instructions; he simply placed the ballot alone into the envelope. He questioned the logistics of delivering the ballot in person, as the individual was 80 years old and recently had back surgery. He advised the voters should not be instructed to insert their ballots in a sleeve when no sleeve was provided.
Commissioner Clark inquired about whether someone else would proofread the sample ballots before they were printed and asked if they would be accurate. He said the Reno City Council races should not be included on his sample ballot because he lived on the south end of the County, closer to Carson City. He commented that there was no way he would vote in the City of Reno races. His understanding was that the SOS directed the ROV Office to include the unrelated race to save money. Commissioner Clark believed it was appropriate to keep sample ballots consistent by only including the candidates who were located within the respective district of each voter and who each voter was able to select. He said by doing so, the voters could study the candidates and measures contained on the ballots. He noted Mr. Drew Ribar brought attention to the omission of his name from the sample ballot, and as a result, the voters were incapable of researching him. Commissioner Clark remarked that the exclusion of some candidates was a disservice and declared that everyone should be treated equally. He asked Ms. Burgess if she had any thoughts about that issue. Ms. Burgess stated the ROV Office had revised its standard operating procedure to involve two other departments in reviewing the sample ballot information, and the staff members from those departments were specifically engaged in communications. She indicated the staff would be cross-referencing from the master sheets that were provided by the Office of the SOS and the ROV Office. She clarified the ROV Office generated the master sheets for the local races, while the Office of the SOS was responsible for providing the master sheets for national and State races.
Commissioner Clark asked about the costs associated with the ballots that were returned to the ROV Office. He said the quantity was at least 25,000 ballots; however, he speculated that the number of returned ballots would have likely been greater due to some ballots possibly being discarded. He was certain that not all the ballots that were delivered to the wrong addresses were returned. Ms. Burgess indicated approximately
$87,500 was expended for the 25,000 returned ballots, and she clarified the cost was roughly $3.50 per ballot. She reminded Commissioner Clark the ballots were required to be dispatched pursuant to the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Commissioner Clark commented that there would have been much less waste and confusion had the previous ROV been properly maintaining the voter rolls. He added that this kind of mistake resulted in further distrust in the election system. He asserted the cleaner the voter rolls were, the better the ROV appeared.
Chair Hill thanked Ms. Burgess and expressed her wish that she get some rest between the Primary and General Elections.
24-0419 AGENDA ITEM 6 Presentation by Mark Kampf, former Nye County Clerk, to discuss his experience with hand counting votes for elections in a rural county. (All Commission Districts.)
Former Nye County Clerk Mark Kampf conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following titles: Paper Ballot and Hand Counts; Paper Ballot and Hand Counts – Voting using paper ballot vs machine; Paper Ballot and Hand Counts – Controlling the paper ballot process – Mail; Paper Ballot and Hand Counts – Controlling the paper ballot process – Polls; Paper Ballot and Hand Counts – Controlling the paper ballot process – Challenges; Paper Ballot and Hand Counts – Controlling the paper ballot process – Benefits; Paper Ballot and Hand Counts – Hand counting paper ballots.
Mr. Kampf said he was invited to speak to the Board about his experiences in Nye County. He recited a quote from Mr. Henry Ford and explained that when he was asked to be the Nye County Clerk, he was given three months to implement paper ballots. He stated he and his team had to navigate the change without a guide or roadmap.
Mr. Kampf discussed the percentage of paper ballots and voting machines used in Washoe County. He declared that Washoe County utilized paper ballots in the form of mail ballots and clarified that paper ballots allowed for overvotes, while voting machines prevented overvotes. Paper ballots were counted by a tabulator, while voting machines utilized universal serial bus (USB) sticks that were unique to the individual machine and were tracked. He said laws required accessible voting for people with disabilities, so a voting machine was placed at each location. Nye County experienced a significant increase in accessible voting during its initial use of paper ballots, after which the use declined.
Mr. Kampf informed that precinct identifiers and sequence numbers were placed on mail ballots to aid in controlling the paper ballot process. Those measures provided excellent chain of custody controls regarding ballot drop boxes. He noted that ballots could only be dropped off at the Nye County Clerk’s Office or at a polling location, and the only available control over a mail ballot was signature verification. He explained that sequence numbers and separate ballot type identifiers were added to mail ballots because ballot paper did not contain watermarks. Therefore, it was possible for anyone to print a ballot and envelope. Sequence numbers made ballot sorting easier, and ballots without sequence numbers could be easily identified as illegitimate.
Mr. Kampf said paper ballots had to be provided to any individual who visited a polling location. Additionally, ballots had to have a control mechanism and be sorted later. He specified there were no loose ballots, and each remained under tight control. Reconciliation measures were performed every day.
Mr. Kampf indicated that controlling the paper ballot process presented certain challenges, but those were not roadblocks. He explained that every polling location in Washoe County was a vote center. This meant individuals had to be provided with a ballot at the polling location of their choice and did not have one designated location. He
remarked that State law required every polling location to be a vote center during the Presidential Preference Primary (PPP) Election. There was only one ballot type during the PPP, whereas multiple ballot types were used during regular elections. He stated that designated polling locations, as used in the past, would enable smoother navigation of that requirement. Preparations had to be made with voting machines because an individual could vote at any location of their choosing. He spoke about the rarity of poll worker errors where ballots were issued out of sequence and said those were easy to identify. He described a single situation where a ballot with the incorrect precinct was issued to a voter. It was the same ballot type, so the overall vote was not impacted, although it had been a reconciling item. He discussed control mechanisms for provisional paper ballots. The ballot was placed in a sealed envelope at the polling location with the voter’s identifying number on it. If the provisional ballot was positively resolved, it would be removed from the envelope later and processed as a vote.
Mr. Kampf reviewed the benefits of the paper ballot process on the slide titled Paper Ballot and Hand Counts – Controlling the paper ballot process – Benefits. He felt that paper ballots provided a low cost to taxpayers since only paper and people had to be funded. He discussed the alternative, which involved the capital cost of voting machines, annual license and warranty fees, and expenses for the transportation and storage of voting machines. He said the Secretary of State’s (SOS) Office was pushing the implementation of a new voting system within the next few years. It would require people to use a voting machine at polling locations that printed a paper ballot with perfectly completed selection ovals. The voter would place that ballot into a tabulator. He specified that the SOS’s Office desired to shift to paper ballots. He discussed the difference between neat ovals completed by a machine and ovals completed by hand. He said paper ballots meant voting and counting methods could be unified because two separate systems, as used by Washoe County, would not be needed. He posited it would positively impact audits and recount efficiency.
Mr. Kampf shared that Nye County attempted a parallel hand count in 2022. With over 200 volunteers, some from Douglas County and Washoe County, they were able to count 17,000 of the 22,000 votes in 8 days. He spoke about his professional background in internal controls and said the method of matching tally sheets from the three-person teams yielded the same accuracy as a tabulator, except for the 5 percent sensitivity. He further discussed the 5 percent sensitivity and explained that voting machines counted the number of pixels within a selection oval on paper ballots. If less than 5 percent of the pixels within the oval were marked, the voting machine did not count it as a vote. He stated that the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) counted a visible mark on an oval as a vote. The difference between hand counts and voting machines was that a person had the ability to detect a greater number of marks. He reported that all voters did not neatly fill in their ovals, and he had seen an X or a line indicating their selections. He asserted that in every situation of a discrepancy, the difference between the hand count and the voting machine was that a human could see a visible mark, but the machine could not. He indicated that the 2022 parallel hand count ended because he and his team had to complete other tasks, and there was a 0.1 percent difference in votes, a total of 283 votes. He stated the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) harried them on the first day for following the since-
implemented SOS requirements for hand counting procedures. In response to declarations that the parallel hand count was not completed, he explained the procedure dictated that someone read the ballot aloud while another person performed the tabulation. He said the ACLU considered this to be revealing the results of early voting to the public because someone could determine a winner earlier in the process. He clarified that mail ballots could be tabulated as they were received, but early votes could not. He opined that the SOS’s Office made it nearly impossible to perform a hand count because counting could not begin until after the election. The second time they used paper ballots throughout Nye County was the PPP. He did not see the benefit of using the hand-counting method for the PPP. They performed a statistical sample audit to ensure the tabulator worked properly. He posited that the voting machine certification process did not inspire confidence in proper functioning. To achieve a 95 percent probability of success, they selected 8.5 percent of the ballots randomly and used five three-person teams with the requirement that each team’s tally sheets had to match. The audit was completed in two hours with 100 percent accuracy. They recognized that their paper ballot process and tabulators were working.
Mr. Kampf believed hand counting could be appropriate in the future if the federal government and the State altered certain laws. He said voting processes had to be rationalized within the Country because too many candidates appeared on ballots, and biennial elections in Nevada put extreme pressure on the Registrar of Voters (ROV). He summarized that paper ballots could be enacted easily and efficiently, but it would take strategy and rationalization of processes. He suggested that fewer vote centers could be helpful, as well as designated polling locations, as these made paper ballot controls simpler. He felt paper ballots were productive. He was not sure that complete avoidance of voting machines was advisable since the same results could be obtained using either method. He referenced his background as an auditor and stated his prior company used statistical analysis to identify errors in massive databases for clients such as Apple Inc., Pepsi, Pfizer, and FedEx. He assured there were ways to identify proper system functioning.
Commissioner Andriola thanked Mr. Kampf for his communication and patience and for sharing his professional background. She thought it was important to apply statistical analysis and probability to voting procedures to ensure as much confidence as possible. She inquired why Nye County ceased hand counting. Mr. Kampf explained he was asked to implement hand counting. He did not want to rely solely on that method as a new clerk because, in the event his first election did not go well, he would be held liable. That was why a parallel process was performed that offered proof of concept. He firmly believed that Nye County would have completed the process if the procedure he developed had been used. He specified that his method was developed prior to the SOS’s Office’s temporary regulations requiring verbal communication of ballot information to tabulators. He stated Nye County was taken to court regarding the verbal communication component, which was a quandary since the SOS now required it. Commissioner Andriola mentioned his comment that the SOS’s procedure had changed, and she asked him for clarification. Mr. Kampf advised that the SOS implemented a formal hand count procedure that required the vocalization of votes. Therefore, counting could not occur until election day or else the votes could be prematurely revealed. He stated that remarks about Nye County’s inability
to complete the hand count were due to this procedure, which equated to them losing 13 out of the 21 allotted days to count.
Commissioner Andriola noted the 200 volunteers Nye County utilized in 2022 and observed Washoe County’s larger population. She requested that Mr. Kampf estimate how many volunteers Washoe County would need if it implemented his statistical analysis audit method. Mr. Kampf advised that Washoe County could extrapolate and apply Nye County’s results to its own voter base. When he decided to perform a self-audit consisting of a statistical sample analysis, he did not rely on the SOS’s process or the risk- limiting audit procedures. He stated that Nye County was not asked to check a single vote in its previous election under the risk-limiting audit procedure. He determined the appropriate sample size based on Nye County’s population, and a 95 percent probability of success meant he needed an 8.5 percent sample size. He said the calculations he used could be applied to Washoe County’s population. Commissioner Andriola commented that a significant number of volunteers would be needed. Mr. Kampf agreed and assured that larger populations did not require a proportionate increase in sample size to achieve the same results.
Commissioner Andriola confirmed that no current legislation, whether at the federal or State level, prevented Washoe County from adopting Mr. Kampf’s audit methods. She expressed her appreciation of internal controls and was very impressed with Mr. Kampf’s background in statistical sampling because it was critical. She asserted that confidence levels in elections could increase if Washoe County implemented a similar process. She thanked County Manager Eric Brown for allowing Mr. Kampf to provide a presentation. She discussed the significance of confidence levels regarding elections and spoke about the prevalent distrust in elections throughout the Country. She felt that each regulatory body had a responsibility to ensure the highest level of trust possible. She thought Mr. Kampf perfected measures that would help bolster that trust. She supported Washoe County’s continued dialogue with Mr. Kampf. Mr. Kampf informed that he communicated with Washoe County ROV Cari-Ann Burgess and was available for discussions.
Commissioner Andriola inquired if, given the current systems in place, Mr. Kampf believed tampering was possible within the election process. Mr. Kampf commented that he was pulled into the election process by significant election deniers with an agenda who wanted to determine if tampering could occur. He declared that he approached the situation with an open mind because he thought it was inadvisable to assume something was wrong in any situation. Rather, situations should be approached with a clear head and acceptance of the prevailing outcome. Throughout his experience, he learned a lot about identifying potential human error. He believed a statistical analysis approach was efficient because technology could be trusted if it was verified. He opined that the voting machines were not the problem because he had not personally seen any problematic evidence. Rather, he was more concerned with voter registration systems and processes. He pointed out that many people were concerned that voting machines or tabulators were online, but voter registration information was also online. He assured he
was not casting accusations and stated that with the current voter registration process, someone who was placed on a voter roll received a ballot.
Commissioner Andriola posited that a lot of legislative work had to be done. Mr. Kampf spoke about two bills that were recently considered. One prohibited self-audits, which he thought was ridiculous. The other bill would have prohibited the use of paper ballots at polling locations. Commissioner Andriola affirmed that no current statutes prevented self-audits. She declared that implementing checks and balances, creating a statistical process, and boosting confidence levels provided a huge opportunity to cultivate trust. Mr. Kampf agreed and stated that trust allowed people to identify and focus on real problems.
Vice Chair Herman thanked Mr. Kampf for sharing valuable information. She thought it provided hope for increasing trust in Washoe County elections. Mr. Kampf asserted there was great potential in proving trust.
Commissioner Clark thanked Mr. Kampf for his presentation. He commented that elected officials typically heard both sides of an issue. He noted he was a former Washoe County Assessor and stated that everything the Assessor’s Office did was verified by the State. For example, the State performed sample studies and ratio studies. He observed the possibility of a compromise regarding the use of both voting machines and paper ballots. He indicated that a statistical analysis like Mr. Kampf’s method could be used to demonstrate counting accuracy, which would satisfy concerns from each side of the issue. He agreed with Mr. Kampf’s opinion that voter registration was the real problem because voter rolls were a foundational basis for the entire system. He said a new Carson City clerk had removed 8,000 to 9,000 inactive voters from rolls within a short time. He posited that people would require a high level of accuracy if money or medical data were the topic, so it was understandable that people were seeking accuracy. He asserted that Washoe County should attempt the process Mr. Kampf implemented.
24-0420 AGENDA ITEM 7 Presentation by Tracy Bowles, Washoe County Public Guardian, to give an annual update on work of the Public Guardian's office. (All Commission Districts.)
Washoe County Public Guardian (WCPG) Tracy Bowles conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following titles: Mission; NRS 159 and NRS 253; Decisions Guardians Make; Caseload; Referrals; Estate Management; Work With Protected Persons; Work With The Community; Work In The Profession of Guardianship; Looking to the Future.
Ms. Bowles announced she was appointed to the role of WCPG by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) in 2019 and was reappointed in 2023. Her staff was present at the meeting because she wanted the Board to see their faces, as they performed valuable work in the WCPG’s Office. She said she was fortunate to serve for and with them. She informed that the WCPG’s Office would present to the BCC on an annual basis.
Ms. Bowles reported the WCPG’s Office consisted of 20 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, and she reviewed the duties performed by each position. She specified that fiscal staff managed finances and performed a lot of the office’s paperwork. Administrative staff handled court documents and filings as well as the large amount of mail the office received. Guardian case managers met monthly with protected people to assess their needs and make decisions for them, such as medical and financial decisions. She noted the department did a lot of work with its small budget of approximately $2.8 million. Most of the budget funded the staff’s salaries and benefits.
Ms. Bowles explained Chapter 159 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) generally described guardianship in Nevada. She discussed the history of guardianship in Nevada and stated there had historically been many issues. Substantial reform had taken place that significantly benefited Nevada’s protected people and became a model for the Country. NRS 253 described the roles of public guardians and how they were funded. Per NRS, the WCPG’s Office was fully funded by the General Fund. All Ms. Bowles’ requests had to be approved by the Board, including staff increases.
Ms. Bowles reviewed examples of decisions that public guardians made on the slide titled Decisions Guardians Make. She informed guardianship was a court- appointed process that serves individuals who are deemed to have limited decision-making capacities. She noted the WCPG’s Office met people at their level, which varied greatly since every individual possessed unique circumstances.
Ms. Bowles remarked that the WCPG Office’s caseload had remained relatively stable through the years. She pointed out that the average caseload per case manager had decreased to 22.2. This was significant because the National Guardianship Association (NGA) stated individual case managers should never have more than 20 cases at a time. The case managers handled every aspect of an individual’s life, and attention to detail had to be maintained. She mentioned she prioritized caseload reduction after her appointment by the Board. Because of an observed increase, the WCPG’s Office started tracking the number of referred individuals who were unhoused, even though historically, not many unhoused individuals were referred to the WCPG. Fortunately, that trend had decreased. She had many ideas about potential explanations.
Ms. Bowles spoke about the organizations and institutions that made referrals to the WCPG’s Office and said the WCPG’s Office only served individuals when it was petitioned; the WCPG did not petition courts for guardianship of any individuals. She expressed gratitude that the District Attorney’s (DA) Office represented the WCPG’s Office. She pointed out referrals received from hospitals had slightly decreased, while referrals from Adult Protective Services (APS) had increased. She stated referrals from family members had also increased, and this indicated that the WCPG’s Office assisted people sooner than it had in the past. She specified the WCPG’s Office was addressing needs while individuals were still in the community and before they went to hospitals, which was a positive trend. A negative trend was that it was rare for an individual who had already been exploited to visit the WCPG’s Office. If an individual was elderly and possessed money, they were at risk of being exploited and their funds going missing. Ms.
Bowles discussed the slide titled Estate Management and said the data demonstrated that although caseloads had not increased, case types now involved more homes, property, and investment accounts. The WCPG’s Office had begun to manage more money. She did not suspect the trend would continue at its current rate because the graph represented a small number of protected individuals with larger funds than what the WCPG’s Office usually encountered. She mentioned there was a shortage of private, professional guardians in the community.
Ms. Bowles reviewed the tasks that her team performed, as listed on the slide titled Work With Protected Persons. She recounted a story of an individual who visited the WCPG’s Office and was placed in a nursing home after being treated for a stroke in the hospital. This individual could neither speak nor write when she met the WCPG team but was notably successful at communicating through gestures and facial expressions. It was clear to the team that she could express choice. As guardians, it was important for them to honor an individual’s ability to exercise choice. This individual’s greatest desire was to leave the nursing home and return home. Ms. Bowles reported the staff determined this individual did not require the level of care provided by nursing homes. Almost immediately, they placed her in a group home that allowed for more independence, freedom, and opportunities to demonstrate how capable she was. She explained that the WCPG team rehabilitated the individual’s home while she rehabilitated herself in the group home setting. She was placed back in her home the previous month, fully rehabilitated and with new appliances and appropriate in-home caregivers. Ms. Bowles noted when protected persons could not live at home and had pets, her team searched for placements that allowed pets to stay with their owners. If the protected individual could no longer care for their pet, the team tried to find an appropriate placement for the pet.
Ms. Bowles discussed a case in which a father and son shared guardianship of the son’s brother. The father and son were nearing homelessness and were not complying with several of the many rules surrounding guardianship. They were struggling with resources and housing and lived in a motel. The court contacted the WCPG’s Office to assist the family, who entered supportive housing and gained stability within a few months. The WCPG’s Office also helped another family member obtain a higher level of care. Ms. Bowles hoped to return guardianship to the family when possible. She stated her team intentionally discovered what brought joy to protected individuals and learned how they liked to spend their money to meet their needs. She shared that the WCPG’s Office conducted many investigations and reports on exploitation in the community, and it provided reports to APS when needed. The WCPG’s Office also made many difficult medical decisions, which varied depending on the wishes of the protected person. She noted that finding community placements for protected individuals could be challenging.
Ms. Bowles referenced the slide titled Work With The Community and indicated the items listed were especially significant actions her team performed. The WCPG’s Office educated the community and taught that guardianship was the most restrictive intervention an individual could have. It also educated community stakeholders to ensure they understood the guardians’ authority and when to refer to guardianship. Her team participated in statewide meetings. She added that sometimes people thought the
solution to an individual’s struggle was to place them under guardianship. Ms. Bowles’s job was to evaluate if there were alternative options prior to guardianship because guardianship involved eliminating people’s civil liberties, and they did not want to do that unless it was absolutely necessary. The WCPG’s Office communicated with State and local partners about any issues that affected vulnerable populations, and Ms. Bowles believed it was critical that the guardians’ input was given consideration. This was because issues regarding isolated or unsupported seniors, people with mental health-related illnesses, or unhoused and unsupported people had to be handled proactively. Otherwise, people could end up being placed in guardianship.
Ms. Bowles remarked that the WCPG’s Office had worked hard within the past few years to elevate the guardianship profession. She said she inherited a professional team that was already doing an amazing job, and she commended the team’s dedication. Four nationally certified guardians were added to the staff within the past two years, which was significant. She mentioned that she was appointed to the Board of the NGA, and she hoped to help other public guardians across the Country and share more about how Washoe County excelled in guardianship.
Ms. Bowles stated how important the points on the slide titled Looking to the Future were for the WCPG’s Office. She was aware of the Board’s efforts in some of those areas. She wanted to highlight the information to increase the Board’s investment in issues the WCPG’s Office encountered. She stated the WCPG’s Office needed more help with elder exploitation in the community, and she asserted it was a substantial issue. On average, the County had more individuals over the age of 65 years who lived alone compared to the rest of the Country, which meant that many isolated seniors resided in the County. She thought it was imperative that messaging was delivered to seniors that would help them identify exploitation and connect them with services and support. Ms. Bowles declared how crucial it was for the Board to understand that housing was still one of the greatest challenges for guardianship. Many individuals were difficult to place and needed supportive housing, and increasing the supply of accessible housing would help people stay in their homes and communities longer. She believed it was important to provide housing support to separated individuals who lived alone as well as to people who experienced mental health challenges, as the community struggled in that area. She informed of an increase in occurrences of dementia for people in the 55- to 65-year age range. There was a lack of services for those individuals, with the exception of very restrictive placements in nursing home facilities, which the individual might not require.
Ms. Bowles explained the Supreme Court of Nevada’s Guardianship Commission was instrumental in changing guardianship laws within the State. She reported the Guardianship Commission had fallen into complacency, and she believed it was critical that the group be invigorated because it was possible that the region could regress regarding guardianship. She stated the laws in Nevada protected civil liberties by allowing every protected person to secure an attorney, participate in the process, be present at hearings, and connect with family members. She thought the laws allowed protected individuals to live in the least restrictive placements available, so it was crucial that Commissioners understood the importance of the Guardianship Commission, especially when they
interfaced with anyone connected to the Supreme Court of Nevada. The WCPG’s Office wanted the Guardianship Commission to make a robust comeback so it could continue to protect guardianship in the State.
Chair Hill expressed gratitude to Ms. Bowles and the WCPG team. She believed the Country’s awareness of the importance of guardianship increased after singer Britney Spears’s experience brought attention to the subject. She believed everyone should be proud of how the WCPG’s Office represented the community, and she commended the team for excelling at the difficult work it performed. She discussed the information Ms. Bowles presented regarding how the Board could support the WCPG’s Office. She confirmed the Supreme Court of Nevada oversaw the Guardianship Commission. Ms. Bowles explained the Guardianship Commission did not currently have a chair. Judge Egan Walker and Judge Linda Marquis had been co-chairs of the Guardianship Commission, but both recently resigned. She added Judge Walker resigned because he was focusing his efforts away from guardianship. Chair Hill posited that the Board could send a letter to the Supreme Court of Nevada. She assured the Board was actively pursuing solutions to the community’s housing needs.
Commissioner Garcia praised Ms. Bowles on her appointment to the NGA’s board. She appreciated that Ms. Bowles disclosed the observed gaps in the community, as it was helpful for the Board to hear. She said it took a special person to do the WCPG’s Office work, and she asked Ms. Bowles about the desired qualifications of an ideal candidate. Ms. Bowles shared that guardianship was unique because guardians addressed every area of a person’s life, so recruitment for the job was possible from many professional backgrounds. People with experience in the fields of medicine, nursing, legal, investigative, social work, and mental health could be exceptional at working with protected people in the field. She stated that a background in finance or eligibility could be valuable because the WCPG’s Office managed a lot of funds and had to account for every penny.
Commissioner Andriola thanked Ms. Bowles and her team and complimented their ability to navigate the profession’s challenges. She inquired about the ways in which the WCPG’s Office worked with other jurisdictions to leverage resources and opportunities. Ms. Bowles commented that collaboration was one of her favorite activities. When there were issues, she enjoyed locating collaborative solutions. She provided an example of this, which included the connections she forged on the NGA’s board. She was able to meet individuals involved in guardianship from across the Country and would typically receive useful recommendations within five minutes of contacting those individuals. She said people often reached out to her to discuss the WCPG Office’s policies and procedures, which she was willing to share. She mentioned that guardianship was a profession performed by lay people, family members, fictive kin, and professionals. The more people with whom resources could be shared, the more robust guardianship could be established across the Country. Ms. Bowles explained she communicated with public guardians from across the State, and they all routinely spoke about the State’s challenges with ensuring similarities when approaching legislative changes. They were all typically in agreement with how they desired legislative changes to occur.
Commissioner Clark thanked Ms. Bowles for the presentation and commended her team. He stated he worked with many senior residents and wondered if someone from the WCPG team could present to the Senior Advisory Board. He frequently visited the region’s senior centers, and he suggested that a presentation be provided to the community’s seniors at the senior centers. Ms. Bowles expressed pride regarding how often her staff volunteered at senior events because they believed it was valuable to visit other organizations. She commented that she would be happy to provide a presentation.
24-0421 8A1 Recommendation to accept donations [$300,000.00] from the Wilbur May Foundation: $200,000.00 restricted for Fiscal Year (FY) 25 general operating support of the Wilbur D. May Center, excluding all County overhead; and $100,000.00 restricted to support FY25 temporary exhibits at the Wilbur D. May Museum. Community Services. (Commission District 3.)
Commissioner Garcia mentioned that Wilbur D. May was a local rancher, businessman, and philanthropist who had a passion for helping children in the education of parks. She informed the donation was unique because it had been recurring on an annual basis since 1984.
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 8A1 be accepted.
24-0422 9A1 Approval of minutes for the Board of County Commissioners' regular meetings of May 14, May 21, and May 28, 2024. Clerk. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0423 9B1 Recommendation to 1) approve roll change requests, pursuant to NRS 361.765 and/or NRS 361.768, for errors discovered on the 2020/2021, 2021/2022, 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 secured and unsecured tax rolls 2) authorize Chair to execute the changes described in Exhibits A and B and
3) direct the Washoe County Treasurer to correct the error(s). [cumulative amount of decrease to all taxing entities $105,054.12]. Assessor. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0424 9C1 Recommendation to: 1) accept the State of Nevada, Division of State Parks Recreational Trails Program 2024-11 “Hidden Valley Trail System Improvements Phase 1” grant [in the amount of $87,588.00 with a Washoe County cash/in-kind match in the amount of $21,897.00]; and 2) approve the Project Agreement with a grant period from July 1, 2024 through
September 30, 2026; and 3) authorize the Assistant County Manager [Dave Solaro] to sign the Project Agreement and any subsequent documents related to the grant on behalf of the County; and 4) direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary budget amendments. Community Services. (Commission District 4.)
24-0425 9C2 Recommendation, pursuant to NRS 278.0262(c) and related authorities, to appoint the following members of the Washoe County Planning Commission to the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission for terms beginning July 1, 2024, and ending June 30 of the years identified in parentheses: Michael Flick (2027); Daniel Lazzareschi (2026); and Rob Pierce (2025); or until such time as successors are appointed, whichever occurs first. The current list of Regional Planning Commission alternates approved by the Board of County Commissioners are: First Alternate: Michael Flick, Second Alternate: Daniel Lazzareschi; Third Alternate: Rob Pierce, Fourth Alternate: Linda Kennedy. Community Services. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0426 9C3 Recommendation to adopt four resolutions accepting real property for use as public streets, which pertain to portions of two official plats and two irrevocable offers of dedications as listed below totaling 7.31 acres or 1.04 linear miles; and if approved, direct the Clerk’s Office to record the resolutions to accept: 1) R24-63 for a portion of the Blackstone Estates Unit 3, Tract Map 5454, recorded on November 3, 2021, as document number 5244597, being a portion of Slater Mill Drive, Chestnut Vine Drive, Central Falls Drive, and Grafton Drive, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN’s) 537- 571-14 & 534-724-03; approximately 2.240 acres or 0.45 linear miles; and
2) R24-64 for portion of the Official Plat of Eagle Canyon Ranch Unit 9C, Subdivision Tract Map 5473, recorded on February 9, 2022, as document number 5275781, being Three Forks Court, APN 532-402-20; approximately 0.72 acres or 0.12 linear miles; and 3) R24-65 for a portion of Concho Drive, as offered through an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication, recorded on May 21, 2024, as document number 5457345; APN 050-132-
15; approximately 0.36 acres or 0.06 linear miles; and 4) R24-66 for a portion of Village Parkway, as offered through an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication, recorded on May 21, 2024, as document number 547344, APN 087-281-04; approximately 3.99 acres or 0.41 linear miles. Community
Services. (Commission Districts 2, 4 & 5.)
24-0427 9C4 Recommendation to accept grant funding [$18,161.48 with no County match] for Fiscal Year 2024 from the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, received under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS Act) for the benefit of public schools and roads within Washoe County and direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary budget amendments. Community Services. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0428 9C5 Recommendation to approve the following easement deeds between Washoe County and the City of Reno to support Phase II Plumas Street Sidewalk Improvement Project: a temporary construction easement totaling
±32,284 square feet and a permanent public use easement totaling ±2,116 square feet on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 019-140-12, part of Washoe Golf Course; for no charge pursuant to NRS 277.053. The project will benefit the Washoe Golf Course by adding an accessible pedestrian route. Community Services. (Commission District 1.)
24-0429 9C7 Recommendation to approve the Chapter 95 Fine Schedule associated with Washoe County Code Chapter 95, Community Services Department (Regional Parks and Open Space), effective upon approval, as authorized under the citation authority of park enforcement officers pursuant to Washoe County Code, Chapter 125 (Enforcement, Remedies, Penalties). Community Services. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0430 9D1 Recommendation to approve Washoe County’s Indebtedness Report and accompanying schedules for fiscal year 2023/24 as of June 30, 2024, including general obligation and special assessment debt. If approved, staff will submit the report and schedules to the Washoe County Debt Management Commission and to the Nevada Department of Taxation by August 1, 2024, pursuant to NRS 350.013. Comptroller. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0431 9E1 Recommendation to approve and execute the Resolution R24-42 levying tax rates, certified by the Nevada Tax Commission, designating the number of cents of each $100 of property levied for all Washoe County entities for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 pursuant to NRS 361.460. The combined overlapping tax rate is limited to $3.64 on each $100 of assessed valuation, pursuant to NRS 364.453, plus an additional exempted amount of $0.02. Finance. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0432 9E2 Recommendation to approve Washoe County’s Debt Management Policy as of June 30, 2024 which includes (1) a discussion of the County’s ability to afford existing general obligation debt, authorized future general obligation debt and proposed future general obligation debt; (2) a discussion of the County’s capacity to incur authorized and proposed future general obligation debt without exceeding the applicable debt limit; (3) a discussion of the County’s general obligation debt that is payable from property taxes per capita as compared with such debt of other municipalities in this State;
(4) a discussion of the County’s general obligation debt that is payable from property taxes as a percentage of assessed valuation of all taxable property within the boundaries of the municipality; (5) policy regarding the manner in which the County’s expects to sell its debt; (6) a discussion of the County’s sources of money projected to be available to pay existing general
obligation debt, authorized future general obligation debt and proposed future general obligation debt; and (7) a discussion of the County’s operational costs and revenue sources, for the ensuing 5 fiscal years, associated with each project included in its capital improvement plan if those costs and revenues are expected to affect the property tax rate; and direction to staff to submit to the Department of Taxation and the county debt management commission the policy or a written statement of the County’s debt management policy on or before August 1 as required by NRS 350.013(1)(c). Finance. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0433 9F1 Recommendation to remove Casey Reed [District 3] from the Washoe County Senior Advisory Board, effective immediately, and to Appoint Mac Rossi [Alternate] to the At Large position vacated by Hawah Ahmed; and to recruit for vacant positions. Human Services Agency. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0434 9F2 Recommendation to approve Amendment #2 to an Interlocal Contract between Washoe County and Washoe County School District to provide support and access to social services and associated activities at the Family Resource Center at Proctor R. Hug High School for a total amount of [$98,000.00] for the period of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025 and authorizes Washoe County School District to apply unspent FY24 funds totaling [$10,000.00] toward the personnel expenditures of the same for a total amount not to exceed of [$108,000.00], and further authorizes Washoe County School District to apply any unspent FY25 funds toward future personnel expenditures of the same; and if approved, authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Manager to execute Amendment #2. Human Services Agency. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0435 9G1 Recommendation to accept FY25 Community Corrections Partnership Block Grant from the Department of Health and Human Services - Juvenile Justice Programs Office in the amount of [$320,004.78] to provide treatment and programming to youth referred to the Washoe County Department of Juvenile Services; for the period of 7/1/24-6/30/25 authorize Elizabeth Florez, Director of Juvenile Services to sign grant award and direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary budget amendments. No match required. Juvenile Services. (All Commission Districts).
24-0436 9G2 Recommendation to approve the acceptance of reimbursements from the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program for Fiscal Year 2024/25 for youth detained at the Wittenberg Hall Detention Facility [Estimated reimbursement $80,000]. Juvenile Services. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0437 9H1 Recommendation to accept the Inflation Reduction Act - Urban & Community Forestry sub-award from the State of Nevada, Division of Forestry in the amount of [$275,000.00; $25,000.00 indirect; no county
match required], effective from the date of acceptance through March 31, 2027 to support the launch of a County Community Forestry Program; authorize the Manager’s Office and Community Services Department to execute the subaward; direct the Comptroller’s office to make the necessary budget amendments; and authorize the creation of 0.52 FTE Community Forester (effective and contingent on JEC review and approval) funded 100% by the Inflation Reduction Act - Urban & Community Forestry sub- award for three years. As such, if grant funding is reduced or eliminated, the position hours will be reduced and/or the position will be abolished accordingly unless additional funding is secured; and direct the Human Resources Department to make the necessary staffing adjustments as evaluated by the Job Evaluation Committee. Manager's Office. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0438 9H2 Recommendation to approve, pursuant to NRS 244.1505, Commission District Special Fund disbursement in the amount of [$10,000.00] for Fiscal Year 2023-2024; District 3 Commissioner Mariluz Garcia recommends a [$5,000.00] grant to Eddy House -- a nonprofit organization created for charitable, religious, or educational purposes -- for the purpose of supporting the great work at the Eddy House; and a [$5,000.00] grant Truckee Meadows Parks Foundation a nonprofit organization created for charitable, religious, or educational purposes -- for the purpose of supporting the youth programs; approve Resolutions necessary for same; and direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary disbursements of funds. Manager's Office. (Commission District 3.)
24-0439 9H3 Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement between Washoe County and the City of Reno to equally share the total cost of security services provided by Allied Universal Security, including dispatch and video monitoring, with each entity paying 50% in an amount not to exceed $133,879.00 annually, for a 1-year retroactive term effective July 1, 2023, and ending on June 30, 2024, with automatic 1-year renewal terms unless terminated by either party. This funding is for a dispatcher at Allied Universal Security who provides services to both the City and County Security Patrol officers on overnight and weekend shifts at city and county facilities. Manager's Office. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0440 9H4 Recommendation to approve a Letter of Intent for the FFY 2024 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG). Letter of Intent is stating the State of Nevada, Division of Emergency Management (NDEM) is awarding [$86,272.17, $86,272.17County match required] for FFY 2024 including funds to be used for travel; retroactive from October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2025; If approved authorize the County Manager or his designee to sign the grant award documents when received; and direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary budget amendments. Manager's Office. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0441 9I1 Recommendation to approve budget amendments totaling an increase of [$5,000] in both revenues and expenditures to the FY24 Safe Sleep Survival Kits Program Donation account and direct the Comptroller’s office to make the appropriate budget amendments. Northern Nevada Public Health. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0442 9I2 Recommendation to approve budget amendments totaling an increase of [$9,793.82] in both revenues and expenditures to the FY24 Burning Man Program Donation account and direct the Comptroller’s office to make the appropriate budget amendments. Northern Nevada Public Health. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0443 9J1 Recommendation to accept a Division of Public and Behavioral Health amended award, subgrant # SG 26143-1, as administered through State of Nevada, Bureau of Behavioral Health and Wellness and Prevention, [amount of $31,722.00, no County match required] effective July, 1 2023 through December 31, 2024 to fund the implementation of a new Electronic Health Records system to be used by the Mobile Outreach Safety Team and if approved, retroactively authorize Sheriff Balaam to execute grant award documents; direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary budget amendments. Sheriff. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0444 9K1 Authorize Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District employees and volunteers to drive Washoe County vehicles while conducting official business of either Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District or Washoe County for FY 24/25. District employees and volunteers will maintain their status as employees and volunteers of the District. The District will name the County as an additional insured. TMFPD. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0445 9L1 Recommendation to approve the acceptance of the Secretary of States Budgets appropriation to Washoe County in the amount of [$170,861.24] for printing ballots, mailing and expenses for the 2024 Presidential Preference Primary Election (NRS 278.710). No match required. The award period is retroactive from February 1, 2024, through June 30, 2024. If approved, direct the Comptroller’s Department to make the necessary budget amendments. Voters. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0446 9L2 Recommendation to approve the acceptance of the Secretary of State’s budget appropriation to Washoe County in the amount of [$160,531] to reimburse the county for voting equipment licensing and support fees for fiscal year 2024. No match required. The award period is retroactive from July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024. If approved, direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary budget amendments. Voters. (All Commission Districts.)
Commissioner Clark requested that Agenda Item 9C6 be pulled from the Consent Agenda for questions. He wished to discuss the agenda item after receiving an email from a constituent in the Hidden Valley area who expressed concern about having not been notified about the referenced construction. He wanted details regarding the process for notifying residents who would be affected by the proposal. Community Services Department (CSD) Park Planner Faye-Marie Pekar explained the project outlined in Agenda Item 9C6 was a part of the Parkland Easement Application that was received through the Open Space and Regional Park Commission. Notice through the Open Space and Regional Park Commission was the first step, and the approval of the Easement Exchange Agreement by the Board was the second step. If the Easement Exchange Agreement was approved, it would go before the Open Space and Regional Park Commission through the CSD’s Parkland Easement Application for review. A discussion would take place about the Parkland Easement Application with Nevada State Parks and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), since there were deed restrictions on the property. Ms. Pekar noted there were several phases that had not yet occurred, and the public could be involved during those phases. She mentioned if the deed restrictions were removed, and the Easement Exchange Agreement progressed onward, the proposal would require a rezoning through a development case review by the Planning and Building Division. At that point, a neighborhood meeting would be organized, and public feedback would be solicited.
Commissioner Clark read from a written comment from a constituent indicating that no notice was given to Hidden Valley residents, particularly those who would be impacted should the Easement Exchange Agreement be approved. Furthermore, Sunny Hills Ranchos was requesting an easement to four lots; however, there were 40 additional lots that might be approved at some point, further impacting traffic and the peaceful existence of the Hidden Valley residents and the ease of access for future residents. The commenter stated the impacts to the Hidden Valley community and the tranquility of Hidden Valley Regional Park did not appear to have been considered. Additionally, it seemed as though the pipeline could possibly be placed beneath Loma Vista Lane without causing significant harm to the community. Commissioner Clark indicated he had the commenter’s contact information and offered to share it with Ms. Pekar so she could contact the individual to explain what steps might occur, to which Ms. Pekar assured she would. Ms. Pekar mentioned she participated in discussions with the commenter before and said a newsletter was released through the County’s Communications Team for the Hidden Valley Community Alliance. The newsletter contained more general information on the proposal. Commissioner Clark stated the commenter was active and well-respected in the Hidden Valley community and emphasized the importance of listening to the commenter's input on the matter.
Ms. Pekar clarified the proposed development from Sunny Hills Ranchos consisted of only four homes at this point and pointed out the staff report included a proposed concept map of the finished development. She indicated the concept map had not yet undergone a personal map application for the construction of a full development plan. She explained a trail parcel dedicated to the County would surround the four parcels, and the development would essentially be limited to the footprint of the four proposed homes.
Ms. Pekar mentioned the developer’s representative was available to respond to questions. She said the development failed to meet the required threshold for a traffic impact study, so no concern was identified in regards to the impact on traffic in the neighborhood. Commissioner Clark remarked that the impact on traffic appeared to be a concern to the commenter; therefore, it was a concern of his. He asked Ms. Pekar to contact the commenter to engage in a discussion on the matter.
Commissioner Garcia moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 9A1 through 9L2. Vice Chair Herman seconded the motion.
On the call for public comment, Mr. Dule Doerr shared he lived at the end of Mia Vista Drive and voiced his concern regarding the traffic in relation to Agenda Item 9C6. He mentioned he read the staff report and communicated the Hidden Valley residents’ concerns about wildland fire and the response time necessary for the Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District (TMFPD) to reach the area in the event of an emergency. He explained his location was at the end of a long cul-de-sac, which was the Mia Vista Neighborhood Park. Mr. Doerr said the proposed access road was in an unsafe location mainly due to inadequate site distance and the excessive cul-de-sac length. He asserted the road as proposed was not legal per the County’s design standards. He stated the road would essentially extend Mia Vista Drive and indicated it was already 1,300 feet long. With the addition of the access road, he pointed out the total length would be roughly 2,100 lineal feet. Mr. Doerr informed the maximum street length in the County was 1,500 lineal feet per the design standards. He added the existing road did not have emergency access. He said the addition of four lots made the development illegal based on the County standards, as the maximum number of homes permitted on a cul-de-sac was currently 30, or 300 average daily trips. He claimed the plan exceeded the maximum limit by 20 average daily trips. He stated the proposed easement exchange showed a road connection between a private subdivision and a public park, which would be highly unusual. He questioned if that was the precedent the County wished to establish with developers in the future. Mr. Doerr brought attention to section six of the County’s 2012 Parkland Easement Policy and Procedures outlining prohibited non-park uses, including any new use or activity not in compliance with local ordinances. He asserted the proposed road was required to comply with those policies and procedures since it was within park borders, but it was not currently in compliance. He reported the Hidden Valley water tank application studied three site locations within the park border, with only one reclaimed water main route. Mr. Doerr suggested Loma Vista Lane as a more suitable alternative.
Ms. Charmaine Doerr was addressing Agenda Item 9C6 and indicated she lived on Mia Vista Drive. She mentioned her residence was directly across the street from the location of the proposed access road. She indicated the proposed Sunny Hills Ranchos access road was located on Pony Road, which was only 120 feet in length and approximately 60 feet away from the end of Loma Vista Lane and the terminus of Mia Vista Drive. Ms. Doerr stated the County’s design requirement between two local streets was 200 feet. She commented that there was an existing problem with vehicles speeding around both corners onto Pony Road due to the limited sight distance. As the most impacted homeowner due to the location of her residence, she expressed trepidation regarding the
potential of errant vehicles missing the turn and colliding with her property. Additionally, if a vehicle avoided hitting someone exiting Loma Vista Lane while successfully completing the 90-degree turn, the vehicle would certainly encounter pedestrians and other vehicles entering and exiting the Hidden Valley Regional Park entrance at the end of Mia Vista Drive. Ms. Doerr said the existing stop sign did not mitigate this problem, as vehicles constantly failed to stop, and she had witnessed several serious near misses in that area. She added that walking up to the Hidden Valley Regional Park and crossing in front of Pony Road was potentially dangerous. She asserted the proposal should not be approved due to the illegal and dangerous intersection of Pony Road, the proposed access road, and the ends of Mia Vista Drive and Loma Vista Lane. She commented that the proposal was progressing forward without consideration for the residents’ homes and safety because of Sunny Hills Ranchos’ determination to develop its landlocked property as well as the County’s lack of foresight and poor planning. Ms. Doerr claimed the development was a desperate attempt by the landowner and an ill-planned proposal for developing property that would not otherwise be accessed without incurring significant expense. She thanked the Board for its time.
Mr. Wayne Shaffer indicated he was a 20-year Hidden Valley resident and was commenting in regard to Agenda Item 9C6. He voiced his preference for the Sunny Hills Ranchos property to be covered in sagebrush rather than houses. He cited the details of the proposed access to the Hidden Valley Regional Park and stated his understanding was that the lack of an access easement would preclude the development for Sunny Hills Ranchos. Mr. Shaffer stated the proposed easement exchange agreement provided that the County, through its Parks and Open Space Department staff, agreed to support and recommend approval of all applications related to the agreement. Additionally, the County was to proceed expeditiously to obtain all federal and State approvals for the road access easement. He said it was unusual for the County staff to advocate for obtaining an access easement on behalf of a developer. Mr. Shaffer shared that during the process of amending the Regional Parks and Open Space Master Plan, the staff informed the Hidden Valley residents that Sunny Hills Ranchos was considering the development of approximately 20 to 22 lots on the property. He noted this was unwelcome news. He stated Sunny Hills Ranchos currently appeared to limit development to four lots. He questioned what would prevent Sunny Hills Ranchos from adding more lots later once it obtained an access easement. Mr. Shaffer asked why the terms reflected in Exhibit A of the agenda materials were not described in the agreement. He prefaced that the Board and Sunny Hill Ranchos should readily respond in the affirmative to three questions he posed. He asked whether it was accurate that Exhibit A reflected that Sunny Hills Ranchos would not develop more than four multi-acre single-family residences, that Exhibit A indicated the four lots would not be connected by any road to any other parcels owned by Sunny Hills Ranchos, and that Sunny Hills Ranchos would grant the County a trail access parcel, as depicted by the white dashes in Exhibit A. Mr. Shaffer asked if Sunny Hills Ranchos would still provide the dedicated trail access if the Parkland Easement Application was denied. He declared the proposed access road was a major event that would impact those living near the south entrance of the Hidden Valley Regional Park. He requested that the Board advocate for the Hidden Valley community concerning all aspects of the proposed agreement.
Ms. Vicki Parson stated she lived on Quarterhorse Circle in Rancho Haven at the north end of Red Rock Road. Referencing Agenda Item 9K1, she asked if the item included the fire vehicles currently garaged at the Red Rock Volunteer Fire Department in Rancho Haven. She questioned if the Board could assure her of the availability of the vehicles assigned to the Red Rock Volunteer Fire Department in the event of a local emergency in the Rancho Haven area. She further asked if, alternatively, the vehicles would be elsewhere because it had been decided that the larger populated areas needed them instead. Ms. Parson expressed concern regarding the unavailability of fire trucks if a fire or a medical emergency occurred in the northern Red Rock area because they were driven to another part of the County. She noted the Rancho Haven area was in a distant location from any city services and commented that keeping the fire vehicles ready for the Red Rock Volunteer Fire Department to use in an emergency seemed prudent. She informed there were hundreds of homes located in the area that depended on and supported the volunteer fire department. Ms. Parson’s understanding was that there were three to four new volunteers who received the training and the certifications necessary to join the Red Rock Volunteer Fire Department, but they were not yet approved. She inquired about the reason for the delay. She noted a challenging fire season appeared to be underway and emphasized the need for the new volunteers to promptly start their duties. She invited TMFPD Chief Charles Moore to speak to the Rancho Haven community and provide his perspective on the future related to response times, support for the Red Rock Volunteer Fire Department, and any possible changes that would affect the Rancho Haven residents’ safety. She thanked the Board.
County Clerk Jan Galassini advised the Board she received emailed public comments which were placed on file.
Ms. Penny Brock conveyed her concern about the inclusion of too many items on the Consent Agenda, which only allowed members of the public a total of three minutes to comment on any items included in the Consent Agenda. Addressing Agenda Item 9E1, she indicated that in some counties, anytime a government entity intended to raise taxes on the properties, the increase needed to be presented to the voters. She said that ability was not available to County or State residents. Ms. Brock noted the increase in property taxes each year and the concern regarding rising inflation. She mentioned people were using their credit cards to pay for groceries, sometimes resulting in their lines of credit being expended. She expressed particular concern about the struggling young families and the senior residents. She mentioned that senior citizens were on a fixed income and questioned how they would be affected by the property tax increase. Ms. Brock indicated the amount that the property taxes could be increased each year was specified in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). She asserted the County did not need to raise the property taxes and could keep them at the same rate. She said there was a two-cent tax that was exempted. She stated the increases over a homeowner’s life could be substantial. Ms. Brock acknowledged there was nothing the Board could do about the matter, but she wanted to inform the Board about the concern regarding the property tax increase. She referenced Agenda Item 9L1 and expressed disapproval toward Runbeck Election Services’ performance during the recent election. She reiterated her desire from a previous meeting to cancel the contract with Runbeck Election Services and use the State printing shop in
Carson City and a local mail house. Referencing Agenda Item 9L2, Ms. Brock said the County would be paying Dominion Voting late, and the Board would need to vote to renew the contract. She stated there were several problems related to the Dominion Voting system.
Commissioner Andriola clarified with Chair Hill that Commissioner Garcia’s motion pertained to Consent Agenda Items 9A1 through 9L2, including 9C6. Chair Hill said that was her understanding and advised if Commissioner Andriola wished to pull Agenda Item 9C6 for additional discussion, she would need to ask Commissioner Garcia to amend her motion. Commissioner Garcia agreed to amend her motion to exclude Agenda Item 9C6 from the approval of the Consent Agenda, and Vice Chair Herman supported seconding the amended motion.
* * * * * * * * * * * See Agenda Item 9C6 for additional discussion and the
motion for Agenda Item 9C6, minute number 24-0447.
* * * * * * * * * * *
On motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Vice Chair Herman, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Consent Agenda Items 9A1 through 9L2, with the exclusion of Item 9C6, be approved. Any and all Resolutions or Interlocal Agreements pertinent to Consent Agenda Items 9A1 through 9L2, with the exclusion of Item 9C6, are attached hereto and made a part of the minutes thereof.
24-0447 9C6 Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to approve an Easement Exchange Agreement with Sunny Hills Ranchos over Hidden Valley Regional Park Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 051-330-01; to provide access to Sunny Hills Ranchos property APNs 016-840-11, 016- 840-12, 016-840-13 and 016-840-14 in exchange for a Facilities Easement to Washoe County that supports the construction of a water tank and associated infrastructure at Hidden Valley Regional Park for the storage and distribution of recycled water from the South Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility and; direct staff to apply for an Nevada State Parks Land and Water Conservation Fund Conversion of Use and Bureau of Land Management Third Party Uses or Reversionary Interest application for the proposed access parcel. Community Services. (Commission District 4.)
Commissioner Andriola mentioned her familiarity with the agenda item, as she was in contact with the commenter that Commissioner Clark previously referenced. She stated the commenter’s understanding was that the entire process would be reviewed, and the residents would be noticed so they could participate in the discussion to a great extent, which Commissioner Andriola did not believe had been done. She noted the County staff had provided a lot of detail, and there was a lot of communication among the staff clarifying that same point. She engaged in discussions with the staff about providing an
explanation to the Hidden Valley residents through the Hidden Valley Community Alliance newsletter, but she indicated it was evident that timing did not catch up with all of the clarifications. She asked that the Board table the agenda item and add it to a future agenda.
On motion by Commissioner Andriola, seconded by Commissioner Clark, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 9C6 be tabled.
* * * * * * * * * * *
See Consent Agenda Items for additional discussion on Agenda Item 9C6, minute number 24-0446.
* * * * * * * * * * *
24-0448 AGENDA ITEM 10 Recommendation to approve the asset reassignment of multiple vehicles from various Washoe County Departments to Equipment Services Fund; and direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the appropriate asset adjustments [estimated net $1,386,196.78]. Community Services. (All Commission Districts.)
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 10 be approved and directed.
24-0449 AGENDA ITEM 11 Recommendation to award a bid and approve the Agreement to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for the 2024/2025 Slurry Seal for Selected Streets in Washoe County, PWP-WA-2024-304, including the Base Bid, Bid Alternate 1 (additional micro and chip seal), Bid Alternates 2 (additional micro and chip seal), Bid Alternate 3 (Variable Depth Micro Mill), and Bid Alternate 4 (Jan Evans Juvenile Justice Center parking lot maintenance) [staff recommends Sierra Nevada Construction in the amount of $3,031,007.00]; and approve a separate project contingency fund [in the amount of $150,000.00]. Slurry seal is defined as the application of water, asphalt emulsion, aggregate, and additives to an existing asphaltic concrete surface as a preventative maintenance treatment to extend pavement service life while providing a safe riding surface for the traveling public. Community Services. (Commission Districts 1, 2, 3 and 5.)
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 11 be awarded and approved.
24-0450 AGENDA ITEM 12 Recommendation to approve the fiscal year 2025 [payment of $318,801] which constitutes Washoe County’s share in annual funding for the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency (TMRPA) pursuant to NRS 278.0264(7) and an adopted interlocal agreement. The total amount will be paid to TMRPA in quarterly installments with the first occurring on July 1, 2024. Community Services. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 12 be approved.
24-0451 AGENDA ITEM 13 Recommendation to authorize the Comptroller’s Office to renew the Excess Workers’ Compensation Insurance Policy with Safety National for a one-year term with an estimated annual premium of [$415,946] effective July 1, 2024, and authorize the Comptroller’s Office to sign the applications and agreements necessary to bind coverage, funding from the Risk Management Fund source. Comptroller. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 13 be authorized.
24-0452 AGENDA ITEM 14 Recommendation to authorize the Comptroller’s Office to renew Property, Auto Physical Damage, Boiler & Machinery, Mobile Equipment, Cyber Liability and Pollution Liability with the Public Entity Property Insurance Program (PEPIP) for a one-year term with an estimated annual cost of [$1,681,743] effective July 1, 2024, and authorize the Comptroller’s Office to sign the applications and agreements necessary to bind coverage, funding from the Risk Management Fund source. Comptroller. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 14 be authorized.
24-0453 AGENDA ITEM 15 Recommendation to authorize the Comptroller’s Office to renew the Excess Liability Insurance Policy with Safety National Casualty Corporation for a one-year term with an estimated annual cost not to exceed [$489,000] effective July 1, 2024, and authorize the Comptroller’s Office to sign the applications and agreements necessary to bind coverage, funding from the Risk Management Fund source.
Comptroller. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 15 be authorized.
24-0454 AGENDA ITEM 16 Information and acknowledgement of receipt by the Board of County Commissioners of contracts and purchases that have exceeded or are expected to exceed [$300,000.00] that may include services and supplies for all County departments. Pursuant to Washoe County Code 15.490, the purchasing and contracts manager is authorized, subject to the provisions of Washoe County Code and the applicable provision of state law, to approve purchases and contracts up to [$300,000]. As a matter of best practices, the purchasing and contracts manager will keep the Board of County Commissioners informed of all contracts and purchases for all county departments that have been previously approved that have exceeded or are expected to exceed the threshold amount. A full list of specific contracts, vendors, and amounts is viewable in the staff report. The aggregate amount of known expenditures under these contracts to date is or will be $3,419,469.55 Comptroller. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 16 be acknowledged.
24-0455 AGENDA ITEM 17 Recommendation to: 1) approve the settlement in Kimberley Frankel v. Washoe County et al, Case No. 3:24-cv-0061 for a total sum of $300,001.00 for all claims against all Washoe County defendants; and 2) approve the use of General Fund Contingency in the amount of $300,001.00 to increase expenditure authority within the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office departmental budget in support of said claim. This is an employment lawsuit arising out of Ms. Frankel’s position with the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office in which she has argued claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and various state laws against Washoe County, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Balaam, (former) Undersheriff Herrera, and Comptroller Cathy Hill and; if approved, direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary budget appropriation transfers [Total fiscal year 2024 impact $300,001.00; net fiscal impact $-0-
]. Comptroller. (All Commission Districts.) District Attorney. (All Commission Districts.) FOR POSSIBLE ACTION
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 17 be approved and directed.
24-0456 AGENDA ITEM 18 Recommendation to approve the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Washoe County Sheriff’s Supervisory Deputies Association (WCSSDA) bargaining unit for the four (4) year period beginning July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2028; including a salary adjustment effective July 1, 2024 [FY 24/25 estimated fiscal impact
$3,535,296; FY 25/26 estimated fiscal impact $3,535,296]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 2.75% effective July 1, 2026 [FY 26/27 estimated fiscal impact $3,632,517]; and a salary adjustment of approx. 4.75% plus a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3% effective July 1, 2027 [FY 27/28 estimated fiscal impact $4,031,458]; and updated agreement language regarding preamble, rights of association, holidays, sick leave, longevity, education incentive pay, assignment differential pays, and duration of agreement [estimated fiscal impact $1,345,367 for four (4) years]. [Total estimated fiscal impact is $16,079,934]. Human Resources. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 18 be approved.
24-0457 AGENDA ITEM 19 Recommendation to approve Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Washoe County Sheriff’s Deputies Association (WCSDA) bargaining unit for the four (4) year period beginning July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2028; including a salary adjustment of approximately 10% plus a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3% effective July 1, 2024 [FY 24/25 estimated fiscal impact $7,280,061]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% plus the addition of a new pay Step 8 effective July 1, 2025 [FY 25/26 estimated fiscal impact $9,157,034]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 2.75% effective July 1, 2026 [FY 26/27 estimated fiscal impact $9,561,925]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3% plus the addition of a new pay Step 9 effective July 1, 2027 [FY 27/28 estimated fiscal impact $10,082,038];and updated agreement language regarding rights of association, holidays, sick leave, job connected injuries, longevity, safety equipment, education incentives, promotional exams, and duration of agreement [estimated fiscal impact
$1,305,148 for all years]. [Total estimated fiscal impact is $37,386,206]. Human Resources. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 19 be approved.
24-0458 AGENDA ITEM 20 Recommendation to approve Collective Bargaining Agreements with the Washoe County Employees Association (WCEA) for the Non-Supervisory and Supervisory bargaining units for the four (4) year period beginning July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2028; including cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3% effective July 1, 2024 [FY 24/25 estimated fiscal impact $4,282,197 Non-Supervisory; $1,737,793 Supervisory]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% beginning July 1, 2025 [FY 25/26 estimated fiscal impact $4,421,368 Non- Supervisory; $1,794,272 Supervisory]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.5% beginning July 1, 2026 [FY 26/27 estimated fiscal impact
$4,576,116 Non-Supervisory; $1,857,071 Supervisory]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% beginning July 1, 2027 [FY 27/28 estimated fiscal impact $4,724,840 Non-Supervisory; $1,917,426 Supervisory]; and changes to retiree medical premiums [estimated fiscal impact $600,000 Non-Supervisory; $330,000 Supervisory for all years], and updated agreement language regarding employee representatives, salaries of personnel, meal periods and breaks, overtime, holidays, vacation, sick and parental leave, health plan, shift bidding, examinations, uniform and clothing, job classification, assignment differential, and duration of agreement [estimated fiscal impact $224,832 for all years]. [Total estimated fiscal impact for all fiscal years is $26,465,915]. Human Resources. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 20 be approved.
24-0459 AGENDA ITEM 21 Recommendation to approve for the Confidential Undersheriff and Chief Deputy Sheriffs a salary adjustment effective July 1, 2024 [FY 24/25 estimated fiscal impact $260,730; FY 25/26 estimated fiscal impact $260,730]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 2.75% effective July 1, 2026 [FY 26/27 estimated fiscal impact $267,900]; and a salary adjustment of approx. 4.75% plus a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3% effective July 1, 2027 [FY 27/28 estimated fiscal impact
$288,662]; and updated agreement language regarding holidays, sick leave, longevity, and education incentive pay [estimated fiscal impact $3,721for four (4) years]. [Total estimated fiscal impact is $1,081,743]. Human Resources. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 21 be approved.
24-0460 AGENDA ITEM 22 Recommendation to approve Collective Bargaining Agreements with the Washoe County Nurses’ Association (WCNA) for the Non-Supervisory and Supervisory bargaining units for the four (4) year period beginning July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2028; including cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3% effective July 1, 2024 [FY24/25 estimated fiscal impact $75,667 Non-Supervisory; $20,576 Supervisory]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% beginning July 1, 2025 [FY25/26 estimated fiscal impact $78,126 Non-Supervisory; $21,244 Supervisory]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.5% beginning July 1, 2026 [FY26/27 estimated fiscal impact $80,860 Non-Supervisory;
$21,988 Supervisory]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% beginning July 1, 2027 [FY27/28 estimated fiscal impact $83,488 Non- Supervisory; $22,703 Supervisory]; and changes to retiree medical premiums [estimated fiscal impact $-0- Non-Supervisory; $-0- Supervisory]; and eight (8) hours of personal leave credit effective July 2024, and sixteen (16) hours of personal leave credit in January of each of the calendar years 2025, 2026, 2027, and 2028 [estimated fiscal impact $- 0-]; and updated agreement language regarding salaries including the addition of a 5% Hazard Duty Pay, standby, holidays, vacation, sick leave, health plan, perquisite pay, classifications, and duration of agreement [estimated fiscal impact $21,600]. [Total estimated fiscal impact for all fiscal years is $426,252.] Human Resources. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 22 be approved.
24-0461 AGENDA ITEM 23 Recommendation to approve Collective Bargaining Agreements with the Washoe County Alternative Sentencing Officers Association (WCASOA) for the Non-Supervisory and Supervisory bargaining units for the four (4) year period beginning July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2028; including cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3% effective July 1, 2024 [FY 24/25 estimated fiscal impact $26,575 Non- Supervisory; $10,310 Supervisory]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% beginning July 1, 2025 [FY 25/26 estimated fiscal impact
$27,439 Non-Supervisory; $10,645 Supervisory]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.5% beginning July 1, 2026 [FY 26/27 estimated fiscal impact $28,399 Non-Supervisory; $11,017 Supervisory]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% beginning July 1, 2027 [FY 27/28 estimated fiscal impact $29,322 Non-Supervisory; $11,376 Supervisory]; and changes to retiree medical premiums [estimated fiscal impact $-0- Non-Supervisory; $-0- Supervisory for all years], and updated
agreement language regarding rights of the association, work hours, annual leave, sick leave, holidays, training, classifications, and term of agreement [estimated fiscal impact $286,965 for all years], and for the non-represented Chief Alternative Sentencing Officer [FY 24/25 estimated fiscal impact
$6,998; 25/26 estimated fiscal impact $7,225; FY 26/27 estimated fiscal impact $7,478; FY 27/28 estimated fiscal impact $7,721; and $73,553 for updated education incentive for all years]. [Total estimated fiscal impact for all fiscal years is $545,023]. Human Resources. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 23 be approved.
24-0462 AGENDA ITEM 24 Recommendation to approve Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) with the Washoe County District Attorney’s Investigator Association (WCDAIA) for the Non-Supervisory and Supervisory bargaining units for the four (4) year period beginning July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2028; including a salary adjustment plus a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3% effective July 1, 2024 [FY 24/25 estimated fiscal impact $259,495 Non-Supervisory; $51,899 Supervisory]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% beginning July 1, 2025 [FY 25/26 estimated fiscal impact $267,929 Non-Supervisory; $53,586 Supervisory]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.5% beginning July 1, 2026 [FY 26/27 estimated fiscal impact $277,306 Non-Supervisory;
$55,461 Supervisory]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% beginning July 1, 2027 [FY 27/28 estimated fiscal impact $286,319 Non- Supervisory; $57,263 Supervisory]; and updated agreement language regarding work hours, annual leave, sick leave, salaries, holidays, bilingual pay, training, insurance, grievance, classifications, and term of agreement [estimated fiscal impact $199,042 for all fiscal years]; and approve same salaries, annual leave, sick leave, bi-lingual pay, training and holidays for the non-represented Chief Investigator (DA) [FY 24/25 estimated fiscal impact $48,915; 25/26 estimated fiscal impact $50,504; FY 26/27 estimated fiscal impact $52,272; FY 27/28 estimated fiscal impact $53,970; and
$55,585 for updated education incentive for all years]. [Total estimated fiscal impact is $1,769,546]. Human Resources. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 24 be approved.
24-0463 AGENDA ITEM 25 Recommendation to approve Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Washoe County Public Attorneys’ Association (WCPAA) for a four (4) year period beginning July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2028; including cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3% effective July 1, 2024 [FY 24/25 estimated fiscal impact $758,802]; an additional cost of living adjustment of 0.25% for employees with more than ten years of continuous county service effective July 1, 2024 [FY 24/25 estimated fiscal impact $64,174 for all years]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% beginning July 1, 2025 [FY 25/26 estimated fiscal impact
$783,463]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.5% beginning July 1, 2026 [FY 26/27 estimated fiscal impact $810,884]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% beginning July 1, 2027 [FY 27/28 estimated fiscal impact $837,238]; and changes to retiree medical premiums [estimated fiscal impact $702,330 for all fiscal years], and update agreement language regarding annual leave, sick and parental leave, salaries, holidays, perquisite pay, career incentive pay, classifications, and terms of agreement [estimated fiscal impact $750,791 for all fiscal years]; and approve same for Confidential Attorneys [FY 24/25 estimated fiscal impact $196,576; FY 25/26 estimated fiscal impact $202,120; FY 26/27 estimated fiscal impact
$208,284; FY27/28 estimated fiscal impact $214,208; retiree medical premiums $194,664 for all years]. [Total estimated fiscal impact for all fiscal years is $5,723,534]. Human Resources. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 25 be approved.
24-0464 AGENDA ITEM 26 Recommendation to approve Cost of Living Adjustments in base wage of 3% effective July 1, 2024 [FY24/25 estimated fiscal impact $2,115,167]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% beginning July 1, 2025 [FY25/26 estimated fiscal impact
$2,183,910]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.5% beginning July 1, 2026 [FY26/27 estimated fiscal impact $2,260,346]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% beginning July 1, 2027 [FY27/28 estimated fiscal impact $2,333,808]; changes to retiree medical premiums [estimated fiscal impact $525,000 for all years]; and optional changes to vacation accrual rates for Unclassified Management, Non-Represented Confidential employees, Second Judicial District Court employees, Justice Courts employees (excluding Justices of the Peace), Juvenile Services employees, and Truckee River Flood Management Authority’s Executive Director and General Counsel as outlined in their department Personnel Manuals; and uniform allowance for the non-represented confidential Supervising Veterinarian classification.[Estimated fiscal impact $1,440 for all years]. [Estimated total fiscal impact $9,419,671]. Human Resources. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 26 be approved.
24-0465 AGENDA ITEM 28 Recommendation to award Request For Proposal (RFP) 3239-24 for the Programs Facility Operator at the Kids Kottage Campus to the only responsive and responsible bidder, Adams and Associates, Inc. (formerly Core Dynamics, LLC), for the term of 12 (twelve) months commencing July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025 in an amount not to exceed [$4,375,000], with the provision for up to four (4), one (1) year renewals; and if approved authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Manager to execute the Agreement. Human Services Agency. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 28 be awarded, approved, and authorized.
24-0466 AGENDA ITEM 31 Recommendation to modify prior approved allocations of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds through the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund and Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) for the following project:
Second Judicial District Court - Family Peace Center - Project #35, approved September 13, 2022, for a total amount of $480,281. The Family Peace Center provides access to supervised visitation and exchange services for families dealing with court matters at the Second Judicial District Court. And, if approved, authorize Human Resources, to modify existing Family Peace Center Coordinator position #70000126 currently funded part-time at 1092 (.5250 FTE) hours to funded to full-time for 2080 hours (1.0 FTE) per a year effective July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2026. This represents an estimated annual increase of $68,939 over the $76,195 that was already approved for this purpose (net-zero impact, no additional funding is requested). Manager's Office. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 31 be modified and authorized.
24-0467 AGENDA ITEM 32 Recommendation to approve Cost of Living Adjustments in base wage of 3% effective July 1, 2024 [FY 24/25 estimated fiscal impact $120,177]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% beginning July 1, 2025 [FY 25/26 estimated fiscal impact $124,083]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.5% beginning July 1, 2026 [FY 26/27 estimated fiscal impact $128,426]; a cost of living adjustment in base wages of 3.25% beginning July 1, 2027 [FY 27/28 estimated fiscal impact
$132,600] for the Justices of the Peace of Reno, Sparks, Wadsworth, and Incline Justice Court. [Estimated total fiscal impact $505,286]. Sparks Justice Court. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 32 be approved.
24-0468 AGENDA ITEM 27 Recommendation to appoint one candidate from the pool of applicants to serve as the Washoe County Citizen Representative on the Washoe County HOME Consortium (WCHC) Technical Review Committee (TRC). This position is to fill a current vacancy for a partial three-year term beginning July 1, 2024 and ending on June 30, 2026. Applicants include Ross W Kinson, Austin Pollard, and Deneta Thomas. Comprised of the City of Reno, the City of Sparks and Washoe County, the WCHC makes loans available for the development of affordable housing units and allocates funds to housing assistance programs, in order to assist lower income families and individuals, including homeless and special needs groups, to obtain affordable housing. Human Services Agency. (All Commission Districts.)
Community Outreach Coordinator Alexandra Wilson instructed the Commissioners to vote for their top candidate choice by ballot.
Vice Chair Herman asked if any of the candidates planned to speak before the Board. Chair Hill stated that she had hoped applicants would sign in during public comment, but none of them had.
County Clerk Jan Galassini read the Commissioner votes aloud, naming Mr.
Ross W. Kinson as the selected candidate.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Chair Hill, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Ross W. Kinson be appointed to the Washoe County HOME Consortium Technical Review Committee for a term beginning July 1, 2024, and ending June 30, 2026.
24-0469 AGENDA ITEM 30 Recommendation, pursuant to NRS 701B.990, to nominate at least two candidates from the list of applicants to the Governor for appointment to the Board of Directors of the Nevada Clean Energy Fund to fill a term of three (3) years from the date of appointment. Applicants include Shuaib Abdullah, Chris King, Robert Laurie, Jonathan Salkoff, and McCade Wing. Manager's Office. (All Commission Districts.)
Community Outreach Coordinator Alexandra Wilson instructed the Commissioners to vote to nominate two candidates for the Nevada Clean Energy Fund Board of Directors position.
On the call for public comment, Mr. Robert Laurie stated he was passionate about the energy industry. He declared he had two primary interests in serving on the Board of Directors of the Nevada Clean Energy Fund. His first concern was energy emergency planning, which planned for substantial power outages of greater than three days. He remarked that three or more days without power was catastrophic for communities, as it meant gas stations could not pump fuel, hospitals would run out of emergency fuel, and community gathering places would be out of backup generation. Mr. Laurie thought a solution to such issues was mobile renewable energy sources that could go to specific sites for emergency power generation. His second concern was microgrids, which were systems of renewable energy brought into singular projects to separate them from the power grid. He declared such systems were not currently possible for large projects but thought that could change in the future, minimizing the need for long transmission systems. He declared his qualifications were outlined in the staff report and thanked the Board for its time.
Commissioner Andriola opined that the candidate pool was incredibly talented. She appreciated Ms. Wilson’s continual work to find people who were not only interested but qualified to serve on the County’s various boards and commissions.
County Clerk Jan Galassini read the Commissioner votes aloud, naming Chris King and Robert Laurie as the top two candidates.
On motion by Commissioner Andriola, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Chris King and Robert Laurie be nominated to the Nevada Clean Energy Fund Board of Directors.
24-0470 AGENDA ITEM 29 Introduction and first reading of an ordinance amending Washoe County Code (WCC) Chapter 45 (Public Welfare) and, if supported, set a public hearing for second reading and possible adoption of the ordinance on July 16, 2024. The Nevada Division of Welfare and Supportive Services will be taking over all child care licensing activities for Washoe County effective July 1, 2024. If passed, the proposed ordinance will: (1) reflect that change in WCC; (2) allow for consistent statewide enforcement of NRS and NAC 432A; and (3) streamline federal reporting requirements for child care licensing activities and funding. Human Services Agency. (All Commission Districts.)
County Clerk Jan Galassini read the title for Bill No. 1920. There was no response to the call for public comment.
Bill No. 1920 was introduced by Commissioner Garcia, and legal notice for final action of adoption was directed.
24-0471 AGENDA ITEM 33 Public Comment.
Ms. Jennifer Willett self-identified as a paid lobbyist for All Voting is Local (AVIL). She asserted that AVIL advocated for policies and legislation to expand voter access. She believed Nye County should not be referenced as an example for hand counting and paper ballots. She opined that Nye County’s 2022 hand-counting experiment was a disaster. It was reported that five people each spent three hours counting 50 ballots. She said it took so long because the error rate was estimated to be 25 percent. She stated that Nye County voters and poll monitors reported significantly long lines due to the use of all paper ballots. She remarked that the implementation of paper ballots and hand-counting in Washoe County, which had a much larger population than Nye County, would be catastrophic for voter access. She did not think changing Washoe County’s election process was necessary, as the Registrar of Voters (ROV) already completed risk-limiting audits. She claimed studies proved that people were concerned about hand-counting and thought it could introduce corruption. She believed hand-counting was error-prone, expensive, and unverifiable. She stated voting machines were tested, transparent, and verifiable. She declared AVIL supported safe and fair elections and encouraged the Board to do the same by rejecting calls to use paper ballots and hand counting.
Mr. Ryan Vortisch self-identified as a paid lobbyist for Silver State Voices (SSV). He said the SSV was a non-partisan organization that sought to protect civic access and engagement in Nevada, particularly for underrepresented communities. He emphasized the importance of people’s votes counting. He indicated research proved that hand counting left more room for error than machine counting. He mentioned a study published by Rice University that claimed hand-counting only ensured a 58 percent accuracy rate. He noted former Nye County Clerk Mark Kampf estimated that for the 2,500 votes his office hand-counted on the first day of the 2022 General Election, there was a 25 percent error rate. Mr. Vortisch spoke about a 2023 test run of hand tallying performed in Shasta County, California, where it took approximately 75 minutes for a team of experienced workers to hand-count 25 ballots. That was not inclusive of the time it took for the team to extract, aggregate, audit, and report the results. He stated that during the 2024 Primary Election, the County received a total of 80,262 ballots, which was equivalent to more than 4,000 hours of hand-counting based on the progress rate detailed by Shasta County Clerk Cathy Allen. He divulged Ms. Allen's report that a full hand count for the 2024 Presidential Preference Primary (PPP) Election would have cost California $658,925. He believed that hand-counting posed a risk to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He declared that the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) argued that a paper-based voting system would violate the right of voters with disabilities
to a private voting experience and would ultimately segregate those voters. He did not think Nye County’s example of hand-counting was appropriate for the County to follow.
Ms. Penny Brock asked the Board to place an item on a future Board of County Commissioners (BCC) agenda to vote on hand-counting. She thought the Board should consider Mr. Kampf's information about statistical sampling. She claimed her friends and neighbors felt that their votes did not count and opined there were other members of the community who likely felt the same. She declared that Vice Chair Herman, Commissioner Clark, and the public had called for the Board to place an item on an agenda to make changes to the election process, but nothing had come of those requests, which she did not think was right. She asked the Board to consider the ideas referenced during Mr. Kampf’s presentation.
24-0472 AGENDA ITEM 34 Announcements/Reports.
There were no Board member comments.
* * * * * * * * * * *
1:18 p.m. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned without objection.
ATTEST:
ALEXIS HILL, Chair
Washoe County Commission
JANIS GALASSINI, County Clerk and Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
Minutes Prepared by:
Danielle Howard, Deputy County Clerk Kendra DeSoto-Silva, Deputy County Clerk Taylor Chambers, Deputy County Clerk