TUESDAY 10:00 A.M. NOVEMBER 19, 2024
PRESENT:
Mary Kandaras, Chief Deputy District Attorney
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:
Ms. Nanette Oleson thanked the Board of County Commissioners’ (BCC) for their work and provided an invocation.
Mr. Cliff Low explained that his comments would be like an opening argument; however, he did not like the word argue. He mentioned he was not trying to attack or criticize any staff member, especially the planning staff or members of the Planning Commission. He felt he truly had great respect for what the planning staff accomplished. He said the Housing Affordability Package was literally and figuratively a very heavy lift. He indicated they had gotten a lot done, but the process left something to be desired. He appreciated the time that planning staff had taken to meet with him and other people, either in person or online, to answer questions and help him understand. He stated what he and others would be seeking to do was to show how the Housing Affordability Package was not ready for adoption. He opined that it was not ready in substance and especially not ready regarding the process. He thought the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) would hear many things during the meeting about the substance of the package. He commented that he would focus on the process. He praised the residents of Spanish Springs. He reported they had learned how serious some of the effects of the package were and that they understood the effects on people who do not personally need to seek affordable housing. He wanted to explain why he and others from the South Valleys did not appear before the Planning Commission. He detailed that the biggest reason was that it
went under his and his neighbors' radar because he focused on Sierra Reflections. He expressed that the neighbor who spotted the package on the Planning Commission agenda had asked the staff if it affected Sierra Reflections and that the staff said no.
Mr. Bill Miller read from the document he provided, copies of which were placed on file with the Clerk.
Ms. Kayla Bailey mentioned she attended on behalf of the Sierra Nevada Realtors. She noted they would like to express their support for the Housing Affordability Package 2.5A. She explained that the code update would allow for more innovative housing solutions and provide more obtainable housing for people entering the market. She understood that the intent was not to change density or zoning but to look at the missing middle. She applauded the hard work of the BCC and staff on the code amendments and for working with the realtor members. She looked forward to the implementation of the amendments so the development community could provide more diverse housing in the County at a more obtainable price for new home buyers.
Mr. Mark Ashworth noted that he was with the Sierra Nevada Realtors and wanted to echo Ms. Kayla Bailey’s comments. He thanked the BCC and staff for their efforts regarding the Housing Affordability Package 2.5A. He hoped for and encouraged the BCC’s support of the measure.
Mr. Aaron Fraker displayed a document, a copy of which was placed on file with the Clerk. He disclosed that he was a Library Assistant II with the Washoe County Library System (WCLS) in Spanish Springs. He noted that he came on his own time and was not a WCLS representative but a Washoe County citizen. He referred to a binder for the WCLS Story Time Program from one branch of twelve. He mentioned that the children ranged from 0 to 11 years old and that the binder recorded how many children attended the program, what books were read, and what reading standards, colors, or grammar ideas they had covered. He expressed that he had received more joy from his job than he could express in the short time he had. He said he had read books to children, watched them grow, laughed, and, in his own small ways, helped them on their journey to become people. He indicated that he had taught them to share, sing, read, understand, and question. He voiced that he had read hundreds of books to thousands of kids, and if the children who had attended the programs at a single branch were tallied up, it would be found that over the previous year, there were more attendees to the programs than the margin that WC1 did not pass by, it would be found that from a year earlier, they had more attendees to the programs in the binder than the margin that WC1 did not pass by. He stated it was 9,401 children to 9,163 votes. He addressed that number did not include the Lego Robotics Club, teen programs, coding programs, weekly crafts, or monthly science, technology, engineering, arts, and math (STEAM) programs. He opined that the BCC had been chosen to have discretion over the funds, and if one single library branch had more attendees ages 11 and under who had come to just three of their many programs than what the vote narrowly failed by, he said it should be clear the WCLS’s presence in the community was strong, good, healthy, and joyful. He summarized that he could talk about a lot of things, such as how the opposition to WC1 had falsehoods in their arguments, how funding
libraries was a right versus left political argument, or how many voters in Washoe County did not understand that the tax was not a new tax but a division of existing funds. He said all of this was secondary or immaterial. He felt the BCC was chosen to have discretion over the funds and that libraries were a part of healthy and thriving people. He speculated that if one aspect at one branch touched more lives than the vote lost, it should be clear that continuing to fund the library was in the constituents' best interest. He thanked the BCC and asked them to do the right thing.
Ms. Valerie Wade mentioned that 30 years previous, the community committed to improving and expanding the WCLS. She indicated that, as a result, they now had a phenomenal system of which they could be proud. She said a slim majority, one percent of votes cast, voted not to designate funding specifically for libraries but instead to let the BCC decide every year how those tax dollars were spent in the general fund. She reported that the 49 percent of people who cast their votes for maintaining the 2-cent revenue for the WCLS would have to ensure that the BCC heard why the funding should stay. She voiced that the WCLS was incredible. She commented that she retired the previous year and had a chance to go to different branches of the WCLS and was always amazed by the libraries. She indicated the programs, facilities, and staff were incredible. She communicated that the WCLS could have been better over the last 15 years; however, the BCC had reduced the general fund support multiple times to fill in holes when the economy had declined. She explained that it had been very slow to rebuild the library budget and that, looking back at previous budgets, between 2006 and 2015, about 40 percent of the full-time equivalent positions were cut from the library general fund. She indicated that the number of employees was reduced from 165 in 2006 to 95 full-time employees (FTEs) in 2015. She reported that the library expansion fund was reduced from 193 to 106 FTEs during that period. She addressed that there was a massive layoff of skilled and experienced staff during that time. She opined that from that low point, the general fund staffing had been very slowly coming back over the last ten years. She said it looked like the current fiscal budget was for 101 FTEs in the general fund and 23 FTEs in the library expansion fund. She indicated that stripping away the expansion fund staffing budget would be another 20 percent reduction in personnel. She asked the BCC to consider the history of the cuts the WCLS had already taken and to contemplate stabilizing the budget for at least the next fiscal year (FY) by designating all the revenue from the 2-cent library expansion funding to the WCLS general fund budget in FY 2026. She requested that the BCC consider the cuts made over the last 15 years and the daily impact the decisions will have on the services the WCLS provides that the community relies on.
Ms. Den Fusso loved what the Washoe County Commissioner's webpage said about Commissioner Clark. She cited the webpage stating that Commissioner Clark was a proud supporter of the libraries, sharing his belief that if a person could read, they could accomplish just about anything. She agreed with the statement. She noted that years ago, there were two places she could take her children, which they loved and cost nothing: the playground and the library. She mentioned they could not wait to get home after weekly library trips to read their stories. She indicated they discussed broad topics, diverse situations, and challenging problems from their reading. She opined that from this, her children became strong readers with a love for books and excellent critical thinking skills.
She believed the thirst for knowledge was foundational in their progression towards professional careers. She addressed that, from a government perspective, they were exceedingly sound citizens and taxpayers rather than being a drain on society. She communicated that the outcome could have been far different without a good library system. She reported that on February 15, 2024, a KOLO 8 News headline by Ms. Emily Benito stated student literacy dropped below 50 percent in Washoe County. She affirmed that this was not the time to ignore resources that could help remedy that problem. She remarked that even if literacy in Washoe County was not a problem, there were other reasons for maintaining a dedicated budget for the library. She said strong libraries benefitted the local economy indirectly. She detailed that companies and professionals like doctors and nurses looked at a host of factors before deciding to relocate or remain, including schools and libraries. She stated that good libraries were a sign of a thriving community. She speculated that WC1 may have failed due to misinformation in the republican voters guide erroneously stating it would raise taxes, which she said was a travesty. She encouraged the BCC to set aside an amount in the budget to keep library accessibility and services at the current level because growing literate, responsible, and taxpaying citizens was a very good return on investment.
Mr. Terry Brooks presented an original poem addressing business ownership, employment, and homelessness.
Ms. Pam Darr said that she was concerned about something happening in her land management association and thought there was a mandatory process happening throughout the County. Still, she found out that was not the case. She thanked the County employees who helped her contact people to get answers. She noted that her board was not working with her but that the staff had been helpful. She wanted to speak out against the Housing Affordability Package 2.5A and said she lived in that area. She mentioned a major car accident down the street from her home, which had not happened before. She said she did not want to go places because it was getting too crowded. She indicated that her insurance rates had increased and she had always driven cautiously, but the infrastructure was not there yet. She witnessed that some people on Nextdoor, while not against the library, felt they were not being heard about things happening there. She reported the post was removed because someone did not like the comments. She addressed that there were questions that failed or passed that she was not happy about, but the people had spoken, and the ones who spoke out and voted a certain way needed to be heard. She believed it was unhealthy to shut them down but that the BCC had the power. She felt there were stories from some parents that shocked her and that should be addressed.
Ms. Janice Flanagan noted that she got her first library card 81 years ago. She voiced that she could not live without the library and that her children had spent hours there. She reported taking her grandchildren and great-grandchildren to the story hour at the WCLS. She expressed that one could not move through the leadership force in Nevada without a strong library system. She believed the WCLS needed to be fully funded. She said there was a lot of misinformation during the election, which she said was directed towards the library funding. She understood that people voted it down but that it was by a
narrow margin. She felt they were misguided and the WCLS deserved to be fully funded. She indicated it was an important part of living in Washoe County.
Ms. Diane Torry indicated that they were there as community members who deeply valued and relied on the WCLS. She wanted to highlight the WCLS’s contributions to the community and why continued stable funding was essential to the operations. She felt her goal was not to overturn the result of the recent ballot but to emphasize the critical role that the WCLS played in the community and demonstrate the overwhelming support for maintaining the funding.
Mr. Alan de Queiroz displayed a document, a copy of which was placed on file with the Clerk. He noted that it was important to address the disinformation that likely influenced the outcome of WC1. He mentioned that one of the most misleading narratives came from the Republican Voter Guide, which claimed WC1 was a new tax and urged voters to vote no. He indicated that this statement was incorrect and that WC1 was not a new tax but a continuation of funding that had existed since 1994 and was already a part of the property tax assessment. He explained that a yes vote would not have increased property taxes. He referred to the Nevada 2024 Ballot Measures and Initiatives document on record. He discussed that the disinformation likely unraveled the efforts of those trying to educate the public about what WC1 was. He expressed that many voters misunderstood and voted against the ballot measure, thinking they were rejecting a new tax. He reported that some voters expressed regret after realizing that their decision put library funding at risk. He felt it highlighted the need for community support for the library. He detailed that regardless of the vote on WC1, he wanted to ensure that misinformation would not jeopardize critical services in the future.
Mr. Ilya Arbatman displayed a document, a copy of which was placed on file with the Clerk. He indicated that libraries were not just about books but also vital hubs for education, technology, access, community engagement, and resources that served all age groups and demographics. He opined that consistent and reliable funding was crucial to ensure the services remained operational. He speculated that without funding, many programs could be cut, hours would be reduced, and library abilities would be compromised. He believed libraries were not a political pawn but a cornerstone of any thriving community. He felt a well-funded library system supported early literacy, job- seeking students, and underserved populations. He discussed the WCLS's achievements and said consistent funding made that possible. He reported that during 2020, library staff adapted quickly and created virtual programming, contactless services, and digital library cards. He explained that the WCLS supported public health efforts and that 40 staff members assisted the health district with contact tracing. He pointed out that in 2021, the libraries opened and expanded hours at multiple branches, with staff offering virtual programs to help patrons stay connected and engaged. He specified that in 2022, the Northwest Reno and Sparks libraries were renovated to improve facilities, and the Sparks library launched home-bound services that delivered material to those unable to visit in person. Additionally, in 2022, a partnership brought high-speed internet to Gerlach, which served the Pyramid Lake Paiute Region. He commented that there were over 1 million checkouts across branches during 2022 and over 50,000 users in meeting room spaces. He
detailed that in 2023, bookmobile services began and brought resources to underserved areas, Zoom virtual meeting pods were installed, and new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible facilities were added. He noted 1.2 million checkouts and almost 30,000 meeting room space users during 2023. He referred to the document on record regarding library statistics at the South Valleys Library, regarding the Timeline of Washoe County Library Achievements and Strategic Plan Accomplishments, 2020-2024. He said Commissioner Clark’s district had the most checkouts, and Commissioner Herman’s district was second. He urged those Commissioners to think about what would happen if library services were cut in their district. He felt it would displease the constituents and that the numbers were self-evident. He speculated there was no doubt that the numbers would decrease if staff and weekend hours were reduced.
Ms. Tara de Queiroz noted that in 2024, the WCLS partnered with the Reno Housing Authority (RHA) to offer essential services like housing applications and rent payments at the downtown library. She mentioned the bookmobile expanded to serve even more communities and that the WCLS was recognized with the Public Sector Innovation Award. She indicated that through June of 2024, there had been more than 650,000 checkouts and 28,000 meeting space users. She reported the total gate counts were over 600,000. She explained there were plans listed and many were contingent on funding. She stated the plans included renovations for the South Valleys and Spanish Springs libraries and the construction of a new North Valleys library. She voiced that the accomplishments showed that the WCLS consistently used its funding wisely and innovatively to serve the community. Ms. De Queiroz read from the document presented by Mr. Arbatman and said that all Washoe County districts used and valued their libraries. She said funding for libraries was not a party or population issue but a district-wide need.
Mr. Bradley Leavitt displayed a document, a copy of which was placed on file with the Clerk. He asked for the BCC’s continued support of the WCLS. He noted that while the ballot measure did not pass, he asked that the BCC promise libraries remain a priority when allocating future funds. He mentioned that libraries were not just buildings but lifelines for countless individuals in the community. He explained that the WCLS provided resources for job seekers, students, families, and seniors. He said the WCLS hosted vital programs, served as evacuation centers, and bridged the digital and literary divide. He noted they wanted to show that the community overwhelmingly supported the library. He reported that 6,000 residents had signed his petition urging the BCC to maintain proper funding. He asked the audience to show their support by raising their library books in the air.
Ms. Mary Katz mentioned she was a career software engineer and had never read. She noted that she would take her kids to the libraries in California and that she was not a reader until she retired six years prior. She indicated she was in two book clubs and loved reading, visiting the library, and using Libby. She encouraged everyone she knew to join book clubs. She was in an organization that used the meeting space at the South Valleys Library once a month and said the facility was fabulous, the audio-visual (AV) equipment worked beautifully, and the new chairs were great. She wanted continued
support for WCLS funding. She referenced Ms. Aimee Keys’ comments in the Preserve Funding for Washoe County Library Petition submitted by Mr. Bradley Leavitt.
Ms. Lynn Arnone said she had read some comments from the community petition. She referenced Mr. Jason Cruz and Ms. Linda Kodet’s remarks in the Preserve Funding for Washoe County Library Petition submitted by Mr. Bradley Leavitt. She explained that she was an avid supporter and that many places in society and the community wanted money. She felt that consumerism was who the community had sold their soul to and that the library was a place where nobody wanted money. She noted the library and playgrounds were available to anyone.
Ms. Danielle Anders noted the WCLS had played a critical role in her life, specifically the Downtown Library. She said it was a beloved place for her kids in Reno. She reminisced that they could spend hours searching for books to read and that they got to know all the librarians. She explained they researched topics for school projects and personal interests. She mentioned they had attended story time at multiple branch locations and that she had many friends who got digital and audiobooks through Libby. She indicated that she had attended many community presentations, performances, and talks by local authors and received weekly library informational emails. She detailed that the Downtown Library was where she had gone to vote for every election. She expressed that beyond the resources provided for her, it was important for the community to have access to the many resources provided by the WCLS. She was extremely passionate about the benefits and importance of libraries and asked the BCC to ensure that necessary funding was allocated for the WCLS.
Mr. Joshua Patten commented that as a child, he was home-schooled and that without resources available for free, it would have been an impossible choice for his family. He believed it was important to maintain free resources for the community. He opined that the meeting attendees in support of continued funding were not denying the election results but were imploring the BCC to continue spending in the right direction. He mentioned that he could not think of anything he would rather have his property taxes go towards than funding the WCLS. He indicated he would not be able to be the person he was without the WCLS. He requested that the BCC do the right thing and not cut funding, staffing, and resources for important public resources.
Mr. John Klippenstein noted that he was the Director of Development for the RHA and a Nevada Housing Coalition board member. He referenced comments from RHA Executive Director Maurice Page. He mentioned that the Nevada Housing Coalition’s purpose was to promote the development and preservation of affordable housing for all Nevadans. He indicated that guiding principle underscored the urgency of housing needs in the community and the needs that spanned all income levels but were especially pronounced for low and middle-income residents who often found themselves without viable options. He commented that the Nevada Housing Coalition was speaking in strong support of the Affordable Housing Package 2.5a. He explained that the Nevada Housing Coalition was a broad-based organization with stakeholders from all sectors involved in building affordable housing. He opined that a commonsense solution was to
create more opportunities and tools, particularly to address the missing middle class and diversify the kinds of housing needed in the community to grow equitably. This would allow people to buy homes and afford rent. He encouraged the BCC to continue pursuing innovative solutions to meet the growing community's needs when it came to affordable housing.
Ms. Mary Hickman referred to comments on the petition previously submitted for the public record. She discussed those comments regarding confusion on the ballot question and that person’s experiences with the WCLS. She said the commenter requested renewing the library's funding until a new ballot question could be run.
Mr. Alan Nichols displayed a document, a copy of which was placed on file with the Clerk. He indicated that he homeschooled his children, and one graduated from the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) with a master's degree and the other with a bachelor's degree. He noted that another one of his children was a Washoe County School District (WCSD) teacher and was getting their degree at UNR. He mentioned that he was an electronic engineer and had worked in ten countries with top-secret clearance. He remarked that he had been in four wars, and his hearing was not great. He said he graduated from an engineering school in Mahwah, New Jersey. He reported building a Uplink facility in Littlerock, Arkansas, while living in Conway, Arkansas. He displayed a copy of his library card, which was not placed on record. He referred to the document he submitted regarding the website of library locations. He indicated that the website would show what other libraries were doing and provide recommendations to the BCC.
Ms. Lisa Hill recited that her mother took her to the library as a child and that it was her first experience with the outside world. She felt it was warm and inviting and a fun and positive experience. She explained that as a teenager, she went to the library after school with her friends, which was a welcoming, warm place for her. She expressed that as a college student, she spent many hours at the library learning her craft and that it was a warm, available, and safe space. She voiced that she took her children to libraries for story hour. She said it exposed her to the outside world and taught her to be a critical thinker and a good citizen. She believed it was clear to her that there was confusion with WC1 and that it needed to be rerun. She asked that a new question be floated in two years and that the BCC figure out how to stabilize the allotted money during that time. She mentioned that out of respect for the staff who worked hard at the WCLS, they needed to have a safety net so that they could run their programs. She did not understand why the libraries had been weaponized since she believed they served a wide swath of people and were important. She felt that libraries opened lives and minds like hers.
Mr. Terence Barker said libraries were an important resource when his children were growing up. He mentioned that as a retired resident, the library was important for intellectual and social resources. He urged the BCC to prioritize funding for the WCLS so that the WCLS maintained its place in society as a vital resource for the community.
Mr. Rick Snow was not present when called to speak.
Mr. Peter Bansen noted that WCLS was one of the only County services available to all the residents regardless of age, economic status, or location. He mentioned that County residents depended on the WCLS for various services. He felt that in an election that proved to be all about the economy and its effects on individual voters and their families, the ballot question reauthorizing a 30-year-old library funding measure was worded as if a yes vote would authorize a new tax. He indicated that one had to read the election materials carefully to determine that the measure would not affect property tax. He stated there was no mention on the actual ballot and that it was not hard to understand why the ballot failed by less than 10,000 votes. He opined that the failure of WC1 threatened the WCLS with 25 percent of its funding, a situation that would be devastating for any county department. He explained there was no loss of funding to the County and that the BCC had the ability to allocate the funding as it saw fit. He was grateful to Chair Hill for her commitment to maintaining library funding at its current level and hoped the rest of the BCC would do the right thing and support funding.
Ms. Connie Douglas wanted to address the WCLS funding. She speculated funding was needed because the community needed better education and better knowledge of what was happening in the world. She noted that she worked for the WCLS 30 years ago when the measure was initiated and said she saw the benefit of it. She hoped the BCC would use its discretion to continue the funding and knew there were many needs before the BCC for the County, least of all the parks. She felt that libraries were essential to families, seniors, and children. She recited that growing up, she lived on Lester Avenue and walked to the library at the State building. She hoped that funding services could continue for children who were walking to the library like she did.
Mr. Matthew Wilkie thanked the Eddy House. He spoke as a former homeless youth who later owned his own home and had a successful pharmacy career. He addressed public proclamations issued by government bodies and said they came across as performative gestures rather than effective solutions. He mentioned that while they garnered attention and created a temporary sense of awareness, the proclamations often lacked the necessary follow-throughs and plans for genuine change. He believed it was crucial that the BCC moved beyond statements and focused on implementing policies that addressed the community's needs. He felt that without tangible actions, the proclamations risked being mere words without substance and failed to impact the lives they were intended to serve. He expressed concern regarding the lack of Community Homeless Advisory Board (CHAB) meetings and said there was only one meeting since September of 2023. He deemed it hindered the efforts to tackle the issue. He voiced that the meetings served as a vital platform for collaboration, discussion, and an exchange of ideas among community members, service providers, and policymakers. He opined that without consistent engagement, the community missed out on crucial insight and solutions to address the root causes of homelessness. He surmised regular meetings fostered accountability and ensured all voices were heard. He perceived that by neglecting the meetings, the community risked perpetuating a cycle of misunderstanding and ineffective policies that failed to meet the community's needs. He explained that the CHAB meetings needed to be prioritized and said they were essential in creating a comprehensive and effective strategy.
Ms. Samantha Strasser noted the American public library system was a triumph that extolled the Nation's freedoms in a far greater way than almost any other public institution. She mentioned it was an essential third place where people could come together in the community regardless of education, immigration status, social status, religious or political beliefs, or ability to pay. She indicated the library provided access to critical resources to vulnerable individuals for the betterment of themselves and their community. She reported that it had been said by many news outlets that the reason WC1 failed was due to poor wording on the ballot, which she told confused voters into thinking it was a new tax or a tax increase, but it was simply a renewal. She voiced that there was substantial research that indicated ballot design and wording could have a great influence on the outcome of elections. She communicated that if it was true that many voters were duped into falsely thinking it was a new tax or tax increase based on the ballot, then it was a failure on the part of the election officials, and the voters should not be held accountable. She read that Washoe County residents would not see decreased taxes like some may have thought with the initiative failing. She commented that the 2 cents for every $100 of assessed property value would still be added to every resident's tax bill and go into the County General Fund instead of the library fund. She understood that since WC1 failed on the ballot, the BCC still had the power to ensure the same funding went to the library from the General Fund. She said as a resident of the North Valleys, Commissioner Herman’s District, she could not help but be both crushed and furious that it did not pass because, according to the WCLS’s website, one of the things the district would have gotten was a new North Valleys Library and expansion of branch services. She explained that there was a pervasive attitude in the North Valleys that they were an afterthought due to a persistent history of constituent concerns being ignored. She felt that nearly every other part of town had beautiful new branches built with modern facilities to accommodate the demand of the local population. She believed the North Valleys was stuck with a facility far too small for the population and hours that were not adequate. She stated that with the residential development in the North Valleys, she could not over-emphasize enough the need. She said the failure of WC1 was a snub to the constituents of the North Valleys. She urged the BCC to uphold the tenets of freedom and support the community.
Ms. Paula Dolan read Ms. Cynthia Edwards’ comments made in the Preserve Funding for Washoe County Library Petition submitted by Mr. Bradley Leavitt.
Mr. Matthew Chutter noted that markets responded to increased demand and limited supply with higher prices. However, the housing package mitigated the limit and would overpopulate the area. He mentioned a couple of principles cited in the envisioned document and said the problem was that where greater flexibility existed, greater oversight should be used, not approval by right. He explained there were already infrastructure issues. He detailed that the area had many folks for whom alternative transit was impractical and that efforts could be made in flat, high-density areas but would never be useful in hills or bad weather. He said people did not buy cars because they were ignorant of walking or bicycles. He said prioritization should be for automobiles. He believed the high fuel tax should pay for roads that motorists used. He felt that using utopian options was hurting the public and inappropriate. He communicated that the voting public deserved major policy changes on the ballot. He referenced Section 110 proposals
and said it used wordsmithing to describe downscaling. He deemed that community implied cohesion and voluntary association, not physical proximity. He referenced that Cabrini-Green in Chicago, Illinois, involved people living close to each other but who were hardly a community. He said it was adjacent to affluent areas but hardly desirable. He perceived that cramming people together transformed quirks into nuances and fostered crime. He summarized that Affordable Housing Package 2.5a altered the commitment from review and was approved by default, which was not the same. He explained it turned scrutinized zoning into chaos and prevented buyers from identifying areas that suited them, which upended stability and discouraged long-term investments. He noted the Affordability Package 2.5a would attract more renters, low-skilled workers, recent graduates, government-subsidized residents, and low-income retirees, many of whom used many governmental services compared to the taxes they generated. He concluded adverse effects such as crime and home invasions in affluent areas would occur and that zoning changes were steps on a destructive path that was best avoided.
Ms. Melody Chutter opposed the proposed changes, specifically regarding multifamily provisions and the general direction of the original development. She said she chose her home because it was not near high density and did not appear zoning would permit it in the future. She felt that many proposed amendments were a threat to the expectations they had when they chose to purchase in Washoe County. She explained that the amendments overrode the limitations on growth, which she said constrained the resources imposed in the area. She believed that if left alone, the limitations would cause home values to rise, which would benefit the residents and slow the growth rate in the area. However, she noted the Planning Department had constructed modifications that would destroy zoning protections and reduce the future value of current homes compared to the present alternative. She mentioned they had standing to oppose the Affordable Housing Package because the proposed changes would damage their quality of life and home value. She indicated that she was not there to waste time but instead wanted to prevent harm before it happened. She voiced that her effort demonstrated that the concerns and commitments were sincere, legitimate, and should be addressed. She believed instructions were given to taxpayer-funded County employees to argue that taxpayers did not have standing to litigate the degrading of the zoning protections. She said that the County did not have respect for the citizens. She indicated that the new zoning proposal allowed random placement and mandatory approval of multifamily within single-family neighborhoods, preventing residents from maintaining the lifestyle integrity of neighborhoods. She felt that it destroyed diversity and different areas were forced to become homogenized and lose their identity. She described the goal of maximizing regional populations through overdevelopment as flawed and would destroy what made the area unique, special, and desirable. She believed the zoning changes were going in the wrong direction for quality of life. She opined that density was the driver for many or most problems faced in the area. She viewed that making housing more affordable was not what was happening. She believed the County was urbanizing and densifying the area as rapidly as possible for lower-income future residents. She argued that current growth was so rapid and shocking to current and longtime residents who found common ground that the area was less desirable than a few years ago due to overcrowding and development. She stated it was the job of good planning and government to improve life and not degrade it. She
declared the BCC was not listening to the constituents who financially supported efforts and frequented the website. She said the group was growing and that the BCC was misguided.
Ms. Trista Gomez noted that she had learned a lot about development over the previous months and said it was not about the quality of life for residents. She felt that the County’s definition of service was needed because there was only heavy traffic for 4 to 5 hours a day, and the road was not widened. She mentioned the lawsuits developers brought when they could not develop on land regardless of whether residents and infrastructure supported it. She indicated that the BCC feigned apologies about planning that was not completely coordinated among all the taxpayer-paid agencies. The BCC said no to residents' concerns, safety, and fixing problems created by increased development caused by lack of planning and infrastructure. She explained that other jurisdictions had per-year growth caps and would grow however they needed until they hit 750,000 people. She felt that the money for roads was different than in Carson City or Las Vegas, which she said had much less of an issue. She asked how many more adverse effects were needed. She voiced there were sinkholes and flooding where the BCC allowed building on swamp land and that with sewage wastewater treatment plants, there was no sewage capacity. She described that some residents had to dig their wells deeper because of the huge number of buildings in valleys, where she said the BCC allowed buildings without adequate resources and infrastructure. She explained that families with regular jobs had to drop off their kids at daycare, get home, and take an hour lunch, often leading to an 11- or 12-hour day due to traffic. She believed that this led to stress. She opined that instead of working outside of the home, people found other ways to make money or live due to the high cost of both time and money. She had learned that kids were late to school consistently because of traffic and that no safety services were close to areas, leaving high safety concerns. She said that while developers had to pay money to coordinate building, residents were stuck with the financial cost of the increased taxpayer-paid employees and the rest of the cost associated with the building. She felt the BCC’s concern was placating developers and justifying poor planning when residents pushed back. She communicated that taxpayer-paid employees' compensation was higher than average for the private sector and higher than that of many adjoining or comparable jurisdictions. She noted that cost left residents' safety and comfort compromised because of the lack of funds. She stated the County and State had some of the most inefficient processes and high costs. She expressed that they were taxed on insurance and roads and said the County Manager made more money and took more liberties with the public’s trust than adjoining and comparable jurisdictions. She deemed the answer to the increase in development was no until the BCC could reconcile the issues, make the outlying communities safer, figure out why the cost of living was much worse than others, and until the BCC could promise there would be no more sinkholes where buildings should never have occurred. She concluded that the BCC knew the answer was no, that they knew better, and that it was time to do better for the residents and families.
Ms. Barbara Twitchell noted that as a constituent in Commissioner Clark’s district, she was glad to hear that he was pro-library and hoped that he kept that in mind. She said there was such diversity in the people speaking about what the library had provided for them, and it made her realize that the libraries were one of the greatest equal
opportunity resources in the community regardless of age, economic status, or gender. She indicated that libraries served everyone for free and gave resources but also gave a sense of community. She explained that she had been to a meeting at the library the previous evening and that it was a very comfortable space. She mentioned that she frequently went to or ran meetings at the library. She voiced that some quilters went to the library to do their quilting. She believed that it was an important space and thought it had been clear that there was a flaw in WC1 that was confusing to people. She opined that there was also misinformation in a very official publication that voters used to guide how they should vote. She reported that people were misled to believe it was a new increased tax and were unhappy about that. She asked the BCC to keep the funding for the next two years so that they could get a better-written ballot question and have it supplied.
Ms. Emelie Williams thanked Ms. Nanette Oleson for her invocation. She mentioned that among her earliest memories with her dad were trips to the children’s book room at the Downtown Library. She noted there was a thrill in outgrowing the children’s stacks and exploring the library's young adult section. She indicated that she utilized the WCLS for numerous research papers and said she was a high utilizer with a constant list of books to borrow and return. She commented she took her four children to the libraries and that her mother-in-law accessed books for the sight impaired. She worried about the next generation and how to nurture, teach, instill confidence, and give them space to dream, grow, and explore possibilities. She reported that she had been an employee for organizations that had raised money for nonprofits in the area and that she was someone who had the opportunity to give grants to local nonprofits as a trustee for a foundation. She said dozens of nonprofit organizations depended on the libraries to support the community. She asked the BCC to think about the various programs that utilized the library. She explained she had met with many who valued the WCLS. She felt that the WCLS did considerable work and helped all generations and that the BCC had the power to fund the budget.
Mr. Vic Williams introduced himself as a 40-year resident of Nevada. He said he raised four children in the area, all of whom attended Washoe County schools and went to the UNR. He read a statement of support for the WCLS from one of his children. The letter described her early childhood memories of a sense of wonder while exploring the stacks in the children’s section of the Northwest Reno Library. She disclosed that she made some of her earliest friends swapping books inside a treehouse at that library. She said she learned empathy, history, and her own set of ethics by reading countless stories in and from the library. She appreciated that her parents had a place to take her and her sister, who were both voracious readers. She recalled that when she needed sources for school papers, she went to the library, and when she wanted an adventure on a rainy day, she went to the library. She informed that she was employed as a comics writer and artist and hoped to pass on some of the connection she felt during the time she spent in written worlds as a child. She believed the library provided shelter, job resources, community, and internet access to countless people who would not otherwise have those things. The letter contended that stories bound them together in a time and place where people were more divided than ever. The letter noted that cost did not keep people from that connection at the library. She
could think of no greater force for good in Reno or elsewhere than the public library. The letter asked Commissioners to do at least one good thing this year by funding the WCLS.
Mr. Drew Ribar displayed a document, copies of which were distributed to the Board and placed on file with the Clerk. He asked Commissioners to fund the WCLS. He said libraries were great for all people. He observed that some people attending the meeting that day wondered why WC1 failed. He disclosed that he voted against the measure. He advised that he wanted accountability in government, and he discerned that WC1 did not provide accountability. Mr. Ribar spoke about his YouTube channel called Auditing Reno 911, where he published his interactions with the government. He stated that his aim with the channel was to hold the government accountable the same way the government held people accountable. He said he had documented the WCLS on his videos over the last two years. He said the County had failed, and he reported going before the BCC many times over the past two years to advise them that constitutional rights were being violated. He claimed the WCLS, under Library Director Jeff Scott, had restricted many people because librarians did not like them. Mr. Ribar described being recently informed of a government employee named Doug Miller, who was evacuated during the Davis Creek Fire. Mr. Ribar reported that Mr. Miller tried to reserve a reading room during the fire, but the librarians did not like what he said, so they restricted his library access. Mr. Ribar showed a lawsuit against Mr. Scott and the WCLS. He contended the pattern and practice of excluding people from libraries earned the County a lawsuit from him. He revealed that he had not filed it yet, but he hoped to complete the filing before the Library Board of Trustees (LBT) meeting the next day. He offered that he was available if Commissioners wanted to contact him and settle the issue. Mr. Ribar wanted everybody in the community to have access to the libraries. He divulged that he recently went to the South Valleys Library and was trespassed from library property. He alleged that the reason was because he went there to ask a librarian a question. He maintained that although librarians were supposed to be a resource for answering questions, they would trespass you from the libraries if you asked them the wrong question. He was glad Commissioners had control of the money and hoped they would provide better accountability. He recommended that they fund the libraries but cautioned that they needed to address Mr. Scott and his exclusionary library policies.
Ms. Maisie Barnes disclosed that she was a staff member at the Spanish Springs Library but clarified that she was not speaking as a library representative. She specified that she was at the meeting that day on her terms, on unpaid time, speaking of her own volition because she was passionate about the community. She reported that 30 years ago, Washoe County voters approved a measure restricting a small portion of their property taxes to bolster library funding. She said that funding allowed many local branches to be built and allowed libraries to give back to their community. She commented that the tax would still be paid, but it was now up to Commissioners to allocate some of the General Fund to libraries. She divulged that she was born and raised in Reno. She felt privileged to have grown up with access to the library system that received that funding. She stated that her family knew poverty intimately but wanted for nothing because, with access to each other and the local library, they were rich in literature, art, music, and knowledge. She conveyed that she was blessed to have been raised in a family that valued those things and
that the library could answer the needs they could not find at home or school. She supposed not every child and family was as blessed as she was, and without library funding, the community's children were losing their chance. She discerned that not every child had access to books or computers at home or even schooling. She hoped that, despite the loss of WC1, the County would continue to fund the WCLS at the same level it was funded for the past three decades. She summarized that the library was a safe haven for people in need and a bountiful resource for students, job seekers, and the disadvantaged to become comfortable with new technology. She noted the WCLS provided educational, artistic, and community-oriented programs. She observed they hosted various groups, from quilters to Boy Scouts. She added they were a designated safe space for people in need, whether that was a teen with troubles at home or someone seeking warmth. She theorized that if continuous funding was not secured, all of those people and programs would no longer be able to call the library home. She said she had heard talk at her branch of potential cuts that they might have to make if funding did not continue. She described that those cuts would include Lego Robotics, STEAM program, public access to meeting rooms, and programs for teens that kept them off the streets. She thought rural and vulnerable communities might see closures of their libraries, including the Senior Center. She supposed access to free research databases, open days and hours, and even up to 23 staff members could be lost. Ms. Barnes warned that parents and children would lose access to safe spaces to gather, learn, and play. She shared that the Spanish Springs Library received over 500 paper hearts on which children wrote their favorite things about the library. The hearts were displayed so that people could see what the library meant. She reasoned that reducing funding would mean diminishing the future of those children. She hoped Commissioners could see how much the community would lose if they did not choose to fund libraries with the County general fund. She concluded that libraries were an integral part of the community and necessary for support, education, and empowerment. She implored Commissioners to allocate funding from the County general fund to continue funding libraries at the existing level.
Ms. Isabella Jacobs spoke on behalf of library funding. She asked each Commissioner to commit to help protect and fund the libraries. She disclosed that she grew up in Northwest Reno, and the funding approved in 1994 helped build the Northwest Reno Library, which was a very important space for her as she grew up. She described being homeschooled, so the library was one of the few public spaces she had access to. She was positive that it helped foster her mental and physical health. She thought that without the library, she would have experienced isolation as a child and a lack of exposure to many things the library provided that she held dear. She recalled that when she became a young adult, she used a computer at the library to create and print resumes. She supposed many young adults did not have enough money to pay for internet connectivity and other support needed to advance in a world with a steeply rising cost of living. She predicted that many people would be left behind without funding for the libraries. She added that she would have been one of those people. She expressed gratitude for the library's impact on her life growing up. She understood that not everybody knew the beauty of the libraries and theorized that the outpouring of support might encourage more people to access their local libraries. Ms. Jacobs mentioned that she had forgotten the value of libraries until early 2024. She stated her awe of her access to books and disclosed that she recently checked
out books on tree identification and birding. She said funding was important to enable the WCLS to keep up with technological advancements, stay relevant, and remain an accessible public space for those who did not have the financial means to afford the technologies on their own. She concluded that she was happy to be at the meeting in support of the WCLS and to stand with so many other library advocates.
Ms. Jen Flynn said she was a librarian at the Downtown Reno Library. She related that when she finished high school and decided on a career, she realized that her primary goal was to help her community. She outlined her educational pursuits and her history of volunteering at libraries. She eventually set her sights on becoming a librarian and believed there was much more to libraries than literature. She spoke about a time in 2022 when she was briefly unhoused. She recalled she had nowhere to go, no job, and was sleeping in her car or on people’s couches. She described using resources at the library to get reestablished. She shared that the Downtown Reno Library had community court on Wednesday mornings, during which lawyers were available to help people with their disputes. She said the Food Bank of Northern Nevada (FBNN) provided food stamps, and another agency connected people with free phones. She talked about the book-a-librarian program, which allowed people to sit with a librarian for an hour to get help with resumes and job applications. She theorized that if she had known about those resources, she might not have lived in her car for a few months. She thought she probably would have found a place or at least the resources to start. She observed there were not many spaces where people could just walk in and not be judged or have to pay. She remarked that libraries and library staff were available to every community member, whether they agreed with what libraries stood for or not. She said even if she lost her job and were no longer a librarian, she would continue to stand for what librarians fought for.
Mr. Ray Bacasegua greeted Commissioners in Yaqui and continued his remarks in Yaqui and English. He thanked Commissioners for the opportunity to speak. He disclosed that he was Yaqui Yoeme and had been a resident of Reno for over 30 years. He thanked the community for removing Columbus Day in 2019 and choosing to celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day instead. He said he was a WCSD teacher and currently worked at Innovations High School. He revealed he was in attendance that day to support the libraries. He explained that as a teacher for 26 years, he had witnessed how books could impact children. He shared that he was a local artist and was recently asked to show his art at the North Valleys Library. He described his experience visiting that library and other libraries in the County. He felt it was important for artists to be able to share their works in libraries, and it was important for young people to stay connected. He spoke about the disconnection he witnessed in his classrooms and the work he did to preserve the community. He hoped Commissioners would choose to continue funding the WCLS.
Mr. Dan Herman was glad the Commissioners listened to public comment. He was happy to see citizens attend the meetings and make their voices known, particularly about support of the WCLS. He thought libraries were a good asset for the community. He spoke about an ongoing problem the County had with scheduling on agendas. He said he had spoken with County Manager Eric Brown about the issue. He directed attention to page 28 of the agenda for that day, where he pointed out wording on the public hearing item. He
liked the concept and wording of information about items that would be heard at or after a set time, but he noted that no time was listed to accompany the information. He said it was an ongoing problem, and he observed many people in attendance at the meeting that day. He explained that although he was retired and could attend, many people had to work. He supposed many people liked to have their voices heard, but an all-day meeting with Washoe County Development Code (WCDC) amendments placed last excluded many constituents from being able to comment. He stated that those people's voices were eliminated by failing to include a time. He requested that someone proofread the agenda in the future. He understood that a fixed occurrence did not guarantee that an item would be heard exactly then, but he reasoned that people would waste less time waiting if some stated times were included for public hearings. He said he was against the WCDC Amendment 2.5a for numerous reasons. He thought staff did a good job on some components of the proposed amendment, but there were also flaws in it that needed to be addressed by Commissioners. He expressed his intention to stay at the meeting until the public hearing.
Ms. Deborah Achtenberg remarked on the number of eloquent statements already made. She spoke on behalf of the libraries. She disclosed that she had been a Reno resident since 1982 and lived on Gordon Avenue. She said she was a retired professor of philosophy from UNR. She stated that education was key to a democratic society. She remarked that libraries provided extensive and multi-faceted education to all people, whether rich or poor. She theorized that without libraries, only those who were well-to-do would have access to extensive education. She wondered how many of the students she taught for 37.5 years would have come to her, studied philosophy, and gone on to rich and rewarding educated lives were it not for the library system. She asked Commissioners to please fund the libraries.
Ms. Elizabeth Jones informed that she was invited to speak by Commissioner Herman. She described an issue she had with Code Enforcement. She explained she and her husband received a warning notice in May 2025 that said they were not allowed to have any outdoor storage on their property without a principal use. She stated that at that time, she asked the Code Enforcement officer if agriculture could be identified as their principal use, and she was told that getting a building permit for a house would be easier to do. She shared that she and her husband raised animals and grew a garden on their property. She reported that per the zoning of their property, which was low- density rural, agriculture was an acceptable principal purpose, which indicated to her that she was not in violation of the code governing outdoor storage. She divulged that they hired a lawyer who spoke with Code Enforcement. She said the lawyer was told they had to apply for a building permit or a commercial license for agriculture. However, she recalled that the Planning Department informed her that no action was necessary to establish agriculture as a principal use. She added that the Planning Department also told them they did not need a commercial license to conduct agricultural activities for personal use. She disclosed that they were issued a citation from Code Enforcement in September 2024 and had filed an appeal. She described that their hearing was scheduled for November 1, 2024, but they continued it until December 2025 to try to determine if they had a valid defense. She said the notices from Code Enforcement included photos of their property but did not indicate which items were an issue. Some items in the photos were a shed for grain and saddles,
portable horse shelters, carts she used for driving horses, and a tool shed next to her garden and apple trees. She understood that agricultural buildings were allowed, and she said all of the sheds were under the square footage for which a permit was required. She was troubled that both options given to her by Code Enforcement required paying money to the County. Given the potential financial incentive, she questioned their motivation for issuing the citation. She articulated that the experience was stressful, confusing, and expensive. She disclosed that she had been dealing with health issues and pain since the spring, and she was concerned about future issues with the County due to the seeming inconsistency between departments. She said whether or not it was something the BCC could address, she appreciated their attention to the matter. She added that she supported library funding and divulged that her husband was among the people who voted against the measure because he thought it was a new tax.
Chair Hill asked staff to find Ms. Jones and arrange a meeting for her with Code Enforcement and the Planning Department to work on resolving her issue.
Mr. Roger Edwards said he was a 50-year resident of Washoe County. He recalled when WC1 was first on the ballot three decades ago. He claimed it had nothing to do with libraries and was only for school funding. He disclosed that he voted for it. He thought libraries provided support to the community but were a passing fad. He theorized that besides being a nice, quiet place to read, everything they provided could be done online. He suggested that libraries were on their way out, but if the 100 people at the meeting who spoke in favor of funding the libraries sent a $1,000 check to the County earmarked for the libraries, there would no longer be a problem. He believed that if people were serious about it, they should fund it. He contended that as a taxpayer for 50 years in the County, he wanted to see some thought to balancing the budget, not just funding every passing fad. He observed that he was running low on money while the things that needed to be funded with his tax dollars continued to increase. He mentioned that he received another late notice on his water recharge and that he still got a bill despite it having been shut off for 30 years. He was tired of paying, though he stated that he was a long-time resident of the area and loved it to death. He thought the County needed to consider a building moratorium. He said that he spent eight years on the Planning Commission and determined the area could not keep expanding. He commented that the County could not even deal with the sewage created now. He recalled a building moratorium when he first came to the area in the 1970s. He wanted Commissioners to think carefully about the money they spent, which he said was billions of dollars.
Ms. Janet Butcher recalled feeling upset when the library tax initiative was suggested to be put on the ballot. She was now thankful it had been put on the ballot because people voted against it. Ms. Butcher liked Mr. Ribar's point about the control of the money now being back with Commissioners. She theorized foster care, social services, parks, and senior services could be funded more. She said nobody was asking to have the libraries shut down, and just because people voted against the measure did not indicate their lack of support for the library. She thought ballot measures were sometimes misunderstood and people needed to research them thoroughly. She liked the suggestion from Mr. Roger Edwards that people who wanted to support the library should send money
to the library. She recalled hearing about a time when a child reported to a librarian that someone was viewing pornographic materials in the library. She shared that the librarian moved the young person to another area but did not take action to restrict the computer user who was reported. Ms. Butcher stated that the County budget was two to three times that of other counties with the same amount of people. She commented that way too much money was being spent.
Ms. Gail Townsend displayed a magnet. No copy was submitted for the public record. She said she favored Commissioners maintaining funding for the libraries at existing levels. She described that by coincidence, she found an old magnet from the Spanish Springs Library that showed the original hours of operation. She remarked that it was open seven days a week and included operating hours that extended until 8:00 p.m. from Mondays through Thursdays. She noted those hours were slowly being recovered after the 2008 Great Recession, and she supposed that if funding was lost, that library would go back to not being open on evenings or weekends. She shared that she calculated her portion of the property tax formerly restricted to the WCLS and found that it was embarrassingly low. She divulged that it was close to $100 per year and supported three library users in her household: herself, her husband, and her grandson. She reasoned that she was paying about $33 and getting an amazing amount of service for the money she put in. Ms. Townsend described her reasons for supporting the WCLS. She believed more could be done and did not want to lose existing momentum in the programs the library provided. She hoped Commissioners would support the WCLS.
Ms. Kristen Ryan disclosed that she worked for the WCLS, but noted that she attended the BCC meeting that day on her own time. She admitted that she changed her speech significantly because many other people had already expressed similar views. She thanked library supporters who took the time to attend the meeting that day, and she urged Commissioners to keep funding the WCLS. She acknowledged that Commissioners had heard a lot about the WCLS and wanted to share specific insight from her team at the Downtown Reno Library. She proclaimed her team to be one of the most compassionate teams in Washoe County, and every day, they helped all library visitors to the best of their ability. She described that one of the populations they worked with at the Downtown Reno Library was the homeless population, who often did not know where else to go and looked to the library as a starting point to get the help they needed. Ms. Ryan explained that she and her staff would refer those individuals to agencies like the Homeless Outreach Proactive Engagement (HOPE) team, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Catholic Charities of Northern Nevada. She added that many people were also helped by community court held at the Downtown Reno Library. She felt the WCLS made a difference in the community by contributing to the County initiative to support vulnerable populations. She said, knowing this, the potential budget cuts would be devastating. She divulged that many team members were hired within the last year and feared losing their jobs due to budget cuts and potential layoffs because they were new to the County. She stated they were employees representing the County well and reasoned that dedicated team members would be lost if the budget cuts happened. She encouraged Commissioners to keep the funding for the libraries and the community who used them.
Ms. Amanda Palmer commented that her remarks were similar to many that Commissioners had already heard that day. She quoted author Maya Angelou, saying Forgive yourself for not knowing what you didn’t know before you learned it. She thought libraries were a valuable place for learning of that kind. Ms. Palmer described that Ms. Angelou was the child of an abusive home and used libraries for safety and comfort. Ms. Palmer theorized that while Ms. Angelou was in libraries, she learned perspectives from the authors who helped fuel her voice, leading her to become one of the greatest writers, thinkers, and poets the United States had ever seen. Ms. Palmer speculated that libraries were one of the few democratizing forces that American society had left, and they served as social forums where people could gather regardless of socioeconomic background, race, culture, or ethnicity. She observed there were fewer and fewer places for people to see each other and felt it was important for people to remain visible to one another. She added that everyone had different perspectives and would not necessarily agree, and libraries provided access to a variety of authors, voices, and community members. She supposed that if people continued to become more invisible to each other, there would be further erosion of democratic values. Ms. Palmer revealed that, as a teacher-in-training, she often visited libraries. She said she was working on her exams, and libraries were an invaluable resource. She thought the agenda item arose partly because of general confusion regarding how the ballot question was written and, more importantly, because of literacy issues in the Country. She warned illiteracy was a big force in the Nation and that every possible resource, including libraries, was needed to help foster and promote literacy. Aside from honest confusion, she thought that ballot questions were deliberately engineered to get people to vote against themselves, and she wished people saw that. She believed most people in the room supported libraries and wanted them to exist, even if they disagreed with how funding was allocated or thought they were a passing fad. She stated that libraries had been around for at least a hundred years in the Country, and she hoped they would not go away. She argued that the current trend towards things going online could be a passing fad, especially as people got tired of being isolated through technology and wanted to return to being in the community. She concluded that libraries were a great way to do that.
Mr. Alan Munson thanked the Commissioners for their work and said that libraries were generally an excellent place. He disclosed that he voted against WC1 because Mr. Scott and the LBT ignored him during the one-and-a-half years he attended its meetings. He was concerned about Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) being held in libraries and the licentious books that were available to young children. He stated that he and others had requested that the books be placed in the adult section of the library instead of the children’s section, but those requests were ignored. Actor Kirk Cameron had a story hour to educate children, but that idea had not been supported. He felt he and others were not being listened to, and the best way to get people’s attention was to address where the related money came from. He acknowledged that all the comments about the WCLS’s goodness were valid, but he did not encourage being ignored or sexual licentiousness in books. He mentioned that people had to reach a certain age before they could legally drive, drink, or vote. He pointed out that some of his colleagues would attempt to read the books he mentioned at LBT meetings but were told they could not. He said if the desired changes were implemented, he would encourage the WCLS’s funding, as seen in WC1, to continue.
Ms. Candace Powell expressed devastation that WC1 failed and the related misinformation campaign succeeded. She could not think of a better reason to have libraries than to combat misinformation campaigns. She pointed out that several public commenters said they did not understand WC1 and voted no. Therefore, she disagreed with the argument that the community had spoken and posited it was another misinformation campaign. She had difficulty understanding how anyone could vote against something so vital to the community. Given its small budget, she observed that the Board heard from many people discussing the WCLS’s accomplishments. The WCLS’s essential services could not be performed without WC1’s additional funding. She stated that WC1’s failure impacted her family directly. She had been a library kid and was raising library kids. The Sierra View Library had been her library as a child. She loved taking her kids to the library every weekend, which she could not do if libraries did not have weekend hours because her children were in school. She stated she would lose the ability to raise library kids. She spoke about a magic show she and her children attended at the Downtown Reno Library the previous weekend. She announced that her second-grade daughter broke a record in her teacher’s 20-year career. Her daughter read 100 books that school year and passed 100 accelerated reader tests. Her daughter’s teacher asked how her daughter was able to accomplish that. Ms. Powell said the credit was given to the librarians at the South Valleys Library; they found out what interested her daughter and made recommendations that she liked. They inspired and supported her daughter and created a lifelong learner and reader. Ms. Powell wanted her other child to become a lifelong reader, and she needed the WCLS librarians to be fully funded so they could successfully do their jobs.
Mr. Oscar Williams feared that disinformation had occurred and hoped to provide clarification. He said the Commissioners had what was best described as protected speech regarding their votes, regardless of what the vote was for. For any type of item, the Commissioners could exercise their free speech rights to vote, and this was not lost if the vote pertained to an election certification. He believed Chair Hill engaged in disinformation when she suggested that the Board’s vote to certify elections was ministerial and nondiscretionary. He stated that was incorrect. He spoke about former Sparks City Council Member Michael Carrigan’s vote on the Lazy 8 hotel and casino project. He said Mr. Carrigan’s campaign manager was a lobbyist for the project, so Mr. Carrigan asked the Nevada Commission on Ethics (NCOE) to give an advisory opinion on a potential conflict of interest. The NCOE advised there was a conflict, and Mr. Carrigan sued it via a writ of mandamus, demanding that the NCOE retract the adverse opinion. The case went to the State court, where the court sided with the NCOE. Mr. Karrigan appealed to the Supreme Court of Nevada, which reversed the ruling and determined that Mr. Karrigan had protected speech, even though there was a suspected conflict of interest. He stated that the NCOE appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), which affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Nevada. The case was called Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, and he said it was a defining case due to the legal precedent it set. He commented that the case had not been discussed since July, even though it was the overriding legal precedent that gave Commissioners the right to vote their conscience. He discussed the County of Clark v. City of Las Vegas case and explained that the entities had set up a bilateral board to review referendums and ordinances. He said Clark County sued the City of Las Vegas because of a disagreement. He stated the case went to the Supreme
Court of Nevada, where the court decided that according to Article 4 Section 20 of the Nevada Constitution, the City of Las Vegas could act as it wished. He mentioned the inferred relationship dynamic between a county and a state and mentioned the recount of a County Commissioner.
Ms. Penny Brock displayed documents, copies of which were placed on file with the Clerk. She observed that the BCC’s vote certification passed 3-1 the prior week, and Commissioner Clark quietly recused himself without storming out. She opined that President-elect Donald Trump won the majority of votes in Washoe County during the previous election, as did Mr. Sam Brown, who ran for the U.S. Senate. She remarked that President-elect Trump posted a message on the social media platform X that anyone who cheated during the election would be sent to jail. She said President-elect Trump would implement an election integrity department to improve elections on a federal level. She posited that the U.S. Constitution was being abused in certain states. She discussed American broadcaster Emerald Robinson’s post on X that claimed ballots were counted until members of the Democratic party won. She spoke about the documents she displayed and noted businessman Elon Musk’s comment that federal elections were subject to audits. She warned that Nevada would be investigated. She mentioned that Mr. Seth Keshel was well-known for election integrity. She said Mr. Keshel had listed Arizona and Nevada as the first and second states that would be investigated. She posited that thousands of votes were deleted in Nevada, including in Washoe County.
Ms. Meredith Boge lived in Reno since 2000 and grew up in the County’s libraries. She would visit the libraries to complete homework as a child. When her father died in 2019, she visited the libraries to learn how to take care of property, do taxes, and become knowledgeable in financial literacy. She said the libraries were the reason she was able to accomplish those tasks, and without the libraries, she would likely be unhoused. She said the libraries were a very important part of many people’s lives. She hoped the consistent funding of libraries could be continued.
Commissioner Clark asked Clerk Jan Galassini to accurately portray what took place during the November 15, 2024, meeting. He noted he had decided to recuse himself out of an abundance of caution on a vote and then leisurely strolled out of the building. He mentioned Mr. Drew Ribar filmed the occurrence and that there were numerous witnesses. He indicated it took him two and a half minutes to get to the back door. He wanted the record to reflect that he did not storm out of the building and had acted on the advice of his attorney. He thought that Chair Hill asked Ms. Galassini to put something incorrect on the record, and he found that offensive.
Chair Hill asked Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) Mary Kandaras if it was the role of the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to take votes on items and if the District Attorney’s (DA) Office officially approved the recusal.
CDDA Kandaras said that, from her understanding, there was no request for a legal opinion from the BCC.
Commissioner Clark felt that Chair Hill said it was illegal for him to recuse himself, which he believed was yet to be determined. He said that Chair Hill did not have to agree with him; however, she should not miscategorize him. He requested the record be corrected.
Chair Hill said it was important to Commissioner Clark’s constituents for him to tell why he recused himself. She recited Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 281A.410, which read that because absenteeism by a public officer disrupts the normal course of representative government and deprives the public and the public officer’s constituents of a voice in governmental affairs, the provisions of this subsection are intended to require abstention only in clear cases where the independence of judgment and a reasonable person in the public officer’s situation would be materially affected by the public officer’s acceptance of a gift, significant pecuniary interest or commitment in a private capacity to the interests of another person. She asked Commissioner Clark if he could explain that.
Commissioner Clark asked for people to go back, look at the record, and listen to the advice the DA gave the BCC the previous week. He recited that the DA said they were unsure and may need 10 minutes or 10 hours to research the matter.
Commissioner Garcia thanked the staff for highlighting the student poll worker’s story. She advised that if the community had not seen it, check it out. She opined it was uplifting and highlighted civic engagement's importance, especially for young people. She congratulated the staff on telling the story well. She acknowledged that November was National Adoption Awareness Month and that the Human Services Agency (HSA) worked hard to ensure children were connected with caring homes under the most difficult circumstances. She noted it pained her that they had a community of half a million people; however, 45 children were free and cleared for adoption. She referenced that there were 650 children in care and thanked the foster families who stepped up throughout the region. She reported that 379 adoptions had been finalized during the previous three and a half years. She commented that it was uplifting and would like to see the trend continue in a positive direction. She mentioned that if anyone in the community was considering adoption, they should contact the HSA staff. She said it was easy to get information and learn more. She suggested those individuals could start slowly by mentoring or fostering. She stated adoption was an important step in building a family. She thanked everyone involved in those efforts.
PROCLAMATIONS
Commissioner Clark wished that Mr. Matthew Wilkie was present and said Mr. Wilkie was interested in a proclamation being more than just words. He believed it was important that Mr. Wilkie asked for the Community Homeless Advisory Board (CHAB) meeting to happen more regularly. He noted the group had not met since September, with the last meeting being eight or nine months before that. He thought that CHAB should meet monthly. Commissioner Clark read the proclamation.
Eddy House Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Trevor Macaluso appreciated the Board of County Commissioners’ (BCC) recognition of November as National Homeless Youth Awareness Month. He mentioned the Eddy House was continuing to grow as an organization and that the number of homeless youths in the community and around the Country was on the rise. He appreciated the partnership and said they were always looking for new ways to partner together. He noted that the City of Sparks offered a portion of its Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) funding for youth shelters, which was an allowable expense by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He expressed that they would love opportunities to work together and appreciated the proclamation's awareness. He commented that the Eddy House was launching new programs and a new transitional living facility in the spring.
Chair Hill thanked Eddy House for their work.
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Commissioner Clark, seconded by Vice Chair Herman, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 6A1 be adopted.
Community Reinvestment Manager Gabrielle Enfield introduced Dig Studio Principal Architect and Founding Partner Brandon Sobiech to give a presentation on the Truckee River Vision Plan. She described that the project was started by the City of Reno, with whom the County partnered to identify a plan for the Truckee River going forward.
Mr. Sobiech conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following titles: Truckee River Vision Plan Overview; Truckee River Vision Plan; Our approach to the Truckee; How is this Plan Organized? (2 slides); We Researched Previous Efforts: (2 slides); We Asked the Community; Five Project Goals; Plan Recommendation Summaries; Planning Themes; Planning Themes: Enhancing Ecology + Safety; Planning Themes: Promoting Great Neighborhoods; Planning Themes: Activating Public Space;
Planning Themes: Creating Connections; Planning Themes: Integrating Public Art; Enhancing Ecology and Safety; Safety, Water & Ecological Systems: (2 slides); Promoting Great Neighborhoods; Land Use & Design Recommendations:; Creation of Truckee River Overlay Zone District: Buildings and Massing; Creation of Truckee River Overlay Zone District: Connections & Open Space; Creation of Truckee River Overlay Zone District: Amenities & Materials; Creation of Truckee River Overlay Zone District: Access & Parking; Creation of Truckee River Overlay Zone District: Green Infrastructure; Revitalizing Public Parks; Parks & Open Space Recommendations: (2 slides); West Street Plaza; Riverwalk District; Post Office Site; City Plaza (2 slides); Parks & Open Space Recommendations: (3 slides); Creating Connections; Mobility & Connectivity Recommendations: Develop a Distinct and Consistent Path Design; Untitled (4 slides); Mobility & Connectivity Recommendations: Develop a Blueway Plan; Integrating Public Art; Public Art Recommendations:; Public Art Typologies:; Public Art Recommendations:; Implementing the Vision; Implementation Plan; Implementation Matrix; Next Steps; Truckee River Vision Plan Thank You.
Mr. Sobiech described that the Truckee River Vision Plan was unique in its goal to both look long-term and take advantage of funding opportunities in the short term that the County and the City of Reno had through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). He said that while he and his team looked at a long-term vision for multiple systems, consideration was also given to implementation, including simple things like replacing trash cans. He explained that the stretch of river that was studied extended from Sparks to the California state line. He shared that during the study, some areas emerged as having similar character and facing alike issues. That led to the Truckee River Vision Plan delineating four different character areas: rural, Reno West, downtown, and Reno East. He outlined five planning pillars that were used to view the different recommendations within the Truckee River Corridor. He advised that the planning team looked holistically at how all the considerations came together to create a space. He commented that the first thing they did was recognize that several plans had been made previously. The Reno City Council provided guidance that they did not want another plan that would sit unused on a shelf. He imparted that he and his team went through all the prior plans and mapped out the different recommendations so they could create a basis for beginning that did not duplicate efforts. He said his team was working on a document that could be implemented. He described a robust public outreach period in which community members were directed to a singular website and asked survey questions about what they wanted to see regarding the river. He noted that a question was also asked about what kept people away from the river, and the responses highlighted cleanliness, aesthetics, safety concerns, and lack of trail connectivity. He conveyed that initial outreach informed the development of goals, which were then prioritized through the second round of outreach.
Mr. Sobiech summarized the plan recommendations. He said the goal of enhancing ecology and safety rose to the top of the priority list and set a foundation for most recommendations that came out of the study. He articulated that the importance of river health permeated everything, and recommendations were categorized into three main buckets. He explained that the theme of promoting great neighborhoods was primarily focused within the boundaries of the City of Reno. He described that the revitalizing public
parks theme expanded on efforts towards the Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan. He and his team concluded that a Truckee River Special Parks District was needed for long- term funding, operations, and maintenance of the Truckee River Corridor. He shared that there were numerous discussions about uncertainty regarding who ultimately controlled, cleaned, and maintained land along the Truckee River Corridor, and he theorized that the creation of a central district would improve clarity on those considerations and improve the long-term funding strategy. He mentioned that several case studies, including the Three Rivers District in Hennepin County, were reviewed within the document. He described that the entire study area was evaluated not only park-by-park but also by how river access, parking, and signage could be improved at certain parks within the County. The team also considered how each park could support better trail connectivity as the Tahoe-Pyramid Trail wound through different areas. He said the creating connections theme was a good partnership with the County. He understood discussions were happening about how the Tahoe-Pyramid Trail could be rerouted to have a better connection with the river and avoid busier roads. He disclosed that conversations were underway with landowners along the river about opportunities to create a better trail experience. He said the planning team strategized how to create consistency within a trail program and cited Riverside Drive and Downtown Reno as two urban sections that typified the area. He mentioned that a blueway plan was under consideration to address better navigation for recreational in-water use. Mr. Sobiech advised that the final goal addressed integrating public art. He advised that public art was important to the community, and was ranked as the second highest priority, just behind recreation in terms of how people wanted the community to be seen and promoted. He related that his team created different typologies of art and experiences and then mapped potential locations and improvements along the Truckee River Corridor.
Mr. Sobiech divulged that he and his team designed a robust implementation plan that identified each recommendation in the plan and assigned it a priority level based on public feedback. He revealed that from the second round of feedback, conversations about priorities were used to guide priority levels, timing, project triggers, budgets, other agencies to work with, potential funding sources, and related Truckee River Vision Plan efforts. He stated that conversations were ongoing, and the Truckee River Vision Plan was envisioned as a living, breathing document that could be tracked and guided. He said it was currently being used to guide the use of ARPA funds that were already available. He added that the ARPA-funded projects would continue to move forward, and ideally, the next steps would include recognition of the importance of a Truckee River Special Parks District and the creation of a Truckee River Overlay Zone District as precursors to new development and ongoing financial support.
Chair Hill thanked Mr. Sobiech for his presentation.
Commissioner Garcia stated her appreciation for the synthesis of previous studies and planning that was evident in Mr. Sobiech’s presentation. She shared that her perspective for the long-term vision of Downtown Reno would include more families living, working, and playing downtown. She disclosed that she looked to other cities when she traveled, and she recognized elements in the built environment that encouraged play and creativity. She thought that when plans were created, it was important to consider
access for all constituents, including the youngest constituents, older constituents, and people who had mobility issues.
Commissioner Andriola noted that because she had lived in the area for a long time, she was aware of discussions about the Truckee River that spanned more than 30 years. She expressed her excitement about seeing the Truckee River Vision Plan come to fruition. She echoed the remarks Commissioner Garcia made about envisioning more family-oriented activity. She said that although she saw a lot of vision and exciting opportunities in the plan, she did not see a projected timeframe for completion.
Mr. Sobiech responded that the full scope of the vision extended for approximately 20 years, but steps were already being made. He said specifics depended on what gained momentum, but there was funding in place to move simple things forward. He reported that his team heard from multiple rounds of public outreach with many segments of the population that there were simple things that would make a big difference. He provided examples of new trash cans, signage, wayfinding, and branding as nearer-term investments.
Commissioner Clark declared that the Truckee River was the jewel of the State, and he recalled expressing similar sentiments many times to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). He shared that former Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman mentioned that although Las Vegas could do many things, the Truckee River was a resource that could not be duplicated. Commissioner Clark expressed concerns about trash and pollution near and in the river. He disclosed that fishermen told him that they were afraid to wade into the river to fly fish because of the possibility of hypodermic needles sticking in their boots. Commissioner Clark was worried about the trash that continued to build up, and he theorized that windy conditions exacerbated the movement of trash when it was not anchored down. He said it ended up in the river and then traveled downstream to tribal neighbors and Pyramid Lake. He stated that over the last 10 to 12 years, he had seen progressively diminished use of the river by people. He thought people had become afraid to go there. He recalled there used to be families, strollers, skateboarders, and bicycles. He reported that, more recently, he would ride his bicycle by the river for an hour and a half on a nice weekend and only see five other people on bicycles. He thought the resource was underutilized, and he commented that the trash was a big issue that he hoped would be addressed. He suggested a partnership with Waste Management to get receptacles placed along the river. He speculated that not everyone would use a receptacle, but he thought if the option were there, it would improve the chance of people cleaning up. He advocated for nature walks, docents, and general clean up to encourage people to get back to enjoying the river.
Mr. Sobiech remarked that the comments from Commissioner Clark were similar to what his team heard in their public outreach efforts. He projected that an immediate impact would be seen from the addition of animal-resistant, fully closed trash receptacles that were being installed using ARPA funds. He added that long-term policies regarding maintenance, staff, and trash pickup for the Truckee River Special Parks District were being developed.
Commissioner Clark observed that although nets could help trap trash, if people did not throw things on the ground there would not be concern about trash being blown around by the wind. He spoke about vehicle storage along the river, both by the City of Reno and by Waste Management. He opined that the area was prime real estate, and he objected to it being used for heavy equipment storage, particularly because of the risk of fuel leaks. He thought the area would be better used as open space or a walking path. He thought it was prudent to plan differently moving forward, and he recommended moving industrial use away from prime riverfront property.
Mr. Sobiech responded that his team used the area Commissioner Clark described as a catalyst site in the development guidelines. They recognized that in previous planning efforts the City of Reno undertook, the area was identified as a growth district that could be transformed. He said that area also offered an opportunity for additional parkland.
Commissioner Clark opined that the City of Reno should take a leadership position and move their vehicle storage area off the river. He thought everybody should do their part to clean up the river banks and surrounding real estate.
Chair Hill commended Mr. Sobiech, the team at the City of Reno, and County staff for working together on the Truckee River Vision Plan. She noted the hard work of Commissioner Garcia with the Open Space and Regional Parks Commission on establishing the Truckee River Special Parks District. She advised that in the next budget, the BCC would evaluate funding a study necessary to move the project forward. She acknowledged efforts to work regionally and expressed her appreciation for the time Mr. Sobiech spent on the plan and presentation.
Behavioral Health Administrator Julia Ratti conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following titles: Crisis Response System; Local Coalition Efforts; Someone to Talk to; Someone to Respond; A Safe Place to Be; Sequential Intercept Model; Sequential Intercept Model, What Is It; Sequential Intercept Model, The Intercepts; Washoe SIM Implementation Progress Updates; Next Steps; Washoe Behavioral Health Center; map (1 slide); Washoe Behavioral Health Center, West Hills Conceptual Usage 2.0; Children and Families; Current Efforts; Questions.
Ms. Ratti reminded that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) identified behavioral health as a strategic priority for the County in October 2023. She would provide an update on her team’s actions and a high-level overview of the four specific initiatives related to behavioral health. The four initiatives were a crisis response system, the Sequential Intercept Model (SIM), the Washoe Behavioral Health Center, and children and families.
Ms. Ratti shared that the first of the four key strategic priorities was establishing a best-practice crisis response system. Her team worked with two local coalitions that had partners within the community, including individuals interested in building out the crisis response system. She reviewed the coalitions listed on the PowerPoint slide titled Local Coalition Efforts. The Partner Agency Team primarily consisted of providers. The Children’s Crisis Collaboration specifically focused on the needs of children and families who were experiencing a behavioral health crisis. Her team provided support to both of those coalitions.
Ms. Ratti stated that the crisis response system had three essential components: someone to talk to, someone to respond, and a safe place to be. She reviewed the PowerPoint slide titled Someone to Talk to and explained that the 988 Lifeline, a call line for behavioral crises, had experienced progress. The 988 Lifeline was operated by the nonprofit organization Crisis Support Services of Nevada. She noted that the 2021 Legislature established a fee that was amended in 2023. The $0.35 fee was added to people’s monthly phone bills to generate funding that supported a statewide behavioral health crisis response. She reported that the funding established an adequate operating budget. It had been collected for a year and could now be invested. The State issued a request for proposal (RFP) for the funding, and she expected the award to be issued to the bidder at the next Board of Examiners (BOE) meeting. She advised that the 988 Lifeline call center system would experience meaningful capacity improvements. These would include increased data collection capabilities and additional case management abilities to support additional levels of care for those who experienced a crisis. Other capacity improvements included dispatch capabilities that would be ready once mobile crisis teams were available regionally.
Ms. Ratti announced that good news had occurred at the national level. When the 988 Lifeline was first implemented, calls were directed to the local call centers based on three-digit area codes. This could be problematic since many people moved in and out of the region. Georouting capabilities were recently added at the federal level. She advised that a rollout process would occur because each cell phone provider needed attention to implement the update. In the near future, calls to the 988 Lifeline would be routed to the local call center, allowing for a continuum of care (CoC). She originally believed this would take more time and was pleased that it was being accomplished so quickly.
Ms. Ratti reviewed the PowerPoint slide titled Someone to Respond. In the best practice model, this factor consisted of crisis response teams (CRTs) that were usually comprised of a behavioral health professional and a peer. This area still needed work, but progress had been made. Progress included a state plan amendment (SPA) through Medicaid that would enable the creation of a billing model for behavioral health services. There had been negotiations with the State to transition the management of the children’s Mobile Crisis Response Team (MCRT) to the County. She mentioned that the MCRT team experienced a 49 percent vacancy rate when it was managed by the State. With the same amount of dollars, the County doubled the community’s level of service for children and families in crisis. She commended the Human Services Agency (HSA) for its work.
Ms. Ratti said that Certified Community Behavioral Health Centers (CCBHCs) were safety net nonprofit organizations that also provided some mobile crisis services. The co-responder Mobile Outreach Safety Teams (MOST) consisted of a behavioral health professional and a law enforcement officer. She noted that MCRTs did not have a fully developed public health model, so a 988 Lifeline caller could not currently have a team dispatched to them. This work would have to be addressed within the region at a future date.
Ms. Ratti referenced the PowerPoint slide titled A Safe Place to Be. She explained that she would not review this topic in detail because the presentation in the subsequent agenda would provide thorough information. She hoped significant progress regarding mobile crisis response would be made within the next two years to enable a whole CoC.
Ms. Ratti reported that the SIM was a large project within the County. The SIM was a framework that attempted to divert people who experienced behavioral health challenges from the criminal justice system and into a behavioral health system. It targeted people whose behavioral health challenges drove their involvement in the criminal justice system to avoid deeper penetration into that system. She explained that intercepts were the different touchpoints where contact could be made with an affected individual, and these were depicted on the PowerPoint slide titled Sequential Intercept Model, The Intercepts.
Ms. Ratti shared that 2 Commissioners and 25 other individuals traveled to Miami-Dade County to learn about its outstanding implementation of the SIM. She reviewed the PowerPoint slide titled Washoe SIM Implementation Progress Updates and advised that a core team completed an assessment draft of the County’s current efforts. The draft identified areas where the County was doing well, where its gaps were, and how to move forward. The core team had established touchpoints with the Cities of Reno and Sparks to ensure involvement and engagement with their law enforcement agencies and courts. She pointed out that Judge Egan Walker and Judge Cynthia Lu with the Second Judicial District Court (SJDC) had championed the SIM.
Ms. Ratti reviewed the PowerPoint slide titled Next Steps. Critical gaps in the behavioral health system had to be identified because diverting and deflecting appropriate individuals from the criminal justice system was wonderful, but those people had to be supported by an adequate behavioral health system.
Ms. Ratti announced that the Washoe Behavioral Health Center was formerly known as the West Hills Behavioral Health Hospital. Staff was still identifying the facility’s highest and best use and evaluating how it could meet the community’s needs. She reviewed the facility’s intended uses on the PowerPoint slide titled Washoe Behavioral Health Center, West Hills Conceptual Usage 2.0. Her team was addressing the components related to opening the Washoe Behavioral Health Center, which included building affordability, licensing requirements, sustainable business models, and the property’s deed restrictions. A lot of good work was taking place behind the scenes, and she anticipated providing a more robust presentation to the Board in the near future.
Ms. Ratti spoke about the strategic priority regarding children and families and noted that many of its related items were interconnected with the other strategic priorities. She commented that the children’s aspects of the Washoe Behavioral Health Center would be meaningful additions to the community. Her team stayed closely connected to two of the State’s major efforts so they could be included in the emerging business model. The team actively participated in workshops and other activities related to updated Medicaid State plans. Her team also participated in and supported an effort led by the Children’s Cabinet, the Youth Mental Health Collective Impact.
Chair Hill thanked Ms. Ratti and commended what she accomplished within
one year.
Vice Chair Herman expressed gratitude and appreciation for Ms. Ratti’s
work.
Commissioner Garcia commented on the relationship between the United States (US) Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). She questioned if any changes were anticipated that could impact the local region. Ms. Ratti advised that the question was excellent, and the topic deserved contemplation. She pointed out that Government Affairs Liaison Cadence Matijevich would be better suited to answer the question, as she received information from the region’s federal delegation. Ms. Ratti believed any impacts were yet to be seen. Her team would continue effecting positive changes locally and navigate through any forthcoming impacts.
Commissioner Andriola thanked Ms. Ratti for her presentation and commended her work. Commissioner Andriola reported that she was fortunate to have attended the Washoe County Behavioral Health Summit. She appreciated seeing the efforts made by Judge Walker and Judge Lu to launch the SIM. She inquired if there were plans to hold similar summits in the future. She noted how much discovery occurred at the summit.
Ms. Ratti advised that her team’s current scope of work included a certain level of convening with partners, and this would most likely occur in the spring. Her staff wanted to ensure they were prepared for such a meeting and that it would provide value to its attendees. She wanted to evaluate any strengths and weaknesses adequately, and she commented that the forthcoming meeting would be shorter than the previous summit, potentially less than one day. Commissioner Andriola was enthusiastic about participating in the future meeting. She gained a lot of knowledge at the summit, and she believed it was significant for agencies to continue those types of conversations.
Commissioner Andriola wondered if specific data about the community’s calls to the 988 Lifeline were available.
Ms. Ratti said limited data was currently available. Expansion of that capability would be included in the capacity building that was enabled by the $15 million
previously mentioned. Recent data indicated that call volume increased by about 30 percent since the 988 Lifeline’s debut. She could not account for the disposition of the calls because they did not yet have the technology necessary for that level of tracking. Once the related contract was awarded, more information would be obtained about the selected administrative services organization that would facilitate the changes. A wonderful nonprofit organization operated the call center, but a higher level of capacity was needed. Therefore, an administrative services organization that had similar experience in other states would bolster capacity and enable more detailed data collection. Commissioner Andriola was excited to see how those changes materialized.
Commissioner Clark mentioned that he traveled to Miami-Dade County the prior year, and he commended Ms. Ratti for her work. He asked if a collaboration or partnership with the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) had occurred. He was specifically interested in knowing if students could participate in an internship program related to the County’s work in behavioral health.
Ms. Ratti informed that the question allowed her to comment on a topic she previously forgot to mention. She emphasized that the four initiatives in her presentation were the strategic, regional, and collaborative initiatives. She did not want to downplay the important work performed at the departmental level, such as in the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO) and the HSA. She pointed out that the County employed over 30 clinicians who provided direct services. Internship opportunities to become a clinician did not necessarily occur within the collaborative systems and policies initiatives. However, those opportunities occurred within the organization, and she believed the HSA and the jail provided those internships.
Ms. Ratti commented that workforce development was one of the region’s biggest challenges. This included making sure there were enough providers to serve the community’s needs. She said staff partnered at every opportunity to ensure it assisted with workforce development. It was anticipated that the Washoe Behavioral Health Center would have a strong partnership. The community had a shortage of options for individuals to complete residency programs. The hope was always that people who moved through Nevada’s educational programs would get excited about the work being done in the State and stay in Nevada, which was part of a retention strategy. Her staff was constantly evaluating and incorporating workforce development opportunities. She thought there should be a larger focus on this topic at the levels of systems and policies rather than just the level of direct provision of services. She would further consider how to get more students involved.
Chair Hill thanked Ms. Ratti for her presentation and looked forward to future updates about the Washoe Behavioral Health Center.
Ms. Ratti mentioned it was National Adoption Awareness Month. She was an adopted person and stated she won the parent lottery. She appreciated the County’s promotion of adoption.
Chair Hill said the Board was inspired and appreciated all Ms. Ratti’s work on behalf of the State and Washoe County.
Steve Shell, Vice President of Behavioral Health for Renown Health, conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following titles: Crisis Care Center; photos (2 slides); Operational Overview; Infrastructure; Staffing; Post-Triage Connection to Community Services; Cooperative Service Agreements.
Mr. Shell said the Renown Health Crisis Care Center was his favorite project that he had worked on since becoming a resident of the area 15 years prior. He worked in the behavioral health field for about 30 years, and he believed everyone could attest to the mental health crisis the community and Country were facing. He joined Renown Health about four years earlier and introduced the Crisis Care Center project to Renown Health. He was grateful that his colleagues at Renown Health decided to support the project, and they were all excited to launch the Crisis Care Center in early 2025. He would provide an overview of the center and the value it would contribute to the community.
Mr. Shell displayed two PowerPoint slides containing pictures of the Crisis Care Center’s new signage. He informed that the Crisis Care Center was located on the campus of the State psychiatric hospital, Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services (NNAMHS), on Galletti Way. The campus was large, so the new signage would play an important role in directing individuals to the center.
Mr. Shell reviewed the PowerPoint slide titled Operational Overview. He advised that the Crisis Care Center would be a safe place for adults in the community to go if they experienced a mental health or addiction crisis, and they would receive the appropriate level of care.
Mr. Shell pointed out that the Crisis Care Center was a partnership between public and private entities, the State and Renown Health. He emphasized that the State had been a key partner of Renown Health for several years.
Mr. Shell reported that the Crisis Care Center would be part of the State hospital, and the building was vacant for several years. He was proud that Renown Health repurposed an existing facility, and he explained that minor renovations had been performed to create a beautiful, peaceful setting where people could work through crises. The center would be licensed as a crisis stabilization center, which would be a new license designation for the State. Many states already had that license designation, so Nevada would be implementing an evidence-based practice.
Mr. Shell noted that Renown Health had worked with Medicaid to create a rate that was specific to the Crisis Care Center and would produce a sustainable model. The center would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, so individuals could enter it anytime they experienced a behavioral health or addiction crisis. Law enforcement could also bring individuals there from the community who were experiencing a mental health crisis, and they would be willingly received. He pointed out that some individuals would still need treatment at emergency rooms (ERs) if they had glaring medical issues or were extremely violent. His team had worked closely with law enforcement throughout the entire process to ensure the Crisis Care Center would be a good fit, would provide benefits to law enforcement, and would make it easy for individuals to receive the right level of care.
Mr. Shell stated the Crisis Care Center was designed to follow the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) national guidelines for behavioral health crisis care. He was proud that the center was implementing evidence- based practices. Individuals would receive a full assessment and experience a triage process when they entered the facility. The team’s goal would be to expeditiously determine what the individual was experiencing, decide what level of care they needed, discover if they needed inpatient or outpatient levels of care, figure out if they needed additional resources within the community, and connect them to the next level of care. The goal was to move individuals through the center’s operation within 23 hours of their arrival. Some beds would be available for individuals who could not be placed within 23 hours.
Mr. Shell announced that safety had been at the forefront of the project’s entire planning process. He reviewed the PowerPoint slide titled Infrastructure and noted that the Crisis Care Center building was originally designed as a psychiatric hospital. Therefore, his team did not have to make many modifications to the space but did have to align it with Nevada’s current codes. He believed the facility was very safe. Certain items had been removed so that individuals who experienced suicidal or homicidal thoughts would not use them harmfully. His team wanted to ensure it was easy and safe for individuals and families to enter at any time, as well as easy and safe for law enforcement to bring individuals there.
Mr. Shell discussed the living room model and said the Crisis Care Center was truly set up like a living room. He commented that ERs and other clinics were not the most appropriate settings for people who were experiencing a crisis to visit. He wanted the center to be a welcoming space, so it was intentionally designed not to resemble an ER and utilized the living room model. It contained quality lounge chairs where individuals could relax while the team worked behind the scenes to determine the next levels of care. He stated that the Commissioners would be invited to the center’s grand opening in the coming weeks.
Mr. Shell reviewed the positions that the Crisis Care Center would include, as listed on the PowerPoint slide titled Staffing. He discussed the certified peer recovery support specialist (PRSS) position and said these individuals had lived experience with mental health and addiction issues. His team examined evidence-based practices in Arizona and determined that PRSSs were a key to success. Those individuals could meaningfully
understand the person who was experiencing the crisis. The PRSSs were a large component of the center’s staffing model and would be onsite at all times.
Mr. Shell pointed out that the PowerPoint slide titled Post-Triage Connection to Community Services displayed the options available to individuals after they were triaged. He noted that some people would require inpatient stabilization for psychiatric or addiction issues and would be transferred accordingly to places such as the Reno Behavioral Healthcare Hospital, Saint Mary’s Regional Medical Center, and NNAMHS. Some individuals would strictly need outpatient levels of care, whether for behavioral health or even primary care. He mentioned that many individuals had never visited a primary care physician (PCP). The Crisis Care Center team would work closely with the Community Health Alliance, Northern Nevada HOPES (HOPES), the community’s certified behavioral health clinics like Vitality Unlimited and Quest Counseling, and a multitude of other community partners that helped plan for the center. He said individuals could require access to other community resources such as the Cares Campus, other temporary housing options, or case management. The Crisis Care Center team would have a Care Coordinator who would maintain contact with individuals for at least one year after they visited the center. He believed it was essential to figure out if individuals were being connected to the right community resources so recidivism would be tracked. Currently, many individuals revisited ERs, indicating gaps in care within the community. He believed the Care Coordinator position would help identify more about those gaps and provide real-time data to enable more informed decisions about the community’s needs.
Mr. Shell reviewed the PowerPoint slide titled Cooperative Service Agreements and explained that it was a list of community partners. Service agreements were being created with each partner to define both parties’ expectations. He spoke about the Field Assessment Screening Tool (FAST) that was created for law enforcement. The FAST would be available to all law enforcement officers and guide them in determining who should be brought to the Crisis Care Center UNR the jail or ER. Renown Health wanted law enforcement officers to be able to make quick decisions about the best place for individuals to go. He emphasized that the Crisis Care Center was not strictly a Renown Health project; it was truly a community project, and Renown Health was simply its operator. Many partners worked with Renown Health throughout the process, and this work, along with the Board’s, was integral to the Crisis Care Center’s success.
Vice Chair Herman commended Mr. Shell’s work.
Commissioner Garcia felt it was appropriate to thank Mr. Shell on behalf of the community’s ERs and jail for addressing this critical need. The Crisis Care Center was much anticipated, and she was excited to see it. She asked if Mr. Shell could more thoroughly discuss sustainable funding for the Crisis Care Center. She knew sustainable funding was a consistent concern for projects of this nature. She declared that the Board wanted to ensure the center was successful and supported in every possible way. She inquired about the strategy for operational costs.
Mr. Shell stated that Renown Health knew sustainability was key for the Crisis Care Center. Renown Health did not want to implement this project and then face its elimination later. The State of Nevada was providing American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to support the center’s operation expenses during the first year. This would allow Renown Health to analyze the center’s precise costs. Estimations had been performed to the team’s best ability, but surprises were inevitable. Additionally, Renown Health worked closely with Medicaid for the last three years to create a reimbursement rate specific to this type of operation. That item was approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and was ready for use at the Crisis Care Center upon its opening. He specified that the item would allow for reimbursement upon the center’s opening. Renown Health also communicated with other payers, who all supported the project and saw it as a less costly level of care than the ERs. He believed the payers would continue to support the Crisis Care Center. Sustainability was a major concern for the project, and because of the reimbursement through Medicaid and communication with peers, he thought it would be fine. His team would closely monitor the center’s sustainability, especially during its first year of operation.
Commissioner Andriola inquired about projections regarding the anticipated number of individuals who would utilize the Crisis Care Center’s services on an annual basis. Mr. Shell said that information had been estimated as carefully as possible. Current levels at the ERs had been evaluated, as had the number of individuals who ended up at the jail unnecessarily. He anticipated that the center would serve approximately 18 to 20 adults per day within a 24-hour period. He acknowledged that the amount could increase once more people knew the Crisis Care Center was available and a safe space. His team was prepared for any growth and additional staffing as needed. The staffing required to open the doors was calculated, and they would be examining volume very closely. There were 25 chairs and 10 beds available onsite, so the Crisis Care Center could hold 35 people at any given time.
Commissioner Andriola thanked Mr. Shell for Renown Health’s use of the Crisis Care Center’s building because it was unoccupied for some time. She thought it was great to utilize infrastructure that was conducive to the essential services the community would be provided. She commended the ability to repurpose the facility, especially when considering the area’s limited resources regarding land.
Commissioner Andriola asked what inspired Mr. Shell to present Renown Health with the Crisis Care Center project.
Mr. Shell disclosed that he designed and opened the Reno Behavioral Healthcare Hospital and had operated behavioral health hospitals for many years. He knew the community had gaps that were not filled by the Reno Behavioral Healthcare Hospital. He mentioned that he, like many in the community, never expected the West Hills Behavioral Health Hospital to close. He experienced burnout and had discussions with Renown Health about how it could further serve the community’s behavioral health needs. Several individuals, including himself and Behavioral Health Administrator Julia Ratti, had discussed what further steps could be taken in the community. They started discussing
crisis stabilization approximately seven years ago and began looking at other states that were implementing similar projects. One state was Arizona, and several of the involved individuals visited Arizona to see its methods in action.
Mr. Shell disclosed that he did not originally intend for the Crisis Care Center project to belong to Renown Health. He began the project while he was at the Reno Behavioral Healthcare Hospital, and fortunately, the project continued when he left. He brought the project to Renown Health, and he was proud that the organization supported the project. He believed the project would have been successful regardless of those changes because of the combined energy and passion of the individuals involved.
Mr. Shell asserted that the Crisis Care Center would be a game-changer for the community and had been needed for a long time. He appreciated the support that the project received, and he said the Reno Behavioral Healthcare Hospital was one piece of the puzzle. He thought the Crisis Care Center would be an even larger piece of the puzzle to connect people with the right resources at the right time.
Commissioner Andriola expressed her excitement and commended Mr. Shell’s enthusiasm and dedication. She said it was great to see the partners’ and Ms. Ratti’s involvement, and she stated that the Crisis Care Center project was critically needed. She questioned the center’s anticipated opening date. Mr. Shell advised it would open in early 2025. Approximately 70 percent of the staff had been hired. Once there was enough staff to operate the facility 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the doors would be opened.
Commissioner Andriola said she would leave the meeting that day a better person because of Mr. Shell’s devotion to the community.
Commissioner Clark commented on the Crisis Care Center’s sustainability and asked if it was meant to serve people from outside the State or if it would strictly be for Washoe County residents. He mentioned there had been issues with some of the State’s rural counties admitting to sending individuals to the Cares Campus. He acknowledged that unhoused individuals did not have street addresses and could, therefore, be from any location.
Mr. Shell responded that the Crisis Care Center’s focus, by far, would be on Washoe County residents. He acknowledged that individuals from outside of the County could access the center. Commissioner Clark asked what occurred when someone from outside the County utilized the center’s services and if the ability existed to get compensation from the area the individual came from.
Mr. Shell stated that Commissioner Clark’s point was excellent and would have to be closely examined through time. The Crisis Care Center’s obligation would be to serve the present individual and determine their level of care. The team could then figure out where they came from and who would be responsible for payment of their services. Commissioner Clark understood that no one should be turned away. He commented that
the County did not have unlimited funds. He did not want to see the center turn into a place where people were sent from other regions to have their care paid for by local residents.
Chair Hill believed the current point in time was significant in Washoe County’s history. The County was investing in mental health care and behavioral health care for its residents and was working with a coalition of public, private, and nonprofit partners to care for its community members. She thanked Mr. Shell for being part of those actions. She was excited to see the Crisis Care Center open. She acknowledged that situations existed where the only option was to arrest people if they had a crisis in public. She thought the County could do better, and she was excited that it was taking action to do more. She thanked Mr. Shell for his passion and work on the Crisis Care Center project.
DONATIONS
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 through 8B1 be accepted.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS – 9A1 THROUGH 9M1
3) direct the Washoe County Treasurer to correct the error(s). [cumulative amount of decrease to all taxing entities $165,676.04]. Assessor. (All Commission Districts.)
±1,863 square feet to NV Energy on Assessor Parcel Number 162-010-20, in the Southwest Truckee Meadows Planning Area, for the realignment of an existing overhead power line and power pole on Whites Creek Open Space. Community Services. (Commission District 2.)
$8,000.00]. Community Services. (Commission District 1.)
$26,515.00 per month]; and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Manager to execute a three year agreement effective December 1, 2024 through November 30, 2027, with two additional one year renewal options on behalf of Washoe County [estimated annual value $318,180.00 plus cost for call-back services]. Community Services. (All Commission Districts.)
Valley Regional Park Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 051-330-01; to provide potential access to Sunny Hills Ranchos property APNs 016-840- 11 and 016-840-12, 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 NV State Park Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) land conversion and Bureau of Land Management Reversionary Interest application for the proposed access easement. Community Services. (Commission District 4.)
$57 million year-to-date and $29 million year over year. This unaudited interim financial report is provided quarterly, in addition to the audited comprehensive annual financial report, to provide information on Washoe County’s primary operating fund and accounts and identify significant variances between the years. - Unaudited Comptroller. (All Commission Districts.)
- Insurance Plans, of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Washoe County and the Washoe County Public Attorneys’ Association for the four
(4) year period of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2028; and to approve the same revisions for the unrepresented confidential attorneys. [No fiscal impact]. Human Resources. (All Commission Districts.)
the Job Evaluation Committee; a change in the job classification title from Homeless Services Coordinator to Human Services Coordinator; a change in the job classification title from Homeless Services Case Manager Supervisor to Human Services Supervisor; a change in the job classification title from Homeless Services Analyst to Management Analyst; a change in the job classification title from Homeless Services Program Assistant to Program Assistant (Human Services Agency); delimit the job classification titles of Homeless Services Coordinator, Homeless Services Case Manager Supervisor, Homeless Services Analyst, and Homeless Services Program Assistant (Human Services Agency); a change in the job classification title from NNCTC Intelligence Analyst to Intelligence Analyst (Sheriff’s Office); a change in the job classification title from Parks Operations Superintendent to Operations Superintendent - CSD/Parks; a change in the job classification title from Grounds Equipment Mechanic to Parks Medium Equipment Mechanic (Community Services Department); a change in the job classification title from Librarian I to Librarian (Library); delimit the job classification title of Librarian II and authorize Human Resources to make the necessary changes (Library). [Total fiscal impact is a savings of
$25,263.] Human Resources. (All Commission Districts.)
$51,660.00; FY 26/27 estimated fiscal impact of $52,955.00; FY 27/28 estimated fiscal impact of $54,278.00]. [Total estimated fiscal impact for the four-year period is $209,293.00]. Human Resources. (All Commission Districts.)
$72,852.00 county match] to provide housing and supportive services for homeless families retroactive for the period September 1, 2024 through August 31, 2025; authorize the Director of the Human Services Agency to
retroactively execute the agreement; and direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary budget amendments. Human Services Agency. (All Commission Districts.)
-- to support gift cards to encourage participation in the Aca Entre Nos (AEN) initiative, a series of conversations; approve Resolution necessary for same; and direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary net zero cross fund and/or cross function budget appropriation transfer. Manager. (Commission District 3.)
Legislative Principles and Lobbying Practices for the 118th United States Congress. This item provides a summary of federal legislative activities of county staff, contract lobbyists, and elected officials during the third quarter of 2024, including but not limited to participation of members of Nevada’s congressional delegation at Washoe County events, contacts with the members and staff of Nevada’s congressional delegation on matters such as updates on natural disaster events in Washoe County, the availability and affordability of fire insurance for Nevada property owners, Washoe County’s behavioral health priorities, requests for funding of various county projects, and the termination of United States Postal Service’s plan to move operations from Reno to Sacramento. Manager. (All Commission Districts.)
$63,872.00 [no County match] for personnel and operating expenses relating to the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) program, for a retroactive term of September 1, 2024 through August 31, 2025; and if approved, authorize the Chief Medical Examiner & Coroner of the Washoe County Regional Medical Examiner’s Office to sign the grant award documents necessary to receive the grant; and if approved authorize the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary amendments to the Regional Medical Examiner’s Office’s Fiscal Year 2025 budget to reflect the receipt and use of the grant funds. Regional Medical Examiner. (All Commission Districts.)
Washoe County Sheriff’s Office to provide reimbursement for extra staffing/patrol services [up to $5,376.00 estimated total reimbursement] needed in the Sparks, Nevada area during the annual Andelin Family Farm Fall Festival (2024) from September 28, 2024 through November 2, 2024. Sheriff. (Commission District 4.)
On the call for public comment, Ms. Penny Brock expressed objections toward block and consent items because she believed they were complicated and involved a lot of taxpayer money. She mentioned taxpayers were only able to speak once on the items. She wanted to address 9D1, 9A2, and 9C3. For 9C3, she noted in the business world, a five-year contract for janitorial services was not the best practice. She opined there should not be a five-year contract and asked what would be done if the contractor was doing a sloppy job. She believed if they knew their contract would be reviewed every year or two it would keep them doing a good job. She commented that since they knew they were going to get a three-year contract with a two-year extension, she questioned the quality of work that would be done at the library. Regarding 9A2, she asked why the taxpayers were not getting a report from the Treasurer or the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). She expressed that the citizens needed accountability and asked if, in the future, the CFO or Treasurer could send reports. Regarding 9D1, she mentioned that there was a total fund balance increase of $57 million year to date and $29 million year over year. She asked if that meant the County was collecting too much taxpayer money. She said the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) had a budget of $1.2 trillion and that fellow taxpayers were shocked by that. She stated the taxpayers would like to know what the increase was.
Mr. Cliff Low expressed that he tended to look at the consent items when reviewing the agenda and said he rarely found anything of great interest. He said there was an item that caught his attention which was 9B1. He believed it was a great thing that the Assessor’s rolls were being changed due to property that was damaged and or destroyed by the Davis Creek Fire and that the Assessor’s Office had done this so quickly. He hoped it would stay in the consent agenda and get passed, but at the same time, he wanted to point out something regarding the process. He mentioned that when discussing agenda items later in the meeting, the process, procedure, and what the codes said were going to be very important. He stated he was not opposed to the item and was in favor of it, but it talked about how it took place. He commented that there was usually an item on the consent agenda for this; however, these were pulled out. He said NRS Chapter 361 also allowed for various methods of providing relief to the taxpayer when incorrect assessments were discovered as a result of a mathematical, typographical, or clerical error or as the result of
a factual error under NRS for up to three fiscal years. He recited that it talked about errors and said he did not believe it was an error or mistake. He communicated there was new information. He voiced he was not suggesting the item should not go through but said it would seem as though the rules were being bent in order to properly make provisions for those folks who were unfortunate, some of whom were his neighbors, who suffered damages in the fire. He said process, substance, rules, and the words mattered.
Commissioner Clark said when he was the Assessor during the Little Valley Fire, the Assessor’s Office immediately took the improvements off the rolls because they had vaporized in the fire. He noted the land was still there, but it was the improvements that were destroyed, damaged, or devalued. He commented that he was not speaking for the current Assessor’s Office but was speaking historically about what had happened in the past. He applauded the Assessor’s Office for instantly taking the properties off. He voiced that it was hard enough for people to lose their property, but to then be taxed on the property they did not have any more was even more difficult.
On motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Consent Agenda Items 9A1 through 9M1 be approved. Any and all Resolutions or Interlocal Agreements pertinent to Consent Agenda Items 9A1 through 9M1 are attached hereto and made a part of the minutes thereof.
BLOCK VOTE – 10 & 12 THROUGH 23
There was no response to the call for public comment.
Chair Hill recognized that this would be the first inclusive playground of a Washoe County-owned park at Rancho San Rafael Regional Park. She expressed excitement and commended the staff.
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 awarded and approved.
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.
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 awarded and approved.
Manhole Rehabilitation Project, PWP-WA-2024-016, [staff recommends Farr Construction Corporation doing business as Resource Development Company, in the amount of $536,900.00]; and (2) approve a separate project contingency fund in the amount of $62,000.00 for a total project cost not to exceed $598,900.00. The scope of the project is to perform injection grouting of 65 existing sanitary sewer manholes at various location in the South Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility service area. Community Services. (Commission District 2.)
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 awarded and approved.
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 awarded and approved.
to commence on or about December 9, 2024. Community Services. (Commission District 3.)
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 authorized and approved.
$487,937.00. The Project is located at 5905 Sidehill Drive, Sun Valley, Nevada, and the scope of work is to construct a variety of beginner, intermediate and advanced tracks and trails, emergency access road and control gate, kiosk and storage facility. Community Services. (Commission District 5.)
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 awarded and approved.
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.
notice to proceed; and (3) authorize the Community Services Department Director to sign the Grant Agreement, reports, 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 2.)
On the call for public comment, Ms. Penny Brock expressed excitement that the William N. Pennington Foundation wanted to donate money to the park. She noted that she was on the Citizen Advisory Board (CAB) for that area. She mentioned it was wonderful; however, she asked who applied for the grant. She voiced that Ms. Wendy Damonte still wanted the park for her professional soccer stadium. She asked who went to William N. Pennington Foundation for the donation. She reported that she looked through the staff report and could not find who the applicant was. She was concerned that part of the grant could be used to connect the road to South Virginia Street. She commented the road would go through a mobile home park where a lot of retired people lived. She said there were questions that she hoped would be on the next CAB agenda in the South Valleys. She stated the community would be excited, but she still did not have the assurance that Ms. Damonte was not waiting to come before the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for the land in the South Valleys Regional Park.
Chair Hill agreed with Ms. Brock regarding the appreciation towards the William N. Pennington Foundation for their ballfield grant. She expressed that it was incredibly generous and that they were lucky to have private partners.
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 accepted, approved, authorized, and directed.
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 accepted, authorized, and directed.
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 to appoint Patricia Gallimore from the Washoe County Senior Advisory Board Alternate position she currently held into a position representing District 1, with the term effective immediately and expiring on November 30, 2028.
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 accepted, authorized, and directed. Any and all Resolutions or Interlocal Agreements pertinent to Agenda Item 22 are attached hereto and made a part of the minutes thereof.
effective upon approval, to consolidate and amend the Axon contract for the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, Public Defender, Alternate Public Defender and District Attorney and extend the contract for a 10-year or 120 month term at a cost not to exceed [year one $2,219,127.44, year two
$3,248,289, year three $3,344,453 year four $3,299,253, year five
$3,290,609, year six $3,652,025, year seven $3,275,675, year eight
$3,282,102, year nine $3,336,489, year ten $3,295,345] annually, or [$32,243,367.44] for the full 120 months; to support body worn cameras and fleet in-car cameras with live streaming capabilities, virtual reality training, less lethal (TASERs), unlimited storage, Justice Premier, and other software support services offered by Axon Enterprise, Inc.; approve the use of General Fund Contingency on an as needed basis, not to exceed a total amount of [$2,073,641] for fiscal year 2025 in accordance with Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 354.598005 to increase expenditure authority in Sheriff’s office for Axon Contract expenditures; direct Finance to make the appropriate cross-functional budget appropriation transfer as needed [Total fiscal year 2025 impact $2,073,641; net fiscal impact $-0-], and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts Manager to execute the agreement. Sheriff. (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, directed, and authorized.
Chair Hill asked Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) Mary Kandaras how to proceed with this discussion item as they did not receive receipt of reports often. She asked CDDA Kandaras if they needed to make a motion.
CDDA Kandaras advised a motion was not necessary, but that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) could have a presentation if they wished.
County Clerk Jan Galassini read the title for Bill No. 1923. There was no response to the call for public comment.
Bill No. 1923 was introduced by Commissioner Andriola, and legal notice for final action of adoption was directed.
The appellants appear to be various unnamed individuals that have labeled themselves “Citizens of Spanish Springs”. The applicant for the development code amendment is Washoe County. The proposed development code amendments apply county-wide; and if approved, will apply to all planning areas except for Tahoe.
The Board shall consider the appeal based on the record on appeal and information and materials submitted at the Board’s public hearing. The Board’s analysis may include a finding on the issue of standing to bring the appeal in the first place. The Board may affirm or reverse the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Community Services. (All Commission Districts.)
Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Jennifer Gustafson provided an overview of Agenda Items 25 and 26 to identify their differences. She explained that Agenda Item 25 was an appeal of the Planning Commission’s (PC) recommendation for the Board to consider proposed code amendments, referred to as the Housing Package 2.5a. A group of individuals called the Citizens for Spanish Springs appealed the PC’s recommendation. She advised that consideration of the appeal was limited to two issues, standing and the appeal’s merits.
DDA Gustafson explained that the topic of standing clarified if the appellants, the Citizens for Spanish Springs, had legal standing to bring the appeal forward. She defined standing as the legal right to bring the appeal forward. According to State law, decisions made by the PC could only be appealed by persons who were aggrieved. It was the appellants’ burden to prove that they had standing, and they had to show they fit the definition of an aggrieved person, as found in the Washoe County Code (WCC). She believed the portion of the definition of aggrieved person that was most relevant to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) was the statement that a person suffered a substantial injury to their personal or property rights because of the PC’s decision. She summarized standing by saying that the appellants had to prove that the PC’s recommendation caused them to suffer a substantial, nonspeculative, concrete injury to their personal or property rights.
DDA Gustafson noted that the PC’s action was a recommendation that did not effect changes because the PC did not have the legal authority to adopt code amendments; that authority was vested by the State to the BCC. If the Board found the appellants had standing, the Board would address the appeal’s merits. If the Board found the appellants lacked standing, then it was up to the Board’s discretion if it would discuss the appeal’s merits. She recommended that the Board discuss the merits regardless of the outcome of its decision on standing because it would be helpful in the event of a future legal challenge.
DDA Gustafson advised that the BCC’s role in addressing the appeal’s merit was to review the PC’s decision. To make its recommendation, the PC had to make one of four possible findings. She explained that this process was different than what the Commissioners typically saw during appeals. She noted that all the findings usually had to be made. The process for development code amendments was different; only one of the four possible findings had to be made for the PC to make the recommendation. If the Board found that the information reviewed by the PC could reasonably support one of the four possible findings, then the Board could affirm the PC’s decision and deny the appeal. If the Board denied the appeal, it did not have a bearing on how the Commissioners would vote on the ordinance in Agenda Item 26 because they were two distinct items. If the appeal was denied, the Board would proceed with Agenda Item 26, the ordinance’s first reading. If the ordinance was introduced during Agenda Item 26, a second reading and public hearing would be set for possible adoption of the ordinance. The Board would utilize its legislative function during the public hearing to review the ordinance’s content and determine its adoption. She emphasized that process would not occur during the current meeting.
Senior Planner Katherine Oakley conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following titles: WDCA24-0004 (Housing Package 2.5a) Appeal; Today’s Discussion; Package 2.5a – Background; Package 2.5a – Summary (2 slides); Appeal; Standing; Standing (2); Standing (3); Planning Commission Decision; Finding 1; Finding 2; Finding 3; Finding 4; Possible Decisions; Possible Motion – Standing; Possible Motion – Merits (1); Possible Motion – Merits (2).
Ms. Oakley stated she would first discuss the determination of standing and then talk about the possible ruling on the appeal’s merits. She reminded that denying the appeal was not the same as introducing the ordinance. The wisdom and details of the amendment would be considered during Agenda Item 26.
Ms. Oakley stated that Housing Package 2.5a focused on missing middle housing, which included a range of house-scale buildings. She clarified that cottage courts were similar to tiny home-style development. The proposed amendments would define those use types and add allowances and regulations for them. The amendments also proposed adding allowances and regulations for employee housing through a special use permit (SUP) process in commercial areas.
Ms. Oakley specified that the proposed amendments would not increase the allowed density in any regulatory zone. This meant the number of houses currently allowed in Washoe County’s neighborhoods and residential areas would be the same number allowed if Housing Package 2.5a was approved.
Ms. Oakley reviewed the two ways a person could be aggrieved, as defined by the WCC. She explained that the PC’s decision was a recommendation to the BCC to consider and ultimately adopt the proposed Washoe County Development Code (WCDC) amendments. The PC’s decision did not make any changes to the WCDC, so there could not have been any substantial injury to a personal or property right. She pointed out that the multifamily use type was not being expanded into any new regulatory zones. The proposed changes focused on the allowance of duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes, and smaller middle-housing types in certain suburban areas of Washoe County through various review processes. She asserted that apartments would not be allowed throughout Spanish Springs or the County if the amendment was approved.
Ms. Oakley stated staff recommended the appeal be dismissed for lack of standing. Staff also requested that the Board determine the merits of the appeal, which explored if the PC had reasonable evidence to support at least one of the four possible findings. She reviewed the four findings listed on the PowerPoint slide titled Planning Commission Decision. She specified that action items were identified in Washoe County’s master plan, as seen on the PowerPoint slide titled Finding 1. She said clear evidence existed to support making the first finding because the Master Plan drove the direction of the proposed amendments, and that finding alone was enough to uphold the PC’s recommendation.
Ms. Oakley discussed the second finding and referred to the PowerPoint slide titled Finding 2. The WCDC served many purposes, one of which was to promote public health and safety. The proposed changes were intended to reduce regulatory barriers to housing and expand the housing supply. They also added standards for certain housing types that did not currently exist, such as employee housing, and were designed to bolster public health and safety by providing high-quality housing facilities and amenities.
Ms. Oakley reviewed the third finding and referred to the PowerPoint slide titled Finding 3. She explained that the changed condition was decreased housing affordability. There were housing affordability issues in Washoe County, and though there was a good supply of larger, detached single-family homes, those homes did not serve the needs of the entire community. The proposed amendments responded to that changed condition and sought to accommodate housing for current and future County residents.
Ms. Oakley said the fourth finding, as found on the PowerPoint titled Finding 4, related to the population element of the Master Plan. The proposed amendments were a direct implementation of the population and housing element, which called for a greater diversity of housing types. She stated there was clear evidence to support the fourth finding.
Attorney Mark Wray displayed documents, copies of which were placed on file with the Clerk. He stated he represented the appellants, the Citizens for Spanish Springs, who lived on the properties denoted by the dots on the map he displayed. He said staff implied the Citizens for Spanish Springs were illusory, but he assured that was not the case. The Citizens for Spanish Springs consisted of 96 individuals who hired him to represent them, and they wanted the Board to grant the appeal and reject the PC’s determination that the findings were met.
Mr. Wray reported that the findings made by the PC’s members varied. He advised that per the WCC, the Board was not required to make any of the findings.
Mr. Wray thought staff used the topic of missing middle housing to justify the proposed amendments and posit that providing missing middle housing would solve problems and lead to affordable housing. He asserted that logic was flawed. He said missing middle housing and related topics, as seen in the Staff Report, were the subject of many similar meetings throughout the Country, including in the City of Reno. On May 4, the Reno City Council denied an item to establish multiplex houses in Reno. He read a quote from Reno City Council Member Devon Reese and posited that Washoe County staff did not recognize the importance of input from the community’s current residents, which should take priority over the County’s future residents.
Mr. Wray informed that he examined every news article he could find about missing middle housing and said the topic was addressed countless times in many jurisdictions. Only a small number of jurisdictions adopted proposals like what staff had proposed to the BCC, and those that adopted them did not find success. He said the changes had not led to affordable housing, and in some instances, they had not even led to housing
due to factors like development costs and expenses. The few states that adopted that type of legislation included California, Oregon, Maine, and others. Those states had no tangible outcomes resulting from the legislation. He stated that single-family homes had been painted as an enemy that had to be addressed. His clients felt there was nothing wrong with the American dream and wanted to live in a neighborhood of single-family homes, which was acceptable until a few years prior. He spoke about critics who said single-family homes had to be addressed because they excluded people from the opportunities of being an American, and this created the concept of a missing middle.
Mr. Wray hoped the Commissioners read the brief he wrote. He said all his clients’ points had been previously addressed in jurisdictions throughout the Country, most of which, like the City of Reno, determined they would not remove people’s right to live in single-family homes and neighborhoods. He asserted there was nothing wrong with the American dream. He pointed out that staff was not referring to the issue as the American dream.
Mr. Wray remarked that the current issue had been addressed many times, and the prevailing view was that single-family homes were acceptable. He stated that multiplex houses were not required to make people enjoy their neighborhoods or save money. The articles he referenced repeatedly shared that the enacted changes did not accomplish their intended goals, so staff could not suggest that the proposed changes would lead to affordable housing. He said staff would attempt to convey the importance of diversity to the Commissioners. In this case, diversity meant multiplex houses in single- family neighborhoods that were within zones not regulated for that activity without the implementation of a permit, a review process, and notice to the neighbors. He said staff wanted to remove that process by stating the appellants did not have standing. He discussed standing and referenced a case called Citizens for Cold Springs v. City of Reno that was cited in his brief. He said the Citizens for Cold Springs were just like the Citizens for Spanish Springs. The Nevada Supreme Court objected to land use decisions being made against the Citizens for Cold Springs by the City of Reno.
Mr. Wray asked the Board to understand that the Citizens for Spanish Springs had standing. He disagreed with the concept that they did not have standing because they were not aggrieved. He displayed some of the names of the Citizens for Spanish Springs and an example of the petitions that they signed, copies of which were placed on file with the Clerk. He asked the BCC to consider the rights of the appellants that were present. He advised the Board to ask staff to consider if the dreams of others would be satisfied if the appellants’ dreams were sacrificed. He stated it would not satisfy the dreams of others and asked the Board to follow the example set by the City of Reno.
Mr. Wray mentioned the findings. He said it was crucial to understand that the PC’s findings only considered the goal of the proposed amendments and not the future of the community’s residents. He announced that he stood for the people who knew what was in their best interest. He challenged the Commissioners to ask themselves if adopting the proposed amendments would help or hurt those people. If it caused hurt, he asked why they would do it.
On the call for public comment, Mr. Cliff Low provided documents, copies of which were distributed to the Board and placed on file with the Clerk. He said the document contained an excerpt from the WCDC and that the proposed amendments should not proceed. He read from the document and pointed out that public notice for proposed WCDC amendments was required to be noticed in the newspaper and to members of the Citizen Advisory Boards (CABs). He shared that notice was to be given to the Chair of the CAB ten days prior to the hearing date, and notice should be given to each member of all the CABs ten days prior to the PC meeting. He pointed out that the document he provided also had an excerpt from the staff report from the associated PC meeting. He discussed the highlighted portion titled Public Notice which stated that notice of the public hearing was published in the newspaper at least ten days prior to the meeting. He stated that public notice to the CABs was missing from the highlighted portion. He believed that notice to the CABs was never done, which caused a flawed process, and he believed the process was faulty in other ways. He thought that much of what was found in the proposed amendments had value, but there were problems with the amendments’ substance and process. He requested that the BCC send the amendments back for further review. He said the PC meeting was not properly noticed and suggested the PC’s recommendation was not meaningful because the PC only had to make one finding instead of most or all of the findings that were usually required. The PC was obligated by the rules to recommend the approval to the BCC. He emphasized that the path dictated by those rules was narrow, as it did not allow the PC to consider if the proposed amendments were beneficial to Washoe County.
Mr. Christopher Burke stated that the WCC defined aggrieved, but case law had to be examined since it interpreted the definition. He said Mr. Wray’s brief mentioned Hantges v. City of Henderson, a case where citizens who were not property owners of the subject land had standing to challenge it. He declared that the term aggrieved applied broadly. He remarked that he and the Citizens for Spanish Springs were aggrieved because they purchased properties with the expectation that there would not be apartments or other buildings around them. They were also aggrieved because the changes might affect their properties’ values, and the infrastructure was not sufficient. He believed the Citizens for Spanish Springs had standing for many reasons. He stated that information provided by staff was inaccurate because it mentioned streamlining processes to remove barriers, and he felt the processes would overwhelm individuals. He stated that barriers had been placed for a reason, to prevent overwhelming people. He said he attended many meetings related to the agenda item, and he saw approximately 200 Spanish Springs residents attend, but no developers, builders, or project managers. He reminded that the Commissioners represented the people, not developers, and pointed out that the BCC was acting as an appellant court for its planning board. He said staff overlooked the Master Plan’s mention of enabling more housing types in areas where adequate infrastructure existed. He declared that the adequate infrastructure did not exist.
Mr. William Naylor was disappointed with how the Citizens for Spanish Springs had been treated, and he thought the Staff Report’s description of them was demeaning and untrue. He previously reviewed sections of the WCDC that applied to appeals made to the BCC regarding a decision made by the PC. He informed that he was
not an attorney, but he did not find requirements dictating that the citizens had to have standing. He believed the situation demonstrated clear government overreach and was an attempt to silence justifiable citizen concerns about the amendments. He agreed with Mr. Wray’s brief, which he thought was thorough and complete. He believed that if the Commissioners had read the brief, they could make no other determination than to deny the amendments and grant the citizens standing. He spoke about the proposed amendments’ lack of merit. He said there was a way to achieve affordable housing while maintaining or improving the quality of life for current residents, but the proposed amendment was not it.
Ms. Pat Davison discussed the findings made by the PC. She said five of the PC’s commissioners agreed with the first finding, and four of them agreed with the third finding. The draft minutes from the associated PC meeting in September noted that one PC commissioner was not prepared to vote on the proposal. She posited that individual might have abstained if given the option, and she pointed out that abstaining was different from supporting or opposing. She said the PC could clearly make at least one of the four findings. She spoke about current zoning and said that even if the proposed changes were not approved, the current densities would remain the same since they were already in the WCDC. She stated that zoning distinctions and gradients served the important purpose of regulation and were not indiscriminate or an effect of poor planning. She mentioned housing growth and said the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency (TMRPA) projected an average annual growth rate for the next 20 years at 0.81 percent. She could not decipher a comparable increase in annual housing growth, which was one reason for the housing shortage, and explained the Board’s action the prior year to create affordable housing. She remarked that if proposed changes were opposed because they spurred housing creation, then housing availability would always fall behind housing demand. She discussed concerns about giving advance notice. She suggested that a middle ground could be reached during the policy discussion to ensure the planning process included noticing procedures for nearby residents and preventing surprises. She mentioned adequate water and sewer and noted that the Board most likely heard comments that the future water supply would depend on treated sewage to compensate for a lack of potable water. She inquired about the Donovan Ranch and Lifestyle Homes developments. She thought it was a good time to hold a public workshop regarding water supply and sewage disposal, similar topics at the Spanish Springs CAB. She requested that the BCC deny the appeal and affirm the PC’s decision. She invited the Board to embrace responsible growth, which to her meant addressing the current housing shortage, encouraging citizens to be involved in the planning process, preserving the property rights of owners with vacant parcels, maintaining the potential for future construction jobs, and continuing to generate tax revenue.
Mr. Roger Edwards said he lived in Golden Valley for over 30 years and was the Vice Chair of the North Valleys CAB. He stated that the CAB did not receive notice of the proposed amendments, which would have a direct impact on his neighborhood. He stated there was no legislation yet and there would not be until the BCC voted on the ordinance. Therefore, neither he nor his 600 neighbors had standing. He stated he served on the PC for eight years, and the PC was in a position where it could report that it was just doing what the Board told it to do. He questioned if that was proper and suggested that the PC’s expected actions be examined. He said that if a citizen could not
be impacted until a piece of legislation was implemented, it would be too late to address the effect of the change. He posited that the PC was not put in a good position, yet the public was put in a far worse position. He indicated that the appeal had to be upheld.
Mr. Dan Herman declared that the staff’s proposal was convoluted. He agreed that it contained some valuable segments but thought it would cause negative consequences for the community. He said that Spanish Springs was designed to be a rural community according to its plan, developed 20 years ago. He questioned which part of the proposed amendments supported a rural community. He stated that neighborhood meetings had been discontinued and declared that developers would be able to put 50 dwelling units within 10 acres if the amendments passed. He asserted that change would impact him greatly, as there were six neighborhood commercial properties within a quarter mile of his house. He believed he had standing and was offended by messages to the contrary. He inquired how the proposed amendments would assist with low-cost housing. He had read the entire proposal and did not identify the answer from it. He asked about the definition of middle housing and pointed out that the City of Reno opted out of these types of changes. He said if the Board was going to act, it should have to impact all Washoe County citizens, of which he believed residents of the Cities of Reno and Sparks were included. He said the proposed amendments were not needed or timely, and they should be modified to include more community input.
Ms. Janet Butcher read a message from Ms. Trista Gomez discussing the difficulty of attending BCC meetings that occurred during work hours. The message claimed that the Board ignored feedback from the citizens who would be most impacted by the proposed changes. Ms. Butcher explained that it took 18 months to identify the best place for her to live when she moved from Northwest Reno to Spanish Springs. She stated there was an increase in crime in Spanish Springs. She said development displaced coyotes and it was affecting people’s pets. She saw many messages on various social media platforms that pets were missing.
Ms. Davi Burke announced she was a part of the Citizens for Spanish Springs and was being impacted by the proposed amendments. She read from the Washoe County Master Plan. She said the report provided by staff indicated that there would be no additional infrastructure impacts or future development that was not already anticipated and planned for. She asserted that adequate infrastructure did not exist in Spanish Springs. She mentioned challenges with roads and said some individuals had wells that dried up. She did not want water infrastructure built that used 10 percent recycled sewage added to potable water. She said the Citizens for Spanish Springs worked their entire lives to have a place they could call their own, not to be told they did not have standing. She assured that they had standing.
Vice Chair Herman said she could not identify how the Citizens for Spanish Springs did not have standing. She affirmed that they were looking to the Commissioners to reverse the PC’s decision.
Commissioner Garcia acknowledged the validity of everyone’s concerns, thoughts, and experiences. She noted there was a distinction between legal standing and dissatisfaction with a proposal. She did not identify the legal standing of substantial injury or illegal activity occurring when she reviewed the information. She clarified that she still empathized with the presented concerns. She represented approximately 100,000 constituents, many of whom consistently expressed similar concerns to those of the Citizens for Spanish Springs, especially the residents in District 3’s unincorporated areas. She acknowledged their concerns and agreed with them on many items but could not declare a legal standing.
Commissioner Andriola shared that she met with many of the appellants. She spoke about the definition of aggrieved. She understood the speculation that occurred and noted that some of the rural areas that were described would not be impacted by the proposed changes. She commented that it was the appellants’ responsibility to prove they were aggrieved, and she did not think that responsibility had been upheld.
Commissioner Clark said the term missing middle could be applied to many of the County’s neighborhoods. He observed that entry-level homes had been built in certain areas in the community throughout the years, but he did not see many entry-level homes being currently built. He pointed out that it was easier and more profitable to sell a big home than an entry-level home. He noted that prices were increasing in many areas and suggested that the Board help entry-level builders construct more homes in appropriately designed subdivisions. He was impressed with Mr. Wray’s presentation and commented that Mr. Edwards had many years of subject matter expertise, as he had been on multiple County boards like the PC.
Commissioner Clark believed the Citizens for Spanish Springs had standing and would be impacted by the proposed changes. He mentioned an example of a project he thought would be beneficial to Gerlach, but residents conveyed the impact it would have on them. He said those residents were the individuals that would have to live with the changes. He felt the Board should not force changes on the impacted area’s current residents. He remarked that if Mr. Low was correct, his assessment of improper public notice should be examined. He spoke about a previously proposed office condominium project on Mayberry Drive. He indicated that he thought the project’s opponents did not have standing, but they protested enough to get the project denied. In the BCC’s current appeal, he felt the individuals had standing because they would be impacted. He suggested that the Board listen to them. He posited that everyone could admit proper infrastructure regarding roads did not exist in Spanish Springs. He believed the rates of roadway congestion would continue to increase. If the proposed amendments were to be attempted, he thought the other related issues had to be fixed. He did not agree that the Citizens for Spanish Springs did not have standing because their lives would be negatively impacted by the amendments if adequate infrastructure did not support the changes.
Chair Hill did not identify that the appellants had standing. She reminded that the Board had not yet determined if it would move forward with the proposed amendments. She shared that she lived in a neighborhood with single-family homes and
multiplex houses that was in a desirable part of the community. She did not see the validity of the argument regarding property rights damage.
Chair Hill said the merits of the appeal and the meeting of the findings had to be discussed. She saw that all four of the possible findings had been met by the PC and staff.
Vice Chair Herman said she stood by her previous statement. Commissioner Garcia believed the findings had been met.
Commissioner Andriola shared her understanding, based on the advice of the District Attorneys (DAs), that the point of examining the merits was to determine if the PC had sufficient information to make the findings. Based on her observations of the PC, her conversations with the DAs, and the answers to her many questions, the PC had all the information to make the findings. Chair Hill thanked Commissioner Andriola for her clarification regarding the merits.
On motion by Chair Hill, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, which motion duly carried on a 3-2 vote with Commissioner Clark and Vice Chair Herman voting no, it was ordered that the appeal be denied based on the finding that the appellants did not have standing. Regarding the merits, it was also ordered that the appeal be denied and the Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval of the Housing Package 2.5a be affirmed because the Planning Commission had sufficient information to support at least one of the four findings found in the Washoe County Development Code.
facilities; modify attached and detached accessory dwelling unit standards to regulate their use on parcels with middle housing types and specify their mutual exclusivity with guest quarters; modify Table 110.406.05.1 governing regulatory zone development standards to consolidate the separate tables into one table and to make modifications to minimum lot sizes, setbacks, and minimum lot widths for certain regulatory zones; modify common open space development standards to clarify that detention ponds and drainage facilities cannot be included in common open space; modify off-street parking requirements to add standards for the new housing types and modify the requirements for duplexes; modify landscaping exemptions to include middle housing types as an exemption; modify common open space standards to add dog parks and pocket parks as permissible types of open space and require common open space for all multifamily developments with five or more units; and add or amend various definitions; and all matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining thereto. And if supported, set a public hearing for the second reading and possible adoption of the ordinance for December 10, 2024. Community Services. (All Commission Districts.)
County Clerk Jan Galassini read the title for Bill No. 1924.
Commissioner Clark requested the public hearing date be moved from December 10, 2024, to December 17, 2024, if the Board decided to set a public hearing for the proposed ordinance, as he received requests from individuals who desired to be present for the public hearing.
Senior Planner Katherine Oakley conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following titles: Housing Need; Housing Need (2); Strategic & Long-Range Planning; Overview; Density (# of Homes per acre); Amendments Do NOT; Article 302 – Allowed Uses; Allowed Uses (2); Changes to support middle housing; Article 306 – Accessory Uses and Structures; Article 313 – Employee and Cottage Court Housing; Industry & Agency Outreach; Community Meetings; Changes Related to Public Input; Changes Related to Public Input (2); Planning Commission; Findings; Recommendation.
Ms. Oakley stated that Washoe County was faced with a housing affordability issue that had been brought to the Board of County Commissioners’ (BCC) attention multiple times. She referenced the chart seen on the PowerPoint slide titled Housing Need and said housing costs impacted young people and seniors the most, a trend that was mirrored in the costs of housing ownership. She discussed the chart on the PowerPoint slide titled Housing Need (2) and said it indicated a change of almost 50 percentile points between 2014 and 2023. She announced that staff was attempting to address the problem in every possible way. Because of the problem’s breadth, it was addressed in Washoe County’s Strategic Plan and Master Plan, as well as in the regional plan and recent housing legislation at the State level. The amendments in the proposed ordinance were intended to address the housing supply and affordability issues by
expanding appropriate housing options by creating incentives, streamlining planning and permitting processes, and enabling more housing types.
Ms. Oakley informed that the focus of the proposed amendments was on missing middle housing. She explained that missing middle housing included a range of house-scale buildings with more than one unit and was compatible with single-family style development. The image on the PowerPoint slide titled Overview highlighted various housing types. She specified that the proposed amendments focused on duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes, and cottage courts, which were like tiny home developments. The amendments proposed to add definitions and use types for the middle housing types that were not currently in the Washoe County Development Code (WCDC), to provide regulations for them, and to allow those uses through various means in the suburban areas and zones of Washoe County.
Ms. Oakley emphasized that all housing was regulated and had to comply with the underlying density established by the zoning district. Density was limited by zoning districts and had to comply with the Master Plan designation and the regional plan designation. She clarified this meant that the number of homes currently allowed in residential areas would not change if the ordinance was adopted. To provide an example, she referenced the images on the PowerPoint slide titled Density (# of Homes per acre) and explained that the WCDC currently allowed building either three single-family detached homes or five single-family attached homes, like townhomes, on one acre of medium- density suburban (MDS). Those options would remain under the proposed amendments and additional options would include the middle housing types. The maximum number of dwelling units for either option was five, but the options for the configuration of those units for the types of housing would be expanded. She emphasized that the amendments would not propose any specific developments.
Ms. Oakley reviewed the table seen on the PowerPoint slide titled Article 302 – Allowed Uses. She pointed out the addition of the category called middle housing, under which duplex would be moved. She highlighted the bifurcation of the multi-family use type into multi-family and multi-family minor. Multi-family minor referred to developments with 20 units or less, and she pointed out that the smaller developments merited a different level of review. She emphasized that those developments would still be allowed only in urban zones and the neighborhood commercial (NC) regulatory zone, where multi-family was currently allowed. The amendments proposed that the permitting process for duplex be changed to align with what was proposed for the rest of the middle housing types. Additionally, staff proposed the new residential use type category called employee housing, which could be comprised of traditional dwelling units or dormitory style units. She explained that the employee housing use type was currently allowed in the high desert area of the County under the name bunkhouse, but no regulations or minimum standards had been established for that use type. The amendments proposed to add those standards as allowed through a special use permit (SUP) in commercial zones. Because new housing types were being proposed, various sections of the WCDC had to be evaluated to establish minimum regulations for those types. Therefore, necessary changes would be made in the County’s parking and landscaping codes. There were also proposals to update
the common open space standards to ensure high-quality development. She added that other changes to development standards were proposed to enable middle housing types, including changes to certain setbacks, lot widths, and lot sizes.
Ms. Oakley noted that a new accessory use type called guest quarters was being proposed. It would support aging in place by providing semi-separate living spaces for individuals who were a part of the main household but desired independent space. She advised that this addition was a direct response to feedback staff received while doing public outreach for Housing Package 1. She said there was a demand for this housing type, particularly for residents who could not have an accessory dwelling unit (ADU).
Ms. Oakley noted that some of the housing types were complex and merited more specific regulations. Article 313 was proposed to establish those regulations and ensure high-quality housing.
Ms. Oakley discussed how the amendments were developed using the outreach methods listed on the PowerPoint slide titled Industry & Agency Outreach. Staff met with realtors, builders, and professional land use consultants to ensure the changes would have a practical impact and were not missing points that would make missing middle housing types allowed on paper but impractical to develop. She assured that the meetings were helpful for staff. Staff also met with infrastructure agencies that provided and regulated infrastructure to ensure there were no infrastructure impacts that staff had not accounted for. She said those agencies had no concerns since infrastructure planning was based on the zoning and master designations and their associated maximum densities. Those items were not being changed, and the anticipated impacts on infrastructure were not being changed.
Ms. Oakley discussed the three community meetings listed on the PowerPoint slide titled Community Meetings and shared that they were well attended. The Washoe County Neighborhood Meeting HUB survey respondents had several key topics of concern that staff addressed by making changes to the proposed amendments. She reviewed the concerns listed on the PowerPoint slide titled Changes Related to Public Input. There was concern about the proposal to remove the two-story height limit in Spanish Springs and the North Valleys. That proposed height-limit change was removed from the amendment package.
She mentioned staff’s communication with infrastructure agencies to ensure staff adequately considered potential infrastructure impacts from the proposed amendments. There were no proposed density increases in residential areas, and there would not be allowances for apartments in rural areas. Regarding the size of the amendment package, staff removed several articles from the original package. She explained that the final proposed amendments were more focused, albeit still a large set of amendments.
Ms. Oakley spoke about additional concerns, and the changes staff made in response to those concerns were listed on the PowerPoint slide titled Changes Related to Public Input (2). She declared that improvements were made because of the public process.
She reminded that the Board had to make one of the four possible findings to support the proposed amendments, which both staff and the Planning Commission (PC) recommended.
On the call for public comment, Mr. Cliff Low provided documents, copies of which were distributed to the Board and placed on file with the Clerk. He expressed gratitude for the work performed by the Commissioners and stated that he consistently made efforts to share his thoughts. He posited that the Chambers was not filled with concerned citizens because people were either unaware of what the proposed amendments would enable, or they knew and did not trust the government. He speculated that each Commissioner regularly dealt with a distrust in government. He posited that if the proposed ordinance was adopted, it would contribute to a mistrust of government. He used driver’s licenses as an example and discussed the classes listed on them. He stated that if the designated weight associated with a certain class was changed, the class title would remain the same. However, the associated information would be altered and change the type of vehicles people could drive. He referenced the document he submitted and spoke about the proper notice required for proposed WCDC amendments by the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 278.260. He asserted that the required notice had not occurred for the proposed ordinance.
Mr. William Naylor provided documents, copies of which were placed on file with the Clerk. He considered the proposed WCDC amendments to be severely flawed and stated they were misrepresented to the public. He felt the amendments were damaging and incompatible with the suburban lifestyle. He believed the misrepresentation began at the public meetings held in June. He referenced the documents he provided and stated that the only new housing unit would be a triplex, as the other types were currently allowed. He said the Board was not shown that other types of housing could currently be built, including triplexes, quadruplexes, and cottage courts. Each of those types of housing had to be built on a single parcel, meaning only one party could purchase the entire parcel with multiple units on it. He remarked that the Board would be supporting landlords who could purchase those units. He said the allowed density of all middle housing was five units per acre, but cottage courts formerly allowed three units per acre. He noted that attached family housing and separated family housing were mixed. He further referenced the documents he provided and said the number of dwelling units allowed for low-density suburban (LDS) could potentially exceed what would be allowed for high-density urban (HDU). He pointed out an attempt to condense lot sizes, which would increase the number of houses on a given road.
Ms. Pat Davison provided documents, copies of which were placed on file with the Clerk. She explained that she created a five-page chart to try to illustrate to the Board the current density and housing types as well as the proposed housing types in the 16 regulatory zones. She pointed out that it was complex. She supported the proposed changes as part of an effort to increase the supply of smaller housing units, detached and attached, for people who overpaid for housing, lived in substandard housing, or were unable to find housing close to their workplaces. She read from a document, a copy of which was placed on file with the Clerk. She recognized Ms. Oakley for her assistance and commended Ms. Oakley’s patience.
County Clerk Jan Galassini advised that she received an emailed public comment from Ms. Pat Davison that was placed on file.
Mr. Dan Herman opined that the Chambers was not filled because the Commissioners held meetings during the mornings and afternoons, which it should not do because many people worked. He said if the Commissioners desired the public to be involved, meetings should begin at 6 p.m. He requested that the Board make one change to the proposed amendments. He took issue with commercial developers building residential developments without having to go to the Citizen Advisory Board (CAB) meetings. He added that he lived on 10 acres and was zoned general rural (GR). He could have one house on his property, but an adjacent developer could put 50 dwelling units on 10 acres. He spoke about the proposed WCDC amendments and said no notification would be required for citizens surrounding new dwelling units. He asked the Commissioners to direct staff to make changes that gave citizens prior knowledge of development. He opined that the amendments were a gift to developers, and he requested that all Commissioners fully disclose their contact with developers and with those who donated money in instances where they were directly affected.
Ms. Janet Butcher spoke about Chair Hill’s comment about enjoying her community with multiplex houses. Ms. Butcher posited that Chair Hill had knowledge of the property when she moved there. Ms. Butcher shared that she bought her property in Spanish Springs to get away from the density of the town. She declared that her public health and safety were currently affected because the crime rate had increased, and she had to worry about closing her garage door and putting items inside her home. She said this did not happen when she moved to Spanish Springs 20 years prior. She discussed employee housing and questioned if it was similar to employee housing in China. She asked if her living arrangements would be considered awful based on prior comments by staff because of her home size. She asserted that she worked hard to live in her home. Her family member lived in downtown Chicago and loved it because she chose to live there. Ms. Butcher said she did not choose to live in a densely populated area. She wanted to live in a quiet and serene area but no longer did. She questioned who the proposed amendments would benefit.
Commissioner Garcia echoed Ms. Davison’s sentiments. She recounted that a previous Strategic Plan discussed the housing supply before many of the current Commissioners joined the BCC. She reminded that the BCC’s Strategic Planning Workshop in January of 2023 prioritized housing, increased housing inventory, and diversified housing types. Workforce housing was also mentioned at that meeting. During the current year, seniors were prioritized. A critical need was to make sure that seniors could stay in their homes and age with dignity in their own houses. She believed the proposed ordinance related to the current priority of serving the senior population, as it was previously mentioned that seniors and young people were most impacted by the housing shortage and increased housing prices. She pointed out that the County invested in permanent supportive housing, which was part of a larger picture that included the Community Services Department (CSD) and the Human Services Agency (HSA). She emphasized the County’s focus on sustainable building. She summarized her statements by
saying that County staff did the job the BCC asked them to do year after year, and it was great to see the results unfold. She knew it was tough work for them, but they performed the work asked by the BCC, for which she was grateful.
Commissioner Andriola inquired if staff could address Mr. Low’s concerns about improper notice of the proposed WCDC amendments.
Kelly Mullin, Director of the CSD’s Planning and Building Division (PBD), stated that Assistant County Manager (ACM) David Solaro was involved in certain processes that led to changes related to Mr. Low’s concerns.
ACM Solaro said the BCC went through a process regarding CABs about two years prior when the Commission Support Program was created as a facet of the County’s community outreach. At that time, development was removed from the CABs, and the CABs’ role regarding the BCC was reimagined. A second track within the Commission Support Program was also created, the Washoe County Neighborhood Meeting HUB process. He said feedback at that time communicated that development was not being appropriately detailed at CAB meetings, and there was a theory that developers would choose when to go to the CABs. Sometimes that fell in between meetings, so developers would not have a chance to go to the CAB meetings. Additionally, developers would visit the BCC after an application was submitted to Washoe County, so staff simply received that application per State laws and followed the set processes. He explained that based on the staff’s recommendation, the Board directed the creation of the Washoe County Neighborhood Meeting HUB process, which allowed developers to meet with neighbors prior to submitting an application to Washoe County. He mentioned that the Commissioners saw this information in PC staff reports or in documents provided to the Board pertaining to appeals. He explained there was a section that discussed the outcome of the Washoe County Neighborhood Meeting HUB that occurred prior to the application. He further explained that there were instances when a developer altered their original plans based on the community meeting and the community’s sentiments. The Washoe County Neighborhood Meeting HUB greatly assisted with understanding development projects in the County at a neighborhood level. He spoke about the Board’s resulting previous direction to staff and noted there were a few exceptions within some of the area plans that required CAB meetings, but everything else followed the Washoe County Neighborhood Meeting HUB process. Neighborhood meetings were part of that process, and he mentioned that staff discussed the three meetings that occurred in relation to the proposed ordinance. Staff had given notice to the community members who were signed up on the Washoe County Neighborhood Meeting HUB. Notice was also given in the newspaper to ensure the entire community was notified of changes that potentially impacted its members. He stated that the proposed ordinance was a bit more challenging because it related to unincorporated Washoe County, making it difficult to target just one neighborhood. He posited that staff acted exactly as the Board directed by holding neighborhood meetings, posting information on the Washoe County Neighborhood Meeting HUB, and even providing information at CAB meetings. He noted that staff discussed items of interest to the community at CABs and reviewed new projects that came up on the Washoe County Neighborhood Meeting HUB.
Commissioner Andriola mentioned that the document Mr. Low distributed was dated 2015. She commented that a current version might exist with updates regarding notices for WCDC amendments and CABs. ACM Solaro explained he would need to examine the occurrence to understand its context. Commissioner Andriola observed that a change had occurred, and an update might be suitably considered. Chair Hill advised that an updated document would be provided to staff in case it had to be appropriately adjusted and given to the Board.
Commissioner Andriola asked for clarification regarding applications. She stated there was not a density issue because density would not be changed. She pointed out that rural areas would remain consistent because there would be no zoning changes. She heard about a fear that apartments or large complexes would go into rural areas and asked for additional staff clarification.
Ms. Oakley affirmed that Commissioner Andriola was correct in that there were no proposed changes to the allowed uses in the rural zoning districts. There would be no increases to allowed densities in residential areas. One potential for increased density existed, which was employee housing in commercial zones through SUPs. The discretionary SUP process would be used to ensure that any potential impacts were accounted for.
Commissioner Andriola inquired if all applications would still go through the established process that ensured infrastructure specifications were met and impacts to things like public safety, water, sewer, and fire were accounted for. She confirmed that no proposed provision would enable applicants to ignore the steps staff diligently took to ensure compliance.
Ms. Oakley affirmed that Commissioner Andriola was correct. The agencies responsible for regulating and ensuring the appropriate provision of infrastructure reviewed every application to ensure it met all the standards to regulate infrastructure. She confirmed that would continue to be the case for all housing developments and all types of development.
Commissioner Andriola stated that the process staff went through was inclusive of regulatory bodies. She noted a PowerPoint slide in Ms. Oakley’s presentation that listed the agencies and organizations that could examine the proposed ordinance for concerns. She remarked that all the information was vetted, to which Ms. Oakley affirmed. Ms. Oakley advised that staff discussed the proposed amendments with partner agencies that regulated infrastructure and had met with some of them multiple times to make sure there were no concerns.
Commissioner Clark asked staff to review the statistics that were previously mentioned regarding homeownership. Ms. Oakley responded that the population percentage who could afford a median-priced home in 2014 was 65 percent; that percentage was 17.5 percent at the end of 2023. Commissioner Clark asked Ms. Oakley if she could provide a reason for the decreased percentage.
Ms. Oakley thought the data was useful because it referred to the region’s median home price and how many people had access to purchase those homes. She believed the data illustrated that while the median home price increased between 2014 and 2023, salaries and household incomes did not keep pace with that price. She said other statistics were indicative of this trend, and they all pointed to a disparity between increased housing costs and salaries. Salaries did not keep up with the rate at which housing costs increased. She mentioned the situation was related to Commissioner Clark’s previous statement about starter homes not being built in the way they were previously conceptualized. She stated it was more cost-effective for developers to develop more expensive homes, a trend that was currently being observed. She posited that all the factors she mentioned could be contributing to the data Commissioner Clark inquired about.
Commissioner Clark expressed appreciation for the staff and Ms. Oakley’s work. He indicated that current housing development was profit-driven, and he commented on the increasing price of goods. He referenced his 48 years of experience selling homes and other experiences that led him to believe that current situations in Nevada were a product of occurrences in California. He stated that people, taxes, crime, and the political climate from California infiltrated Nevada, a subject that was not openly discussed. He said these factors were directly responsible for impacting Nevada, and former residents of California generally had more money than Nevadans and could pay cash for homes. He noted that a few years prior, over 50 percent of homes sold in Washoe County were paid for with cash. People in California could sell their homes and then purchase a house in Nevada that was twice as large but half the cost. He added that the events represented in the data he discussed with Ms. Oakley did not occur organically; they were products of external factors that citizens had no control over. He pointed out that stopping movement from California to Nevada was neither advisable nor desirable, but that movement had caused the median home price to escalate dramatically. He asserted that the unintended consequences of California’s effect on Nevada caused grief and would continue to be addressed.
Chair Hill appreciated the staff’s work and thought the ordinance was a moderate proposal that would improve the County. She noted the prevalence of dialogue she heard on the subject while speaking with over 150 constituents per week. She declared that the local government must use the tools it had available to support the community’s residents and future. She knew related conversations would become increasingly difficult and pointed out that a subsequent housing package would follow Housing Package 2.5a. She believed staff did an excellent job and she felt no changes to the proposed ordinance were necessary.
Bill No. 1924 was introduced by Commissioner Garcia, and legal notice for final action of adoption was directed. The date of the second reading was changed from December 10, 2024, to December 17, 2024.
Mr. Cliff Low displayed a document, a copy of which was placed on file with the Clerk. He noted that while he appreciated what Assistant County Manager (ACM) David Solaro said and in response to Commissioner Andriola, he showed the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) what was in the Washoe County Code (WCC) at that time. He stated that unless the WCC on the County’s website was in error, there was a requirement for notice to the Citizen Advisory Boards (CABs). He believed that if there were errors in the WCC on the County’s website, a person would not know what to do. Addressing the matter of the notice to the CABs, which he assured was not to diminish all the other things that happened, he challenged staff to prove where the notice took place. He referred to his driver's license analogy and explained that if it looked like a duck, walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, it was a duck. He noted that when changes went through, they had people living next to a parcel like the one displayed in his document, and a person might expect one unit per acre because of the way it was zoned. He voiced that the BCC should notice there were 12 acres shown on his document. He commented that people who lived near it, on it, or drove by it would look at what the document showed. He asked if this was what was proposed, which included a path to cottage court housing in the low- density suburban. He believed this would be a very different picture. He wondered if it would be like the document he displayed reflecting 12 dwelling units on part of 1 acre. He reported that this matter was not just a code amendment. He directed the BCC to refer to his previous handout, which showed Article 821 of the WCC. He referenced that it talked about an amendment of the regulatory zone and included a request to change a regulatory zone affecting a parcel of land or a portion of the parcel. He addressed the notice was guided by Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 278.260. He requested the BCC to look at it later and ask themselves how familiar they were with what the item did. He disclosed he knew of one Commissioner who knew what it did but wondered if the rest relied on a Planning Commission process that was a very easy lift of one finding.
Ms. Cheryl Hobensack apologized for interrupting earlier in the meeting. She expressed that she was passionate and had not gotten a lot of sleep. She said the meeting apparently was not a church where you could talk in the middle. She stated libraries were essential. She reported that when she was about five years old, her mother took her to sign up for her first library card at the San Fernando California Library. She noted that the library had a distinct smell that she could still appreciate when she purchased older books. She mentioned it took her right back to that moment. She commented that when her friend Holly and she were single moms, they took their children to the story time room at the Washoe County Library System (WCLS) main branch about 40 years previous. She shared authors and books she had discovered during that time. She believed that those books influenced her children greatly. She said that she had walked into the Spanish Springs Library the previous Friday and was there to try and reserve the study room when she was made aware that the library initiative that was presented on the ballot had not passed, and she was shocked. She addressed the information sent in the sample ballot as misinformation and said it was not a new tax levied upon taxpayers but regarded an existing tax. She announced that there was now a $4.5 million budget that could be used by the amazing WCLS. She questioned why they were not using it. She expressed that the mom
she was chatting with outside of the Spanish Springs Library was a mom of three and in school so she did not have time to appear before the BCC. Ms. Hobensack believed that woman represented so many other people. She cited KOLO News regarding the ballot question WC1 and said it failed at the ballot box on Tuesday and that 52 percent of votes favored removing the library expansion tax that was established 30 years previous. She explained that 23 staff members may be laid off and libraries may close on weekends and evening hours. She remarked that some branches might have to close altogether, and community access to free meeting rooms may be lost. She implied the Spanish Springs Library may lose popular programs such as toddler time for preschool children, Dungeons and Dragons for teens, Lego robotics for elementary and middle school students, and baby social.
Mr. Oscar Williams displayed a document, copies of which were distributed to the Board and placed on file with the Clerk. He noted that he wanted to follow up on comments made earlier when he ran out of time. He mentioned that one of his documents discussed the Nevada Constitution, Article 4, Section 20, and the enumerated rights to convene petit or grand juries to investigate elections. He commented that the other document had a list of seven legal cases that were pertinent to the legal right to vote your conscience, and at no point was it ever ministerial or non-discretionary, regardless of the topic. He voiced that the Nevada Commission on Ethics and Clark County v. the City of Las Vegas were listed in the document. He remarked that he wanted to read about the Supreme Court’s opinion regarding the Clark County v. City of Las Vegas case. He said that the county board was bound to consider the interest of all its citizens while the local governing body had an obligation to the citizenry of the municipality alone. He stated this was a separation of power where the county and city had conflicts regarding ballot referendums and ordinances. He expressed that no man, much less a public fiduciary, could sit on both sides of a bargaining table. He reported a person could not, in one capacity, pass with undivided loyalty from proposals they advance in the other role. He said the Secretary of State (SOS) demanded that the BCC bend the knee when dealing with a recount, which was a matter of local concern, which he expressed was a legal term. He believed the BCC might like that they have rights and that the SOS may have overexerted his authority. He referred to the Clark County v. City of Las Vegas case and said that there were two citations. He referenced the second citation, which discussed the BCC’s rights under Article 4, Section 20 of the Nevada Constitution. He said the BCC had the ability to regulate the elections of County and township officers. He mentioned one of the rights from Article 4, Section 20, allowed the BCC to convene a grand or petit jury, which they could use to investigate election complaints. He said that the previous Friday, the BCC may have received some information regarding election complaints, including a lot of facts that the public wanted the BCC to dispel. He expressed that there was a lot of concern regarding the accuracy of the equipment, modes of implementation, and algorithm.
Mr. William Naylor displayed a document. No copy was submitted for the public record. He expressed disappointment regarding the BCC’s decision. He mentioned that the underlying density was increased. He noted the details were in the small print below the table on his document. He disclosed he was unaware that it was there and that nobody had read it. He recited that small print read three density units per acre for single-family
detached and five density units per acre for single-family attached middle housing. He said the cottage court was middle housing, single-family detached. He indicated the Planning Committee lied to the BCC and did not tell them what the small print. He voiced that the new uses for the land seemed to be very appealing and that he would rather live in a duplex or a triplex rather than an apartment building. He asked the BCC if, after a developer or landlord bought a unit or cottage court complex, the rent would be cheaper than an apartment. He asked the BCC if they really thought they would gain affordable housing with their decision.
Ms. Janet Butcher thought she heard Chair Hill say something about B would come after A. She indicated that zoning had been changed in the past. She said Shadow Ridge was originally developed to be one house per acre. She believed that two years ago Shadow Ridge was rezoned to allow for three houses on one acre, and no development was done to get in and out of the area. She noted there were many people who came before the BCC to complain. She believed that there were people on the BCC who voted to allow that to happen. She referred to the library initiative and said that WC1 was written by WCLS Director Jeff Scott. She voiced that if people were confused, they should blame Mr. Scott. She stated the cost of housing had increased with the increase in the number of people coming to the area and inflation. She commented that if she used to pay
$1 for something at the store, she was paying $1.30 now. She said that was a 30 percent increase in inflation. She indicated that this was Bidenomics, but that they did not have to worry about it anymore because there was a new president in the White House. She speculated that as all the new apartment buildings were built with many amenities, the old buildings that could have mold or asbestos would increase their rent. She disclosed she had a family member who had been living with asbestos for eight months.
Assistant County Manager (ACM) David Solaro wanted to make sure the community knew that wanted to make sure the community knew that NV Energy’s public safety outage management system (PSOM) had increased to a warning. He noted that the warning impacted a large section of Washoe County. He hoped the news would cover it that evening, but for those who did not watch it, NV Energy created a warning for 6 a.m. the following morning through Thursday due to a fire red flag warning weather alert. He noted the warning meant that power shut-off was likely to help prevent debris from blowing into power lines and other equipment that could cause a wildfire. He mentioned it specifically impacted Verdi, Galena, Washoe Valley, and Southwest Reno.
Commissioner Clark saluted the security, sheriffs, fellow Commissioners, Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) Mary Kandaras, and Clerk Jan Galassini for their endurance during the meeting.
Chair Hill agreed with Commissioner Clark and said it was a long meeting and that a lot got done.
ATTEST:_
M,iriutes Prepared by:
Lizzie,Ti tj,en, Deputy County Clerk Kendra Desoto-Silva, Deputy County Clerk Heather Gage, Deputy County Clerk
�cL
Washoe County Commission