BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA
TUESDAY 10:00 A.M. APRIL 23, 2024
PRESENT:
Alexis Hill, Chair Jeanne Herman, Vice Chair Michael Clark, Commissioner Clara Andriola, Commissioner
Janis Galassini, County Clerk David Solaro, Assistant County Manager
ABSENT:
The Washoe County Board of Commissioners convened at 10:00 a.m. in regular session in the Commission Chambers of the Washoe County Administration Complex, 1001 East Ninth Street, Reno, Nevada. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our Country, County Clerk Jan Galassini called roll and the Board conducted the following business:
24-0239 AGENDA ITEM 3 Public Comment.
Mr. Rod Dimmitt spoke about the history of his involvement with the May Arboretum Society. He communicated that the May Arboretum Society was a non-profit organization that had provided support for the May Arboretum since the 1980s. He said for the past three years, the May Arboretum Society funded two full-time equivalent (FTE) employees to assist in taking care of the garden. He informed the society also started funding an education position in June 2023. He shared that the society opted to fund an additional FTE to assist the education coordinator. He explained ArbNet was the governing and sanctioning body for gardens across the Country, and the May Arboretum was the only ArbNet-rated arboretum in Nevada. He described the May Arboretum was rated as a Level II garden out of a potential four levels, and was close to being rated as a Level III garden. He commented that the accepted criteria for garden maintenance was one person per acre. He remarked Washoe County was funding fewer than five FTEs to take care of 13 acres. He noted there was also a horticulturist position funded by the May Foundation. He communicated the purpose of his visit to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting was to ask the County to consider funding one of those positions currently being supported by the society and adding another FTE. He advised the society would then backfill the position, thereby increasing the total number of FTEs. He hoped by working in partnership staffing could be increased to industry standard. He invited Commissioners to contact him, attend a program at the Arboretum, or both.
Chair Hill thanked Mr. Dimmitt for his time that day and for his time volunteering with the May Arboretum Society.
Mr. Terry Brooks read an original poem about the difficulties of hunger and poor health during circumstances of homelessness.
Ms. Tracey Hilton-Thomas read a quote from the Bible that she related to Agenda Item 10E1 about early voting and Election Day locations. She requested item 10E1 to be pulled from the Consent Agenda and asked for the list of voting locations to be amended to remove the location at 6600 Wingfield Parkway. She reasoned that location was unethical and could not be considered unbiased as a voting location. She stated her intent to file ethics complaints and election violations if that location was approved by any Commissioners.
Ms. Hilton-Thomas thanked Commissioner Clark for his question the prior week about staff input in the decision to move Technology Services (TS) out of Building C of the Washoe County Administrative Complex on 9th Street in Reno. She was concerned that staff members had not been consulted, and she opined the plan was ill- advised. Ms. Hilton-Thomas displayed an image, copies of which were distributed to the Board and placed on file with the Clerk. She suggested alternatives for space utilization at the 9th Street Complex and did not think plans at that location should include the expansion of the Safe Camp.
Ms. Valerie Fiannaca expressed her concerns about the lack of adequate BCC oversight of the Library Board of Trustees (LBT). She described a physical altercation from a recent meeting, which she felt exemplified the climate of bullying at those meetings. She announced she videotaped the incident and planned to submit the video to Human Resources (HR). She emphasized she had warned multiple times about the legal risk Library Director Jeff Scott brought to the County. She described the Punk Rock Flea Market, which she said was funded by the Reno City Council and took place in Sparks the prior weekend. She advised she had nothing against the event and theorized it was not necessary for the County to provide funding for Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) in libraries when there were already numerous community events involving drag queens that were very well-attended.
Ms. Janet Butcher echoed the concerns expressed by Ms. Fiannaca about the LBT. She informed she tried to listen to a recent LBT meeting remotely, but the audio was horrendous. She recalled a request from LBT Chair Gianna Jacks about moving meetings to a venue with better audio and video capabilities, which Ms. Butcher supported. Ms. Butcher was concerned about decorum in that LBT meeting and asserted Chair Jacks was not afforded the respect she should have been, particularly by Director Scott. Ms. Butcher was disappointed by the LBT vote to adhere to the Dewey Decimal System for book categorization rather than opting to place some materials in an age-restricted area. She suggested DQSH be held at Our Center rather than at a library. She questioned the status of Vice Chair Herman’s election integrity resolution and stated her desire to see it agendized.
10:16 a.m. The Board recessed.
11:00 a.m. The Board reconvened with Commissioner Garcia absent.
24-0240 AGENDA ITEM 4 Announcements/Reports.
Vice Chair Herman advised that she would refrain from commenting at that time out of consideration for the time of the presenters on the agenda that day. She affirmed that she did have matters to discuss later in the meeting.
Commissioner Clark stated that the Community Homelessness Advisory Board (CHAB) had not met since Monday, September 11, 2023. He opined that, given the issues surrounding homelessness, holding monthly meetings of that Board would be better to gain traction on matters. He felt there were many things to discuss on the subject, and reasoned the only way to properly address them was to have all regional partners meet regularly in Chambers.
Commissioner Clark mentioned an interview with interim Registrar of Voters (ROV) Cari-Ann Burgess that was conducted over the weekend on a television show called Face the State. He recalled significant time was devoted to discussion about alleged threats to election workers. He disputed the perpetuation of that narrative and found it disingenuous. Commissioner Clark disclosed research he conducted for information about death threats, which did not reveal any documented incidents. He read from an email, copies of which were placed on file with the Clerk. He emphasized the importance of communicating facts to the public.
Commissioner Clark recalled the discussion and vote regarding Ordinance 1715 at the March 26, 2024, Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting. He restated his position in opposition to the ordinance and divulged negative commentary from the mayors of Reno and Sparks regarding his vote. He submitted documents to be placed on file with the Clerk. He understood the City of Sparks had at least two arrests of homeless individuals related to provisions in the ordinance, and he wanted to know more about those. He hoped the County could avoid future mistakes by learning more about those arrests.
Commissioner Clark referenced the BCC Rules of Procedure Handbook Section 5.5 and asked for clarification about why Vice Chair Herman’s election integrity resolution had not been added to an agenda as requested. He wanted a vote to be taken on the item in a public forum so each Commissioner's position would be on the record.
Chair Hill stated the CHAB was scheduled to meet on Monday, May 13 at 9:00 am in Chambers.
Commissioner Andriola provided an update about upcoming stakeholder meetings for equine property owners. She hoped to have more information to provide soon and described the complexity of the project because of the variety of stakeholders and
existing regulations in the Washoe County Code (WCC). She noted the potential for a positive impact of the revisions beyond Washoe County and thanked everyone for their help in the process.
Chair Hill thanked Commissioner Andriola for her work on solutions related to equine properties.
Commissioner Clark said he was pleased to hear the CHAB was scheduled to meet soon but commented nine months had passed since the prior meeting. He observed homelessness was a hot-button issue in the County and in the cities of Reno and Sparks. He thought more collaboration among the County, Reno, and Sparks was necessary to proactively engage with the issues faced by the community. He emphasized the importance of adequate opportunities for people experiencing homelessness to provide public comment and restated his hope for more frequent meetings. He also noted the importance of regular opportunities for others affected by homelessness, like business owners, to share their stories and contribute their opinions.
Chair Hill announced the upcoming Smart About Water Day on May 4, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the McKinley Arts and Culture Center in Reno. She said it was a great opportunity for people to learn about the local water system. She shared that she and Commissioner Andriola sat on the Truckee Meadows Water Association (TMWA) Board, and she advised that TMWA provided incredible technology and excellent support for the growing community.
24-0241 5A1 Proclaim the week of April 21-27, 2024 as Crime Victims' Rights Week. (All Commission Districts.)
Commissioner Andriola read the proclamation.
District Attorney (DA) Christopher Hicks thanked the Board of County Commissioners for amplifying the importance of Crime Victims’ Rights Week with the proclamation. He shared Crime Victims’ Rights Week had been recognized nationally for 40 years, and the primary goal of it was to bring awareness to the rights of crime victims but also to challenge the barriers victims face on a daily basis. He explained that what victims had to go through in the criminal justice process was very challenging, and every moment government officials, law enforcement, and community members could take to reinforce their commitment to crime victims was immensely appropriate. He thought recognition helped chip away at a systemic imbalance between criminal defendants’ rights and crime victims’ rights. He noted he observed a positive shift in that during his career, but said more progress was needed. He said another important part of Crime Victims’ Rights Week was to acknowledge people who supported crime victims. He introduced representatives from the victim advocates teams in both his office and the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO). He believed they were the hidden heroes of the criminal justice system, and he applauded their commitment to the difficult work they did. He mentioned
the use of the color purple to signify support for National Victims of Crimes Week and provided pins for Commissioners to wear if they wanted to show their support in that way.
11:19 a.m. The Board recessed.
11:21 a.m. The Board reconvened with Commissioner Garcia absent.
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Commissioner Andriola, seconded by Vice Chair Herman, which motion duly carried on a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Garcia absent, it was ordered that Agenda Item 5A1 be adopted.
24-0242 AGENDA ITEM 6 Presentation and discussion regarding the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update. (All Commission Districts.)
Executive Director of the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) Bill Thomas thanked the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for their time. He introduced RTC Deputy Executive Director Dale Keller, who conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following titles: 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Update; RTC Background; Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Overview; RTP Update Overview; Timeline; Vision Setting; Goal Setting; Intelligent Transportation Systems; North Valleys Projects; RTP Stakeholders; Public Involvement; Get Involved!; Next Steps; Thank You.
Mr. Keller said the plan being presented to the BCC was about the future of transportation in the region projected for the next 20 years. He briefed the Board that every five years the RTC led an effort with agency partners to create a roadmap and transportation framework for the next 20 years, which was referred to as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Mr. Keller explained the purpose of the presentation that day was to inform the County of the RTP process and convey how RTC was engaging with the public, partner agencies, elected leaders, and staff. He stated they were committed to engaging early and often. He advised that RTC was designated by the State Legislature as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Washoe County, and they were the transportation policy- making organization. He noted that RTC was also responsible for managing transportation revenue and providing regional transit service. He reviewed the purpose of the RTP, which was to outline transportation projects, programs, and services provided through 2050 and capture the community’s vision for the transportation system. He explained the RTP functioned as the major tool for implementing long-range transportation planning and established an implementation plan to achieve that vision. He informed the RTP was updated every five years to ensure the plan aligned with current conditions and community priorities. He stated the last update was in 2021, and they were currently working on a refresh which was not a full overhaul. He said the goals and objectives set by the previous iteration would be reviewed to confirm they were still appropriate.
Mr. Keller described the timeline for the RTP, which outlined key milestones and phases of the update process. He said there were ample opportunities for transparency and community involvement along the way. He explained they were currently in the public visioning and goals stage, and later in 2024 the staff team would work on projections for future needs of the system and present a draft RTP document in early 2025 with possible final adoption by the RTC Board in the spring of 2025. He reported they were currently discussing the vision for the future of transportation, and it was important to set guardrails in the form of guiding principles to ensure alignment with the vision. He commented that the guiding principles were sometimes updated based on conversations with partnering agencies and feedback from stakeholders.
Mr. Keller informed the purpose of the RTP goal list was to provide the direction of focus for regional transportation projects. He added that all projects needed to satisfy at least one of the designated goals and could satisfy all seven goals outlined. He provided the example of the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) project, which was a future regional transportation program that met all seven goals. He said RTC, the City of Reno, the City of Sparks, and Washoe County staff had been collaborating for two years on the ITS strategic master plan that would regionalize traffic signals as well as operations. He explained the first symbolic step RTC sought was for the County, Reno, and Sparks to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that outlined four topics within the ITS project. He advised the MOU would be presented to the BCC at a future meeting, most likely in May 2024. Mr. Keller highlighted examples of current projects based on the existing RTP. He described details of a slide showing RTC projects in the North Valleys.
Mr. Keller expanded on the collaboration efforts of the RTC. He informed their working group discussions went beyond roads and transportation considerations. He explained they took a broader view of land use, equitable access, schools, jobs, activity centers, and environmental impacts. He showed a slide that graphically represented the schedule and levels of engagement RTC sought with the public. He spoke about the Agency Working Group, which he indicated met every other month to receive RTP updates, offer solutions to transportation topics, and share input from representative organizations. He said there were association partnerships with other transportation organizations, including groups focused on bicycles and pedestrians. He displayed a quick response (QR) code that linked to a survey RTC was using as a tool to collect input from the community through May 2024. Mr. Keller talked about the next steps for the RTP and emphasized their focus on transparent, inclusive planning and engagement. He mentioned an email notification signup which would help people stay informed.
Vice Chair Herman inquired how long it would be before the North McCarran Boulevard onramp to U.S. 395 was back in service. Mr. Keller responded that he did not have an answer, but knew the closure was planned to continue through the summer. He said he would get information from the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) for Vice Chair Herman regarding the closure.
Commissioner Andriola commended the RTC for their comprehensive service in her district and other areas. She asked Assistant County Manager (ACM) David
Solaro about the routing of Washoe 311 calls related to traffic congestion. She wanted to know if information about those calls was forwarded to RTC. ACM Solaro said he believed if the remark was specific to an RTC item, it was forwarded to them, but he added many of the calls were more appropriately routed to NDOT or the Cities of Reno or Sparks and were not related directly to the work RTC was doing. He theorized it was possible to take the information Washoe 311 received and provide a package to RTC so they could consider how that resident feedback might fit into their RTP. Commissioner Andriola thought that was important, and that being able to articulate citizen concerns to relevant organizations was essential. She gathered there was sometimes confusion about what was managed by RTC, NDOT, and the Cities of Reno and Sparks, and in what ways they worked together. She noted the years of planning that went into the proposals, which could create apparent service gaps during periods of growth. She recognized the work of RTC and its partners to keep transportation flowing freely in the region as best as possible. She thought congestion was the primary concern of constituents in her district, and appreciated the consideration RTC gave to reducing that. She thanked ACM Solaro for his support of RTC citizen engagement efforts.
Commissioner Clark observed the difference between RTC and NDOT and surmised that a lot of congestion could be attributed to the State rather than RTC. He remarked on the complex network of roads and how navigating in some areas of Reno and Sparks was time-consuming, especially during certain parts of the day. He wanted to see a presentation on congested areas and plans, priorities, and projections to address them. He acknowledged existing limitations, like train tracks and overpasses, that would prevent road widening.
Chair Hill expressed her admiration for the work of RTC. She said she felt honored to serve on their board alongside Commissioner Garcia and applauded the working partnership between RTC and NDOT. She suggested a presentation about ITS be shared with the BCC, possibly by sending them a link or inviting RTC to return to a future BCC meeting. She supposed the community would be impressed by all the science and data that had gone into congestion reduction planning. Chair Hill requested a social media kit be sent to help Commissioners promote the RTC survey to their constituents. She thought the connection to Lake Tahoe should be considered, given the amount of transit between Reno and Lake Tahoe.
Commissioner Clark commented on the price of gas and wanted to see funding for congestion reduction prioritized.
24-0243 AGENDA ITEM 7 Presentation and Update on FY 23/24 Third Quarter Status Report for the Washoe County Regional Detention Facility to include security of the jail, conditions of confinement, staffing and medical care of inmates housed at the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff. (All Commission Districts.)
Washoe County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO) Captain Andrew Barrett-Venn conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following titles: Jail
Status Report FY23/24 -3rd Quarter Report; Medical Information; NaphCare Medical Data
(1); NaphCare Medical Data (2); Untitled Chart; Average Length of Stay; Untitled Chart; FY 23/24 3rd Quarter Jail Data; Inmate Assistance Program; SNAP.
Captain Barrett-Venn explained the full PowerPoint slide deck was provided for Commissioners to look through, and out of respect for their time he was only going to speak to highlights. He reported the jail population was holding steady with an average daily population of 1,159 in the third quarter of fiscal year 2024 (FY24). He informed the average length of stay was 16.92 days, which he noted was consistent with prior quarters. He advised the average population usually increased in the summer months when the temperature warmed, and there were more events. He said they expected an increase of 60 to 70 people, who WCSO did their best to house appropriately. He divulged space was limited, and they worked to find creative ways to get people out of custody so the jail was not overcrowded. Captain Barrett-Venn reported over the past quarter they booked 3,630 inmates and released 3,694. He acknowledged when the number booked was higher than the number released, there were capacity problems.
Captain Barrett-Venn presented a special guest to highlight a component of the jail that people did not know much about. He introduced Washoe County Jail Kitchen Food Services Manager George Obritsch, who conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following titles: Introduction; Specialty Items and Upgrades; Dispelling Myths; Dietary Restrictions; Numbers; Cost-Saving and Purchasing Strategies; New Equipment and Inmate Safety; Growth Projection Plan; Other Functions; Questions?
Mr. Obritch summarized he did not view his position as punishing other humans with food. He felt it was the responsibility of the courts to administer punishment and his to feed people in the best way he knew how, using the taxpayer resources with which he was entrusted. He shared that he was a graduate of the Culinary Institute of America in culinary arts, baking, and pastry. He divulged he had spent his entire life in kitchens and had not done anything else. He said over the past five years he, along with the executive staff, had made dramatic and very noticeable changes to the overall food service at the jail. He reported he regularly received positive comments about the changes from inmates who were in custody in prior years, which reinforced his viewpoint about the progress made with the kitchen. He informed menus were printed out for each meal, describing what was being served, which eliminated the concept of mystery meat. He described foods they made in-house, including cake mixes, frosting, and a variety of breads. He said every Saturday night featured a different flavor of ice cream, and he felt the variety of items he provided helped with the overall perception of the food. Mr. Obritch shared statistics about food volume and described that with inmates being offered two pieces of fresh fruit daily, the jail used about half of a million bananas every year, along with a quarter of a million oranges and apples. He provided examples of his commitment to balancing fiscal responsibility and high-quality meals. He challenged a myth about food donations being channeled towards the jail and stated they did not take any donations. He emphasized everything in his kitchen was definitively for human consumption, and it had been that way for years.
Mr. Obritch spoke about dietary accommodations for inmates with a variety of religious beliefs, which he worked with jail chaplains to honor. He communicated there were just under 300 inmates with special dietary needs at that time, which ranged from dental considerations to cancer. He shared that in the prior year, the jail kitchen produced over 1.8 million total meals and snacks, approximately 3,600 meals every day. He acknowledged the operation would not be possible without the work of inmates who assisted in the kitchen; usually around 30 at any given time. He said the budget was around
$1.5 million, and he prioritized spending that wisely, especially as the price of food had risen noticeably in the past couple of years. He commented that over the past several months he had been able to average the cost of each inmate meal and snack to $1.35, which was highly competitive and, he thought, possibly unbeatable by any correctional food service contractor. He was confident the quality he provided at that price point was unbeatable. He related the food he purchased was from first and prime vendors, which were also grocery store and restaurant suppliers. He was able to obtain the items when they were discontinued or needed to be moved along for other reasons. He reported that the relationships he had with suppliers enabled him to get higher-quality products at a competitive price point. He said most of his purchasing was done through secondary market vendors, which he explained were items that were overstocked or did not meet specifications in their original vendor contract but were still high-quality and became available through a bidding process.
He described his process for selecting what to purchase, which included what he called the wow factor. He wanted to ensure people responded well to the food they received. He divulged the staff in the jail kitchen were all former casino cooks who had extensive kitchen experience, which he said helped maximize the ingredients they obtained. He recounted recent equipment purchases, including a large meat grinder, that increased safety and quality in the kitchen. He informed that the grinder allowed them to process 400 pounds of meat in an hour without the use of a knife. He felt it was his responsibility to plan for the future, and he projected it would be necessary to expand the square footage of the kitchen to meet the demand of increased inmate numbers with the completion of Housing Unit 10 and the planned new medical facility. He planned to take over a small satellite kitchen and convert it to a full-service kitchen and hoped to incorporate that into the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) plan for 2025. He said the original main kitchen in use was designed to feed 800 people, and he reasoned expansion was necessary to continue to provide consistent and timely service beyond 2035 with more housing units.
Vice Chair Herman asked about the possibility of Mr. Obritch cooking for seniors. He responded that the possibility was explored, and at that time, there were issues with guaranteeing sufficient inmate labor. He declared he would love to do it and was open to revisiting the logistical challenges, though he mentioned that the roadblocks had been previously explored in depth.
Commissioner Clark applauded Mr. Obritch for his passion for the job and his effective fiscal stewardship. He was impressed by the meals Mr. Obritch was able to regularly create within the budget he had. He requested a tour of the jail kitchen if possible
and expressed his interest in sampling the food. He recalled Sheriff Darin Balaam previously stated he would like to be involved if there was a bidding process for providing food for seniors. Commissioner Clark thought there were opportunities for collaboration between the jail and the Senior Center, possibly involving former inmates who sought employment after serving their time.
Commissioner Andriola commended Mr. Obritch and remarked on the high quality of his training. She thanked him for his creativity and his diligence in finding ways to optimize the funds available.
Chair Hill shared her appreciation for the presentation that day. She said when she toured the jail in the past, she asked inmates what they thought about the food, and they loved it. She theorized that showed Mr. Obritch’s passion and the good working conditions he ensured for his staff. She appreciated the dignity and respect he afforded for the dietary needs and preferences of individuals in custody. She speculated that Mr. Obritch was a good candidate for a news profile because of the caliber of work he did.
Commissioner Clark thought the WCSO staff understood the challenges raised by monotony and the preservation of dignity. He saluted Mr. Obritch's creative efforts to include variety in his menus.
Captain Barrett-Venn summarized the presentation was the third installment in his program of highlighting different aspects of the jail for Commissioners and for the public. He said if Board members had any areas of interest they wanted to know more about, he was receptive to suggestions for future presentations. He offered to provide facility tours to any interested Commissioners.
Chair Hill commended Captain Barrett-Venn’s commitment to the citizens in his custody and his support of services at the jail.
24-0244 AGENDA ITEM 8 Presentation and discussion by Gabrielle Enfield, Community Reinvestment Manager, regarding a status update for Community Reinvestment and the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) grant ($91,587,038) awarded to Washoe County pursuant to the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). Manager’s Office. (All Commission Districts.)
Community Reinvestment Manager Gabrielle Enfield conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following titles: Community Reinvestment Update; Overview; Community Reinvestment Org Chart; Community Reinvestment Strategic Plan 2024-2026; Our Mission; Principles Guiding our Impact; FY24-26 Strategic Goals; How We Deliver; ARPA-SLFRF; Funding Status; Timeline; Federal Appropriations; Federal Appropriations - Awarded Projects; Federal Appropriations – Pending Projects; Federal Appropriations Timeline; Sponsored Projects; Discretionary Grant Facilitation & Assistance (1); Discretionary Grant Facilitation & Assistance (2); Discretionary Grant Facilitation & Assistance (3); Washoe Opioid
Abatement & Recovery Fund; Funding Status; Fund Distribution; Timeline; Evaluation and Selection Criteria; Funding Priorities (from Needs Assessment) Examples of Uses of Funds; Questions?
Ms. Enfield thanked Board members for the opportunity to provide an update on Community Reinvestment and on the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF). She informed a Community Reinvestment Strategic Plan was completed. She shared an organizational chart that showed roles within the Community Reinvestment team, which included a new County Grants Administrator and other recent hires. Ms. Enfield read the mission of the Community Reinvestment team, which stated their core purpose was to identify and address community needs resulting in lasting positive impact by convening and aligning new and existing resources to solve problems and fill gaps. She indicated all their projects worked to address needs and root causes and they focused on engaging in initiatives that had the potential for significant, broad community impact. She reported their primary goal was to create transformative change in key Washoe County strategic focus areas identified by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). She related her department served as a convener of stakeholders, and occasionally did some direct project delivery, but most of their work was in supporting projects implemented by County departments or community nonprofits.
Ms. Enfield said Community Reinvestment had been working on implementing over $91 million in SLFRF over the past two years and was making good progress in obligating and spending the money. She advised they had allocated 96 percent of the funds and expended 52 percent. She disclosed that $3.4 million remained to be allocated, which included deobligated funds that were on the agenda for discussion later that day. She explained community donations to the capital campaign for the Cares Campus were higher than expected, which allowed some funds to be reallocated elsewhere. Ms. Enfield shared a timeline that outlined the reporting schedule and deadlines for the remaining time to obligate and expend SLFRF. She avowed they were working on finding suitable contracts and projects to obligate remaining funds so the County would not need to return any dollars.
Ms. Enfield summarized the federal appropriations applications to Congress her team supported over the past few years. She revealed in the most recent year, federal fiscal year (FFY) 2024, an award for the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO) was submitted and passed through Congress, and the project could now be implemented. She said they expected to hear soon about their application for Bailey Creek Stormwater Management. She spoke about the Lemmon Valley Stormwater Improvement project approved in FFY2023, which she mentioned she was working closely on with the State. She added there were two other projects, Cares Campus Capital and WCSO medical infirmary design, which they continued to work on. She reported Community Reinvestment just submitted three specific FFY2025 projects through congressional representatives. She stated one was for emergency foster beds due to a combination of insufficient foster families and children with very specific needs. She described another application submitted for two years of initial operating expenses for West Hills that would assist with startup costs when renovations were complete. The third application was for
Hidden Valley Regional Park Wetlands. Ms. Enfield informed her team also worked with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), who submitted an application for a water clarity project for Third Creek at Lake Tahoe. She noted it was usual for appropriations to be approved in August or September, but the process was sometimes extended longer. She explained that Congressman Amodei was submitting projects to committees soon, and more information would be available later in the year about which were funded.
Ms. Enfield gave an overview of sponsored projects, which were discretionary grants that Washoe County applied for in a competitive process. She detailed a new Community Grant Readiness initiative founded on a belief in greater regional strength overall if local nonprofits were individually stronger and more able to apply for and receive federal funds. She was aware Washoe County received a comparatively low amount of federal assistance, and her goal was to have more federal money directed to the County. She read through additional supports Community Reinvestment provided for nonprofits, which were listed in the slides. She disclosed that they were starting to plan a statewide conference on grants management. She reported that a similar conference they supported in 2019 was very well received. Ms. Enfield described over $6 million in grants awarded in the past quarter that her team worked closely with the successful grantees on applying for. She said over $13.6 million was awarded to projects in the first three quarters of FFY2024, which she reasoned was a good return on investment for the work that was happening on grants throughout the County. She added there was one large pending grant, which she informed was a collaborative effort with the State. She divulged the County portion, if the grant was awarded, would be approximately $10 million.
Grants and Community Program Analyst Lauren Beal talked about the Washoe Opioid Abatement and Recovery Fund. She described the fund was established from opioid litigation settlement dollars and $41 million was expected to be received over the next 20 years. She said $4.7 million had already been received, and she expected an additional $6 million would be received by spring 2025. She advised the Community Reinvestment team planned to release a notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) in May 2024 to help get funds out into the community. She indicated it would be a competitive grant award for a two-year funding cycle, and those allocated funding would be eligible for up to three contract renewals if their programming was successful and consistent with community needs. She added an additional funding cycle would be opened in 2026. Ms. Beal disclosed her team was moving as quickly as possible and would release the NOFO on May 15. She informed applications would be accepted through June 30, and she would host an application webinar on May 22 to answer questions about the application. She announced application evaluation and scoring would take place shortly thereafter, followed by awards notices and development of agreements, and that ideally, she would return to the BCC on September 10, 2024, to get final approval of the best candidates. She hoped programming would begin on October 1, 2024. She provided an overview of the rubric developed for the selection process and of the funding priorities established in the needs assessment, both of which were detailed on slides in her presentation. She showed another slide with examples of the types of activities that would be eligible for Washoe Opioid Abatement and Recovery Funds.
Commissioner Clark thanked Ms. Enfield for her presentation.
Chair Hill expressed her enthusiasm for the grant workshops planned and asked to be updated about progress and any opportunities for the BCC’s support. She requested that Ms. Beal include the Board when communications go out to promote the webinar so Commissioners could pass the information on to potential candidates for funding. She thanked the Community Reinvestment team for their work.
24-0245 9A1 Recommendation to accept various items donated totaling an estimated market value of [$14,325.00] to Washoe County Human Services Agency Homelessness Fund to support welfare activities retroactive for the period January 5, 2024, through March 25, 2024. Human Services Agency. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0246 9A2 Recommendation to: (1) accept various items donated totaling an estimated market value of [$37,776.80] retroactive for the period of November 1, 2023 through March 25, 2024; and (2) accept donations from various donors to Washoe County Human Services Agency Child Protective Services Fund to support welfare activities in the amount of [$9,550.00] retroactive for the period January 5, 2024 through March 25, 2024; and direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary budget amendments. Human Services Agency. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0247 9A3 Recommendation to: (1) accept various items donated totaling an estimated market value of [$2,064.00]; and (2) accept donations from various donors to the Human Services Agency - Senior Services Fund used to support seniors in our community in the amount of [$1,042.51] retroactive for the period January 5, 2024 through March 25 2024; and direct the Comptroller to make the necessary budget amendments. Human Services Agency. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Chair Hill, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Garcia absent, it was ordered that Agenda Items 9A1 through 9A3 be accepted.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS – 10A1 THROUGH 10E1 EXCLUDING AGENDA ITEMS 10C2 AND 10E1 HEARD SEPARATELY
24-0248 10A1 Approval of minutes for the Board of County Commissioners' regular meetings of March 19, 2024, and March 26, 2024. Clerk. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0249 10A2 Acknowledge the communications and reports received by the Clerk on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, including the following categories: Communications, Monthly Statements/Reports, and Annual Statements/Reports. Clerk. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0250 10B1 Recommendation to 1) approve roll change requests, pursuant to NRS 361.765 and/or NRS 361.768, for errors discovered on the 2020/2021, 2021/2022, 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 secured and unsecured tax rolls 2) authorize Chair to execute the changes described in Exhibits A and B and
3) direct the Washoe County Treasurer to correct the error(s). [cumulative amount of decrease to all taxing entities $89,976.39]. Assessor. (All Commission Districts.)
24-0251 10C1 Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) between Washoe County (County), and the City of Reno (Reno), to reimburse Reno for professional engineering services provided by HDR Engineering, in support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map revision/updates for areas in the South Truckee Meadows. This ILA identifies a 50% cost share of these services between the Washoe County and Reno. [Washoe County’s total cost is not to exceed $79,343.50, which is 50% of the total project cost of $158,687.00]. Community Services. (Commission District 2.)
24-0252 10D1 Washoe County Federal Legislative Activity report for the first quarter of calendar year 2024 created in accordance with Washoe County Federal Legislative Principles and Lobbying Practices for the 118th United States Congress. Manager's Office. (All Commission Districts.)
Vice Chair Herman asked to pull Agenda Item 10C2 and 10E1 from the Consent Agenda.
There was no response to the call for public comment on the Consent Agenda Items listed above.
On motion by Commissioner Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Garcia absent, it was ordered that Consent Agenda Items 10A1 through 10E1, with the exclusion of Agenda Items 10C2 and 10E1, be approved. Any and all Interlocal Agreements pertinent to Consent Agenda Items 10A1 through 10E1, with the exclusion of Agenda Items 10C2 and 10E1, are attached hereto and made a part of the minutes thereof.
24-0253 10C2 Recommendation to approve the Regional Shooting Facility License and Management Services Agreement between Washoe County and Nevada Shooting Sports Academy LLC doing business as Nevada Firearms Academy, for full management and operation of the Regional Shooting Facility located at 21555 Pyramid Way, Reno, effective April 23, 2024
through June 30, 2029 [estimated annual cost to Washoe County is
$18,000.00]. Community Services. (Commission District 5.)
Vice Chair Herman requested a presentation on Agenda Item 10C2, which Assistant County Manager David Solaro advised could be provided by Director of Community Services Eric Crump. Mr. Crump explained the agreement presented for approval was for the management of day-to-day operations of the Regional Shooting Facility. He described Washoe County had historically staffed that facility with two full- time staff, who recently retired. He recalled those retirements were seen as a good opportunity to put out a request for proposal (RFP) to see if any private organizations or nonprofits were interested in operating the facility. He informed an RFP process was undertaken in 2011 but no proposals were submitted at that time. He reported the County went out to bid and originally did not receive any bids, which led them to hold a meeting with stakeholders in which they gathered feedback that informed modifications to the RFP. One proposal was subsequently received. He said staff negotiated a contract with Nevada Firearms Academy and were excited about the partnership. He divulged it had been historically difficult to recruit for positions at that facility, and it had been managed with a skeleton staff. He observed that this made it difficult for staff to take vacations and, at times, necessitated closure due to staff sickness, which led to inconsistent operations. He disclosed Nevada Firearms Academy currently owned and operated an indoor range and was very familiar with firearms. Mr. Crump thought the new services agreement would enable significantly more consistent operation of the Regional Shooting Facility.
Vice Chair Herman thanked Mr. Crump for his work and recognized the importance of improving the efficiency of the Regional Shooting Facility. She speculated an additional Regional Shooting Facility in a different area of the County would be well- received. Mr. Crump mentioned Nevada Firearms Academy was already considering increasing the open times, which were currently limited to four days per week. He said the agreement was styled after golf course agreements the County had entered into, and he thought it was a good opportunity to trial how business owners from the private sector could provide service in their area of expertise and allow the public sector to step back. Vice Chair Herman asked for clarification about the nature of the agreement, which she observed involved a combination of business and public recreation. Mr. Crump responded that it was a great example of a venture that was both public and private. He described Nevada Firearms Academy would handle day-to-day range operations including staffing, reservations, and maintenance. He noted the County would still be responsible for the larger infrastructure, and he did not expect the range would generate enough revenue to offset those larger costs. He explained the County would continue to pay utilities and would be responsible for maintaining the structure and roof of the buildings, which he estimated at $18,000 annually. He stated that was much less than what the County currently provided, and disclosed the County currently operated the range at a net loss of more than $120,000 annually.
Vice Chair Herman asked what the anticipated schedule was for the public to be able to use the facility. Mr. Crump informed provision of both a schedule and fee schedule were part of the agreement. He said Nevada Firearms Academy was required to
take a survey of similar ranges across the Western United States to ensure they were in alignment. Mr. Crump advised Nevada Firearms Academy owner Mr. Scott Catron was present and could speak to additional questions about range operations.
Mr. Catron spoke about his enthusiasm for the Regional Shooting Facility. He disclosed he was present for the ribbon-cutting of the facility in 1980 and recalled going there regularly with his father. He felt it was important to keep the legacy of the facility alive, and divulged his primary focus would initially be youth. He mentioned Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America) troops recently returned to earn merit badges for the first time in 12 years, and youth from the Reno Rodeo shot there the prior month after having not been to the facility in six years. He said his intention was to increase opening days from the current four to all seven days each week. He acknowledged they would still have to be closed to the public on some days to allow for work to be done, but theorized those days were good opportunities for law enforcement and other outside agencies to use the range.
Vice Chair Herman asked how long the contract was, and Mr. Crump responded it was a five-year term with the option for a five-year renewal based on performance.
Chair Hill said she loved that the County was able to support a local small business with the agreement. She thanked Vice Chair Herman for pulling it from the Consent Agenda to learn more about the details.
Commissioner Clark observed the challenges encountered by the County in keeping the facility staffed and wondered how Mr. Catron envisioned responding to that challenge. Mr. Catron responded that the facility required a range safety officer (RSO) to be on-site to run it, and his company currently employed 15 RSOs, whereas the County only had two. He asserted his team was already established and ready to go. Commissioner Clark asked how many range masters Mr. Catron had on staff. Mr. Catron advised a range usually identified one chief RSO as range master. He explained that in addition to himself, he had one other chief RSO, and they worked together to create safety policies and protocols for the facilities they oversaw. He informed those guidelines were passed along to other RSOs, who could then operate the facility. He clarified it was not necessary for a range master to be on-site at all times, and provided examples of groups who brought their own RSO, like the Washoe County Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team, who were using the facility that week for training.
Commissioner Clark asked what items would be available for sale at the facility, and Mr. Catron advised no weapons would be sold, but rentals would be provided, including items people often did not have access to. He said they did sell weapons at an indoor facility they owned, and he intended to have a pro shop at the Regional Shooting Facility to sell ammunition and items for the weapons systems available for rent on-site. He opined, based on his experience as a range master there over the past year, the people who utilized the Regional Shooting Facility usually took their own ammunition and probably would not purchase from the pro shop, but he thought there would be some other users who might benefit from having supplies available for sale. Commissioner Clark inquired whether the facility would operate year-round, and if they were affected by
weather conditions. Mr. Catron responded they would retain the closure procedures the County had in place. He said unhealthy air quality and impassible snow would result in temporary closure, but the plan was to be open 365 days of the year. He affirmed they had emergency evacuation plans in case of fire or other unforeseen circumstances. He supposed loss of power would also force them to shut down. Commissioner Clark asked to arrange a tour in the near future.
Chair Hill expressed her enthusiasm for the partnership and thanked Mr.
Catron for his willingness to work with the County.
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Commissioner Herman, seconded by Commissioner Clark, which motion duly carried on a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Garcia absent, it was ordered that Agenda Item 10C2 be approved.
24-0254 10E1 Recommendation that the Washoe County Board of Commissioners acknowledge receipt of the Registrar of Voters’ selection of the Early Voting and Election Day locations and schedule for the 2024 Primary Election, as required by NRS 293.3561(2)(b). Voters. (All Commission Districts.)
Vice Chair Herman sought an explanation for the concerns raised by a public commenter, Ms. Tracey Hilton-Thomas, earlier in the meeting about one of the selected voting locations. Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) Mary Kandaras advised that Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 293.3561 only required the Registrar of Voters (ROV) to provide polling locations, and there was no other legal requirement for the locations. She was unsure about the specific request from the commenter. Commissioner Clark suggested taking a moment to review the public comments to accurately identify Ms. Hilton- Thomas’s questions. He recalled it was about a polling location being near a campaign office, though he was not sure if the assertion was true. He felt it was worth taking a five- minute break to listen back to the comment. Chair Hill disagreed and felt a decision needed to be made. She stated it was not standard practice to revisit a recording from earlier in the meeting. Commissioner Clark wanted clarification about whether there was a campaign office too close to a polling location before he voted on the matter. CDDA Kandaras disclosed a conversation she had with Commissioner Andriola during a break, in which Commissioner Andriola described an office she had at Red Hawk Golf and Resort. She said they discussed the nature and contents of the office at length, and reviewed what the projected activities at the office were while elections were conducted. CDDA Kandaras cited NRS 281A, which dealt with ethics laws, and believed there was no specific pecuniary interest invoked due to Commissioner Andriola’s office. It was her understanding that, at least during election times, there would not be any signs or political activity, the presence of which she acknowledged would violate NRS. She advised there was no conflict or ethical violation, and the office did not affect the legality of the polling place.
Commissioner Clark said he was not accusing anyone or picking sides, but he did want more clarification. He theorized that if something was perceived as an issue by a citizen, it was the duty of Commissioners to prove to them it was not. He believed problems were solved by showing the facts, and suggested when people felt they were treated fairly, they were calmer.
On the call for public comment, Ms. Valerie Fiannaca stated her belief that there was pecuniary interest, based on donations from Red Hawk Golf and Resort to Commissioner Andriola. She claimed there was one in-kind donation of $5,000 and an additional $5,000 donation in cash.
On motion by Chair Hill seconded by Commissioner Andriola to acknowledge receipt of the Registrar of Voters’ selection of the Early Voting and Election Day locations and schedule for the 2024 Primary Election, as required by NRS 293.3561(2)(b), the motion failed on a 2-2 vote with Commissioner Garcia absent and Vice Chair Herman and Commissioner Clark voting no.
Chair Hill informed the item would be brought back for approval at the next Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting. She asked Assistant County Manager (ACM) David Solaro whether the delay would cause problems for the ROV. He understood sample ballots were already being printed that included the locations submitted to the BCC for acknowledgement that day. He said if there was a concern with locations, that could be problematic. He asked CDDA Kandaras if the Board needed to approve the locations, or whether they were just required to acknowledge the locations. CDDA Kandaras stated that the locations needed to be acknowledged, not approved, and she recognized the motion failed. She indicated even if Commissioners believed there was an ethical violation, it did not interfere with the legality of the polling place. She advised the proper remedy for a potential ethics violation was to file a report with the Nevada Commission on Ethics. She asked, out of an abundance of caution, that Commissioner Andriola abstain from voting, but that the polling locations be acknowledged as provided. She noted that if the process was stalled, voting could not happen.
Chair Hill opined the vote was irresponsible and commented she was discouraged and concerned. She wanted another vote to be taken, considering the advice of CDDA Kandaras about what was being voted on.
Commissioner Clark wanted to know how Chair Hill determined the item would be approved if it was brought back at the next meeting. Chair Hill advised that tied votes were brought back at the next meeting as a matter of procedure. Commissioner Clark asked whether there was a way to take the polling place in question and move it to another location. Interim ROV Cari-Ann Burgess articulated that because sample ballots had already gone to print, moving a polling location would cause an issue. She was concerned about removing the location entirely because of the effect it would have on voters. She said it could be taken out for the fall and did not need to be a polling location for the general election, but because things were already in print for the upcoming primaries, changes would cause significant confusion for voters. She asked Commissioners to accept the
locations as presented and defer changes until the general election. CDDA Kandaras reiterated the item was stylized to simply acknowledge the polling locations, not to approve them or set them in stone for the general election. She suggested the ROV could take comments from that day into consideration for future planning. She asked the BCC to take appropriate action on the item by acknowledging receipt of the Registrar’s list of early voting locations and take up any location problems with the Nevada Commission on Ethics.
Commissioner Andriola stated for the record that the location in question was an office with no signs. She said no recruitment was done there, and affirmed there would not be any signs and no activity would take place during any voting dates, either during the primaries in June or the general election in November. She deferred to the legal advice of CDDA Kandaras, who determined there was no pecuniary interest. Commissioner Andriola pledged her adherence to all legal regulations and her own high ethical standards and sense of responsibility. She asserted the office was not, and would not be, used for any political activity during any type of election.
Commissioner Clark expressed his appreciation for the clarification provided by CDDA Kandaras. However, in the interest of time, and based on what he heard from CDDA Kandaras and Commissioner Andriola, he would change his position.
Commissioner Andriola asked CDDA Kandaras for her opinion about whether she should abstain from the vote. CDDA Kandaras advised she did not think it was necessary, and the important thing was for a majority of the elected members, which meant three Commissioners, to acknowledge the polling locations as presented and pass the item.
On motion by Chair Hill, seconded by Commissioner Clark, which motion duly carried on a 3-1 vote with Commissioner Garcia absent and Vice Chair Herman voting no, it was ordered that Agenda Item 10E1 be acknowledged.
24-0255 AGENDA ITEM 11 Recommendation to accept additional funding for an existing Nevada Division of State Parks Land & Water Conservation Fund Grant [in the amount of $300,000.00 with Washoe County as subgrantee with an additional cash/in-kind match in the amount of $300,000.00] and approve the Land & Water Conservation Fund Project Amendment #1 (LWCF Project #32-00372) with a grant period from November 15, 2022 through July 31, 2025; to replace an existing playground with a new all- inclusive playground at Rancho San Rafael Regional Park, located at 1595 North Sierra Street, Reno, to better serve the community and provide play opportunities for children of all abilities; and authorize Assistant County Manager [Dave Solaro] to sign the Land & Water Conservation Fund Project Amendment (LWCF Project #32-00372) and any subsequent documents related to the grant on behalf of the County; and direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary budget amendments.
Community Services. (Commission Districts 3 and 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 4-0 vote with Commissioner Garcia absent, it was ordered that Agenda Item 11 be accepted, approved, authorized, and directed.
24-0256 AGENDA ITEM 12 Recommendation to approve Amendment #2 to the Interlocal Contract between the Department of Health and Human Services (Division of Health Care Financing and Policy) and the County of Washoe to authorize Human Services Agency to participate in claiming allowable reimbursements covered under Federal Title XIX of the Social Security Act, for activities performed for Medicaid Targeted Case Management (TCM) Services, Adult Day Health Care Direct Services, and Medicaid Administrative Services, retroactive July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2026, which will revise the Scope of work to include language for reimbursement for individuals “including the homeless population” and increases the maximum amount from [$32,438,002.00 ($7,526,000.00 for FY23;
$7,902,300.00 for FY24; $8,297,416.00 for FY25; $8,712,286.00 for FY26)] to [$40,324,493.17 ($8,435,977.85 for FY23; $10,153,698.66 for FY24; $10,602,349.86 for FY25; $11,132,466.80 for FY26)] due to the
increase in Administrative Claiming for expanded population; and if approved, authorize Chairman to execute Contract. Human Services Agency. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Garcia absent, it was ordered that Agenda Item 12 be approved and authorized.
24-0257 AGENDA ITEM 14 Recommendation to accept Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds subgrant award from the State of Nevada, for the West Hills Facility Rehabilitation, in the amount of [$14,500,000; no county match], all funds must be expended by July 31, 2026; and authorize the County Manager to sign award documents and direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary budget amendments and net-zero cross-fund budget appropriation transfers. Manager's Office. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Garcia absent, it was ordered that Agenda Item 14 be accepted, authorized, and directed.
24-0258 AGENDA ITEM 15 Recommendation to deobligate previously approved allocations of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds through the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) for projects that have been completed under budget, been cancelled, or no longer need the previously approved levels of funding. These include reducing the budgeted amount for the Nevada Cares Campus Capital by $3,000,000 due to receipt of funds from the Cares Campus capital campaign, and the following due to funds remaining at the completion of the project: Safe Camp Capital by $101,058.78, Purchase of 1240 9th Street by $4,888.40, OUR Place Site Enhancement by $535.17, Employee Wellness Initiative by
$3,252.63, In-Car Mobile Wi-Fi for Officer Vehicles by $7,032.00, Second Judicial District Court Audio Visual Upgrade by $5,046.03 and the Community and Clinical Health Services Remodel by $219.80. Recommendation to approve transfer of collected 12% indirect on salary from eligible approved projects from October 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, totaling $38,191.55. These include Public Defender Personnel
$15,136.09; Human Services Agency Personnel $7,764.33; Second Judicial District Court $3,100.21; Juvenile Services Mental Health $5,576.74 and ARPA Admin Personnel $6,614.18. And, if approved, direction to the Comptroller’s Office to make necessary net zero cross-fund and/or cross- functional budget appropriation transfers and unbudgeted transfers. Manager’s Office. (All Commission Districts.)
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Garcia absent, it was ordered that Agenda Item 15 be deobligated, reduced, approved, and directed.
24-0259 AGENDA ITEM 16 Recommendation to approve allocation of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds through the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) for the following projects: a. Emergency Eviction Prevention Program of Nevada (EEPPN) for ($200,000), to assist 200-250 households at risk of homelessness over the next 12 months through housing stabilization advisory and resource navigation, preservation of rental history, and preservation of relationships between landlords and tenants. Recommendation to approve an increased allocation to the previously approved project: b. Increase funding for the Innovative Seniors Program, by $200,000 for a total of $300,000 to include senior center auditorium improvements through removal of ceiling, a new stage, and installation of new light fixtures. c. Increase in funding for the Behavioral Health Crisis Stabilization by $326,696 for a total of 451,696 to support the facilitation of strategic planning and implementation of a sequential intercept model (SIM) in Washoe County and implementation and transition for the behavioral health crisis response system project management to Washoe County. The total amount of increased allocations
is $726,696. If approved, direct the Comptroller’s Office to make necessary net zero cross-fund and/or cross-functional budget appropriation transfers. Manager’s Office. (All Commission Districts.)
On the call for public comment, Ms. Farrah Downey thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to speak. She expressed appreciation for Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) Mary Kandaras bringing people together when there was a lot of separation. She said she was at the meeting as the founder and chief executive officer (CEO) of the nonprofit organization Be Who You Needed (BWYN), which she described as predominantly based in housing. She shared information about their Emergency Eviction Prevention Program of Nevada (EEPPN), which she informed had been running successfully since February 1, 2021. She related they had intercepted over 1,300 households to date who were in at-risk situations that could have led to homelessness through eviction. She thanked Washoe County staff for making her feel at home and stated she saw the forward motion the County was making in addressing and trying to prevent homelessness. She explained that EEPPN was not specifically housing and not specifically homelessness but fit in a space in the middle, and she appreciated being seen and welcomed. She said she was available for any questions people had.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Garcia absent, it was ordered that Agenda Item 16 be approved and directed.
24-0260 AGENDA ITEM 17 Recommendation to accept the 2024-2025 Division of Public and Behavioral Health funds from Nevada Department of Health and Human Services [amount not to exceed $5,889,962, no match required] to be used to fund new personnel, associated operating expenses, to include recruitment costs, and equipment from March 15, 2024- December 30, 2025, authorizing the creation of 10.0 FTE Deputy Sheriff Positions and 1.0 FTE full time Sergeant funded 100% by these funds, as such, if grant funding is reduced or eliminated, the position hours will be reduced and/or the positions will be abolished accordingly unless additional funding is secured; if approved, direct Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary budget amendments and Human Resources to create the positions. 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 4-0 vote with Commissioner Garcia absent, it was ordered that Agenda Item 17 be accepted and directed.
24-0261 AGENDA ITEM 13 Discussion and initial direction to staff regarding potential Bill Draft Requests (BDRs) for the 83rd (2025) Session of the Nevada Legislature. The subject(s) of potential BDRs to be considered include changes to NRS Chapter 244 to eliminate the requirement for counties to publish certain financial information in a newspaper each
quarter, changes to NRS Chapters 239 and 259 to clarify that certain records of a Medical Examiner/Coroner are public records and to clarify that certain records of a Medical Examiner/Coroner are confidential and are not public records, changes to NRS Chapters 239 and 293 to establish that records of voter signatures held by a County Clerk or Registrar of Voters for purposes of establishing or validating voter registration are not public records, to add to NRS Chapter 482 the requirement for the Department of Motor Vehicles, in cooperation with Washoe County to design, prepare and issue a special license plate for the support of programs benefiting the Truckee River, and to change Chapter 268 of NRS to amend the provisions governing annexations by cities located in a county whose population is less than 700,000. The Board may direct staff to pursue BDRs on these subjects or to bring back other possible BDR concepts that the Board identifies as being in the best interests of the county for approval at a future meeting. Manager's Office. (All Commission Districts.)
Government Affairs Liaison Cadence Matijevich showed a slide that outlined the process for Bill Draft Requests (BDRs). She noted the process was approximately halfway completed. She reported soliciting County departments in December 2023 and January 2024 for BDR ideas about changes to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that would allow them to better accomplish the goals set forth by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and the operations of their departments. She said there were three items before Commissioners that day for initial consideration and another two that came forward through Board discussions. At the direction of Chair Hill, she provided an overview of all five. She advised there were departmental representatives who could speak to some of the items in more detail if Commissioners had additional questions.
Chair Hill hoped additional explanation and discussion could dispel myths about the BDRs under consideration. She requested guidance from Ms. Matijevich about how to find additional individuals or entities to sponsor bills in the event the BCC liked them all. She recalled the BCC could only submit two on their own behalf. Ms. Matijevich mentioned part of her intent in bringing the BDR ideas under consideration to the BCC that day was not necessarily to make final selections about which two to submit but rather to give Board members ample time to think through the ideas submitted and discuss them in the coming months. She advised that BDRs were not due from the BCC to the Legislative Council Bureau (LCB) until September. Ms. Matijevich expected to return in July to be advised of final selections, and she was open to direction given that day about seeking sponsorship. She offered to report back on sponsorship progress in July, which could affect the final selection. She suggested if new items came up, for example from the new Behavioral Health Administrator, those could be considered.
Ms. Matijevich reviewed the five BDRs under consideration, which were also outlined in the Staff Report for the item. The first was brought forward by the Comptroller and was to eliminate the requirement to publish certain information in a newspaper quarterly. She noted the expense reduction included in the Staff Report was inaccurate, and the cost reduction was likely to be significantly less. She explained the
second proposal was from the Medical Examiner/Coroner (ME) about clarifying which of their records were considered public records. She indicated Chief ME Dr. Laura Knight and ME Operations Manager Justin Norton were present in Chambers and could answer questions about that request. She commented that the third request also pertained to public records and was similar to the second in some ways but was different enough to justify a separate request to adhere to the single-subject requirement for BDRs. She elaborated that the third request was from the Registrar of Voters (ROV) to establish records of voter signatures as exempt from the public record, though she said there may be interest in still allowing inspection of voter signatures in person at the ROV’s office. She added the interim ROV was present and could address questions on that request. She said the fourth item suggested adding to NRS 482 to accommodate a new special license plate for support of programs benefiting the Truckee River. She shared that NRS allowed for two ways specialty license plates could be authorized, either by direct submission to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or by an act of the Legislature. Ms. Matijevich advised the final BDR was brought forward by Vice Chair Herman and related to annexations and governance of cities as outlined in NRS 268. She summarized that there were not necessarily legislative changes with Vice Chair Herman’s item, but offered there was active monitoring of activities of cities to ensure that they were in compliance with existing provisions of NRS 268.
Vice Chair Herman thanked Ms. Matijevich for her time in reviewing her
BDR.
Commissioner Andriola asked to hear more from Dr. Knight about the BDR from the ME. She noted questions had been raised about the potential effect of the bill on First Amendment rights. She observed the difficulty in correctly interpreting where the line should be drawn about what was public record.
Chief ME Dr. Laura Knight thanked Commissioners for the opportunity to speak publicly about the BDR. She summarized there was no consistency between State statutes and the Washoe County Code (WCC) regarding whether autopsy reports were public, confidential, or something in between. She affirmed that Nevada was a public records state, but divulged her office relied on an opinion from the Nevada Attorney General from the 1980s to keep autopsy reports more private. She advised using that dated opinion resulted in the Clark County Coroner’s Office being sued over the release of records, which was subsequently appealed. She said the Nevada Supreme Court decision from that appeal became the new set of guidelines, and when her office received a request for an autopsy report that did not come from next of kin or someone specifically listed in the law, her staff sought legal advice about whether the request constituted ample public interest to justify releasing the autopsy report. She hoped for one unified approach with the BDR, and if the BDR was approved, she stated she would also request changes to WCC to bring everything into compliance. She felt the State law was the bigger hurdle, which was why she started with the BDR. She related there were two approaches. One was to make laws more restrictive in an effort to protect the privacy interests of the families of the decedent. The other approach was more transparency, which she preferred, but she acknowledged that came with the risk that families might not want those details to be
released. She said her office was asking for more transparency, and to be able to give out autopsy reports more often. She summarized she did not want her office to be the arbiter of what was or was not in the public interest. She reported she collaborated with the Clark County Coroner on drafting the BDR so they could present a unified position to the Legislature.
Commissioner Andriola said she appreciated the explanation, and it answered her questions. She shared that she read the information, and it appeared there was more transparency. She thought the changes would provide greater consistency and clarity. She reasoned that the reduction in needing legal advice would generate cost and time savings.
Dr. Knight agreed that cost and time savings were likely, not only related to legal advice but also because of simplified conversations with citizens and media instead of prolonged back-and-forth dialogue after denials. She hoped to be able to give the media more of the information they wanted to report on.
Commissioner Clark thanked Dr. Knight for her explanation and echoed her opinions about transparency and public access to records. He supposed there was a case for treating autopsies as public records because the work was carried out by a government entity. He theorized that information on autopsy reports might be helpful for improving public health. He thought greater transparency and cost savings were a winning combination.
Chair Hill expressed appreciation for Dr. Knight bringing the issue to the attention of the BCC and said she did not have any concerns about what Dr. Knight was asking to do. She reasoned clearer guidelines for the whole team would be good. She mentioned to Ms. Matijevich that she was concerned about the Comptroller’s request on NRS 244.225 and did not want the County to move away from supporting local newspapers. She acknowledged the extra staff time that was involved but was concerned about making that change. She stated she did not have concerns with any of the other BDRs. Regarding the request from the ROV, she added she had previously been emailed people’s signatures, which she felt was somewhat inappropriate. She liked the idea of people going into the ROV’s Office to examine signatures as needed to evaluate what was determined to be a legal signature, but she did not like having signatures out in the open. She said she would love to see the County carry the license plate program and thought people would be excited about supporting the Truckee River. She thought it would be possible to create good momentum with the project, possibly including a committee and grant issuance from funds generated by the plates.
Commissioner Clark agreed with Chair Hill about the importance of continuing to publish certain information in the newspaper. He speculated the cost was relatively low, and it helped keep the newspapers afloat. He theorized some citizens did not have internet access, and some opted to get a printed copy of the newspaper.
Chair Hill asked Ms. Matijevich if she felt clear on the position of the Board on the BDRs. Ms. Matijevich summarized her understanding that the BCC did not wish for her to pursue the BDR proposed by the Comptroller's Office to eliminate the requirement to publish certain financial information in the newspaper. She understood that from a policy standpoint, the BCC wanted her to move forward with NRS revisions regarding public record status in both the ME and ROV, and they were also supportive of the BDR for a special license plate supporting the Truckee River. She ascertained there was a desire for that one in particular to be a County BDR. She asked for clarification on the other two, and whether the BCC wanted to provide direction to her about seeking alternative sponsors over the coming months. She thought it sounded like Vice Chair Herman was satisfied with annexation concerns at that time, which Vice Chair Herman confirmed.
Chair Hill wondered if it would be advisable for the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) to take the BDRs related to public records or if Ms. Matijevich recommended a different approach. She expressed a desire to leave one spot available in case there was a behavioral health bill developed.
Commissioner Andriola agreed with the summary given by Ms. Matijevich and theorized the work Dr. Knight did with Clark County might increase the likelihood of support for that BDR. She believed there was time to find opportunities for individuals or organizations to carry some of the BDRs. She thought all 17 Nevada jurisdictions would likely benefit from the ROV’s proposal, which made it a good candidate for NACO support. She suggested the exploration of possibilities rather than narrowing anything down at that time. She advised the revisions proposed by the ME be prioritized, given the cost savings and improved transparency that would be generated.
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Commissioner Andriola, seconded by Commissioner Clark, which motion duly carried on a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Garcia absent, it was ordered that Agenda Item 13 be directed.
Chair Hill affirmed her appreciation for the Comptroller’s Office and its ideas for cost savings. She clarified that she did not mean to diminish their work by not opting to move their BDR forward.
24-0262 AGENDA ITEM 18 Introduction and first reading of an ordinance amending Washoe County Code Chapter 65 (Safety and Disaster Services) by repealing the definition of “division”; by repealing sections related to the county risk manager and transferring the former risk manager’s duties to the risk management division of the comptroller department; by amending provisions to: expand the risk management division’s authority to settle claims related to damage and repair of county property (with no related third party claims) from $1,000 to $2,500; expand the risk management division’s authority to settle any claim or suit for damages from amounts less than $10,000 to amounts up to $25,000; expand the county manager’s
authority to settle any claim or suit for damages from amounts between
$10,000 but less than $25,000 to amounts greater than $25,000 but no more than $150,000; expand the board of county commissioner’s sole authority to settle any claim or suit for damages from $25,000 or greater to $150,000 or greater; and by revising provisions related to: the county’s safety program; the county safety officer; posting of safety notices; reporting requirements for occupationally related injury or illness; reporting requirements in the event of a fatality or catastrophic event; reporting requirements by officers, employees, volunteers and department heads following an accident, incident or injury; written documentation of accidents and incidents; investigation and evaluation of accidents and incidents involving county officers, employees or volunteers and the safety committee’s review of such investigations; and by amending provisions related to the safety committee’s powers and duties, membership, terms of office, and meeting schedule; and all matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining thereto. If supported, set the public hearing for second reading and possible adoption of the Ordinance for May 14, 2024. (All Commission Districts.)
Chair Hill opened the public hearing.
County Clerk Jan Galassini read the title for Bill No. 1911. There was no response to the call for public comment.
Bill No. 1911 was introduced by Commissioner Andriola, and legal notice for final action of adoption was directed.
24-0263 AGENDA ITEM 19 Public Hearing: Second reading and possible adoption of an ordinance pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes 278.0201 through 278.0207 approving a development agreement between Washoe County and North Pyramid Investors LLC for Blue Oaks, a residential subdivision (Tentative Subdivision Map Case No. WTM19-003). The purpose of the development agreement is to extend the deadline for recording the first final map from January 7, 2024, to January 7, 2026, and to adopt amended conditions of approval (WAC24-0001). The project is located along Campo Rico Lane, east of Pyramid Highway. The project encompasses a total of approximately 9.88 acres, and the total number of residential lots allowed by the approved tentative map is 10. The parcels are located within the Spanish Springs Planning Area and Washoe County Commission District No. 4. (APN: 534-600-23). If approved, authorize the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners to sign the Development Agreement. Community Services. (Commission District 4.)
County Clerk Jan Galassini read the title for Ordinance No. 1717, Bill No.
1906.
There was no response to the call for public comment.
On motion by Commissioner Andriola, seconded by Chair Hill, which motion duly carried on a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Garcia absent, it was ordered that Ordinance No. 1717, Bill No. 1906, be adopted, approved, and published in accordance with NRS 244.100.
23-0264 AGENDA ITEM 20 Public Comment.
There was no response to the call for public comment.
23-0265 AGENDA ITEM 21 Announcements/Reports.
Vice Chair Herman was concerned about employees, presenters from the public, and other citizens who wanted to participate in Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meetings but had to wait through Commissioner comments. She shared that she chose to save her comments until the end of the meeting out of respect for their time so they could get back to work.
Vice Chair Herman recounted frequent calls she received from constituents from every district who were frustrated with the cost and complexity of the permitting process. She related that some of them hired help to navigate the process. She believed it needed to be made smoother and that applicants needed attention from another human standing in front of them, not virtual assistance or computers. She thought the public needed more attention and help with navigating County processes in a timely manner. She advocated for employees to return to working in County offices rather than remotely. She theorized in-person support would be better for citizens and would speed up application processing.
Chair Hill speculated there might be an opportunity with the Future of Work initiative through Human Resources (HR) for staff to present to the BCC about standards, for example, how quickly phone calls were returned. She thought it would be good for the Board to be kept apprised of data about performance measures and to what extent targets were being met. She mentioned a recent communication she had with County Manager Eric Brown about similar concerns, in which he shared the requirement for staff to return phone calls within a defined period of time. She supposed a presentation would also be a good opportunity for staff to consider what support Commissioners could provide on the issues.
Vice Chair Herman posited that if people in the private sector handled business the way some people in the County treated citizens, they would be out of business.
* * * * * * * * * * *
1:37 p.m. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned without objection.
Washoe County Commission
ATTEST: