TUESDAY 10:00 A.M. MAY 28, 2024
PRESENT:
Mary Kandaras, Chief Deputy District Attorney
The Washoe County Board of Commissioners convened at 10:01 a.m. in regular session in Building B, Northern Nevada Public Health Conference Room, 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:
Dr. Chad Kingsley from Northern Nevada Public Health (NNPH) introduced himself and mentioned this was his third week working with NNPH. He welcomed those in attendance, spoke positively about the NNPH staff and the community, and shared some personal details. He thanked the Board for its service. He offered to be available to address concerns and organize individual meetings.
Chair Hill welcomed Dr. Kingsley and expressed excitement on behalf of the Board for his arrival to the community. She looked forward to Dr. Kingsley’s efforts with NNPH.
Mr. Rod Dimmitt thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak and said he was a volunteer with the Wilbur D. May Arboretum and Botanical Garden. He mentioned he had been a member of the May Arboretum Society for eight years and described the May Arboretum Society as a nonprofit that supported the arboretum. He informed on the benefits of a botanical garden in the community and why the community needed to effectively support it. He stated a botanical garden generally resulted in a healthier community through increased education and improved physical and mental health. Additionally, botanical gardens provided an escape from everyday reality. Botanical gardens offered an opportunity to educate the community on conservation and
people’s role in environmental change. Mr. Dimmitt indicated caring for gardens similar to the Wilbur D. May Arboretum and Botanical Garden enforced the benefits of being outdoors, including improved mental health, attention span, and memory. He claimed a 90- minute walk through the arboretum could reduce depression and improve physical health. He conveyed the complexity and importance of gardens to the community and noted they offered beauty. Mr. Dimmitt stated a trip through the Wilbur D. May Arboretum and Botanical Garden would demonstrate what the world could offer. He stated the botanical garden staffing guideline specified one person per acre, which was established by the Morton Register of Arboreta. The Wilbur D. May Arboretum and Botanical Garden consisted of 13 developed acres. The arboretum had 2.75 full-time equivalent (FTE) year- round staff and 1.5 seasonal FTE staff. Mr. Dimmitt indicated the arboretum was a level- two garden and was close to transitioning into a level-three garden. Based on information from the Morton Register of Arboreta, only 700 of the 2,400 gardens were registered as arboreta. The Wilbur D. May Arboretum and Botanical Garden was one of 211 level-two gardens. He reported there were 46 accredited level-three gardens and 43 accredited level- four gardens. The Wilbur D. May Arboretum and Botanical Garden was the only accredited arboretum in Nevada. Mr. Dimmitt suggested considering the addition of one to two staff members for the Wilbur D. May Arboretum and Botanical Garden as well as contributing some funds to help support it as funds became available through the course of the next fiscal year (FY). He remarked that the arboretum was on the verge of greatness, and its affiliates were seeking assistance. He referenced his business card, which was placed on file with the Clerk, and invited the Commissioners to participate in an event on July 12, 2024, from 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
In response to Mr. Dimmitt’s public comment, Chair Hill believed another Community Services Department (CSD) maintenance staff member was added during the previous budget hearing.
Mr. Bill Miller read from a document that was placed on file with the Clerk.
Mr. Terry Brooks read an original poem about adapting to unemployment in relation to homelessness.
Chair Hill complimented Mr. Brooks’s poem.
Ms. Bari Levinson read from a document that was placed on file with the
Clerk.
Ms. Valerie Fiannaca asserted everyone needed to stop participating in the bipartisan election denial and start considering that the matter was related to a uniparty. She talked about the issues related to the Registrar of Voters (ROV) Office, including the signature area being on the outside of the mail-in ballot envelopes in addition to other personal information. She voiced her opposition to that. Ms. Fiannaca stated there was a spreadsheet containing voting records and additional identifying information that was published on the internet for others to access, which she opposed. She speculated the issues stemming from the ROV’s Office seemed to be planned. She questioned how the sole
Republican candidate for State Assembly in District 27 could have been omitted from the ballot and asked why the candidates were not allowed to review the ballots before they were printed. She added the referenced Nevada (NV) State Assembly candidate was registered with the ROV’s Office to vote but was also canceled with the Secretary of State (SOS). Ms. Fiannaca commented that she never witnessed a canceled status before and remarked about residents trusting the voting systems. She noted there was a discussion at a previous Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting regarding a candidate’s campaign office and its proximity to the voting location. She wished to discuss the same candidate’s large campaign sign being located directly across Pyramid Highway from the voting location, and while she said it might be legal, she questioned if it was morally correct. She recommended that the residents consider the amount of money being expended on the current election and the national attention being given to it. Ms. Fiannaca advised considering why a position that earned less than $70,000 a year was receiving so much attention. She said it sometimes seemed as though the County never achieved a goal and referenced a biblical excerpt. She suggested having faith that God was in control, and the people were his instruments protected by the wings of angels.
Mr. Ken Henry indicated he was a climate change volunteer and discussed environmental awareness. He expressed gratitude to the Board for being aware and for its actions. Based on his research, he concluded the sorting machine referenced for Agenda Item 14 was surprisingly efficient. He said he would question the large expense for the machine if the state of the environment was different. Mr. Henry opined the ROV’s Office was significantly challenged and noted residents’ complaints were justified. He believed the ROV’s Office was making every effort to facilitate the voting process for the residents. He stated everyone was participating in a period of time in which the current challenges seemed especially overwhelming, but at 76 years of age, he viewed the situation as an opportunity. Mr. Henry hoped more people would view it as an opportunity and shared his daughter recently injured her hand to convey a comparison related to viewing challenging situations. He thought when it was seen as an opportunity, the challenges were within grasp. He questioned whether everyone would attack each other or address the problem. Mr. Henry shared he and other climate change volunteers visited the Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) campus for Earth Day and complimented the students who were present. He believed the students viewed the situation from a similar perspective to his own.
Mr. John Gissy, with Volunteers of America (VOA) at the Cares Campus, addressed Agenda Item 10 and emphasized the need for a cost-of-living wage increase, as the matter impacted all the VOA employees. He talked about the steady increase in the cost of living, which was placing greater financial pressure on the VOA staff. He said the matter was about others’ lives and well-being. He commented that it was proper to support them and their basic needs. He shared the employees showed unwavering dedication, going above and beyond. He spoke in favor of fair compensation and a living working wage. Mr. Gissy declared the employees were the backbone of the organization by dedicating their time, energy, and skills to ensure the organization’s collective success. He advocated for recognizing the employees’ contributions and supporting them in fulfilling their basic needs. He asserted a cost-of-living pay increase was an acknowledgment of the hard work
and commitment provided by the employees daily. Mr. Grissy highlighted the employees’ dedication and excessive efforts. He indicated a wage increase was a gesture of gratitude and respect for the employees’ contributions. He added providing a cost-of-living raise was crucial for maintaining the morale and motivation of the workforce in addition to enhancing productivity by showing employees their efforts were recognized and fairly compensated. He mentioned stagnant wages could lead to dissatisfaction and disengagement. Mr. Grissy asserted ensuring the VOA staff were able to maintain their standard of living was an investment in their overall well-being and the health of the organization. He shared a staff member who was experiencing financial burdens had been sleeping in his vehicle for six months while continuing to work the overnight shift for 40 hours each week. Mr. Grissly thanked the Board for its time and consideration.
Ms. Elise Weatherly introduced herself as a County resident. She indicated she was emulating some of the previous public commenters. She referenced Mr. Brooks’s poetry, compared and contrasted poetry to lyrics in a song, and read a section of an original poem. She questioned how the names of those affiliated with a specific homeowners association (HOA) could be poetized. Ms. Weatherly said it was sometimes beneficial to be vocal about the truth. She recalled an individual alleged that Commissioner Clark and Vice Chair Herman were inciting unrest during the previous week, which Ms. Weatherly believed was true. She recounted months prior to the meeting, the Board voted in support of a proposal to discontinue a rule because a business was no longer operating. She asked why the Commissioners supported that proposal and speculated the reason was to incite discontent. She commented that she did the same thing. Ms. Weatherly was informed that she was fined nearly $10,000 because she would not stop speaking. She said she followed Nevada law and took personal fiduciary responsibility for the books at the referenced HOA, and she claimed to have found some items that needed to be investigated. Ms. Weatherly declared she would not stop speaking on the matter and referenced God. She addressed the topic of age and remarked that since she crossed a specific age barrier, she was perceived negatively. She said she became more trustworthy since crossing that barrier.
Ms. Lynn Burney said she lived in the County since 1973. She requested that someone affiliated with the elections contact her to respond to her concerns. She asked that an explanation be provided for why the ballots were not being scanned upon delivery. She inquired about why mail-in ballots were supplied to individuals who opted out of receiving them. She questioned why the signatures and addresses were not covered, how the signatures were verified, and why the County used an out-of-state entity to oversee the County’s elections. Ms. Lynn expressed discontent regarding the current election process and remarked that it seemed that older individuals were being discouraged from voting.
Ms. Janet Butcher declared the United States (US) was not a democracy and advised reading the Constitution. She commented that democracy was not referenced in any of the founding documents. She thanked the audience for attending the meeting because they did not have a responsibility to do so. She compared two different mail-in ballots, one of which had the signature section on the outside of the envelope rather than on the inside. Ms. Butcher asked who approved and designed the mail-in ballots and criticized the design. She hoped the audio from the meeting would be better than that of
the previous meeting and informed the audio from the previous meeting was inconsistent. She questioned why the County could not conduct the elections correctly. She said she did not receive a sample ballot until after she obtained her official ballot. She noted there were two Democrat politicians on the Republican ballot and asked why. She opined many of the circumstances could have been avoided had the residents voted correctly, refrained from outsourcing, reviewed Vice Chair Herman’s election resolution, and enacted Vice Chair Herman’s suggestion for a citizens advisory board (CAB). Ms. Butcher stated the presentation of the proposed citizens advisory board was not as Vice Chair Herman intended. She said the Board should be ashamed. She urged the Board to correct the elections.
Mr. Lino Ortega was not present when called to speak.
Mr. Bob Blackstock was a resident of West Reno. He attended the meeting to address Agenda Item 14. He shared some background information about himself, including that he earned degrees in engineering and business from West Coast universities, along with his experience in business consulting for major international corporations. He mentioned he worked for a major technology company early in his career, and one of his roles was related to designing, developing, and purchasing major capital equipment. Mr. Blackstock stated the sorting machine that was used for a ballot counting process that he witnessed stopped functioning properly on several occasions. He observed the sorting machine was clearly faulty and indicated it could have been improved significantly. He reviewed the proposed machine’s specifications and mentioned he was unable to locate the information that was used to select that machine. Mr. Blackstock named the head corporation for that sorting machine and spoke positively about its ability to design and implement quality sorting equipment, noting the corporation operated for decades. He introduced colleagues who were in attendance and indicated they all supported Agenda Item 14.
Ms. Judy Coulter indicated she lived in Steamboat Valley. She shared she lost her father last Friday and asked that the Board evaluate what was happening on Agenda Item 15, emphasizing the criticality of the item. She stated the applicant, Mr. Harry Fry, had been trying to develop in Steamboat Valley for years. Ms. Coulter referenced a proposal submitted by Mr. Fry in 2016 outlining the construction of 58 residences on what were originally two 20-acre parcels, which were subsequently subdivided into three parcels. She read from a 2019 appeal for the same project, in which the intent to eliminate eight lots and resubmit the proposal was specified. Ms. Coulter said Mr. Fry wished to construct 58 houses, and she believed the lift station referenced in Agenda Item 15 was being used to revisit the Steamboat Valley project to construct 58 houses. She claimed Mr. Fry wanted to connect Toll Road to Rhodes Road through Chance Lane, which was a one- lane dirt road with a 12 percent grade. She voiced opposition to the perceived plan. She commented that Steamboat Valley was a jewel in the Truckee Meadows area and talked about its qualities and the activities that people participated in there. Ms. Coulter stated there were many water issues in Steamboat Valley and mentioned she was dealing with water issues due to a neighboring development that was currently under review by the County engineers. She opined there were activities taking place in the area that were not
being monitored the way they should have been. She asked that the Commissioners deny the proposed lift station.
Mr. Scott Wong introduced himself as a resident of District 2 and indicated he was addressing Agenda Item 10. He shared personal background information, including that he was a property owner in South Reno since 2008, worked in the San Francisco area, and retired from his 30-year career in law enforcement. He mentioned he moved to the City of Reno in 2016. Mr. Wong said he decided to volunteer his time, including with VOA, the Food Bank of Northern Nevada, and Concerns of Police Survivors (COPS). He realized he had a desire to help people when he would address law enforcement-related matters. When he relocated to Reno and witnessed disenfranchised and unhoused citizens, he questioned whether he was helping people. He observed he received more appreciation from the unhoused residents during his time working at the VOA Resource Center than he did being employed as a police officer. Mr. Wong also realized his supervisor at the Resource Center was a former client. He supported how the VOA operated and shared he was currently a member of the VOA’s Board of Records. He spoke positively about the VOA employees and complimented them for their hard work. The case managers, currently employed by the County, informed Mr. Wong that it was possible to help unhoused individuals successfully overcome homelessness. He complimented the County’s efforts and asked that the support continue primarily with the employees. He emphasized the frontline workers’ role in generating a positive impact and thanked the Board.
Ms. Penny Brock expressed concern about the meeting being relocated to the NNPH Conference Room and claimed it was a violation of the First Amendment due to people being unable to enter the conference room to address the Board. She said the matter was mismanaged and stated the Information Technology (IT) staff should have been aware of the need for maintenance. She mentioned people in attendance were unable to hear from the back of the room. Ms. Brock talked about the problems with the mail-in ballots and asked why the County used Runbeck Election Services, Inc. She believed the County should cancel its contract with Runbeck Election Services, Inc. She suggested directing the ballots for the general election to be printed from Carson City at the Nevada State Printing Office and incorporating the mail house in Sparks. She advocated for supporting Nevada businesses. Ms. Brock stated an election integrity violation was being filed with the Nevada Secretary of State (SOS) by local voters in response to the location of the signature section on the outside of the mail-in ballot envelopes. She indicated there was a problem with the Albert sensor, which transmitted data to the Center for Internet Security (CIS) and was embedded in the County’s election system. Ms. Brock stated the Albert sensor would not prevent cyber intrusion, despite that being its role. She questioned the need for the Albert sensor if the election systems were not connected to the internet and were secured. She asked that the Albert sensor be removed from the Dominion voting systems. She said it was a violation of the Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) and the Constitutional right to private and secured ballot information.
Ms. Natalie Henriques read a written statement drafted by another member of the public, which was placed on file with the Clerk. The public comment was regarding
alleged inappropriate conduct by a nonprofit leader in Reno. Ms. Henriques shared that she was a victim of abuse, and an individual she worked with would address the board.
Ms. Kimberly Koschmann provided documents that were distributed to the Board and placed on file with the Clerk. She indicated she met the gentleman, referenced in the written statement that Ms. Henriques recited, in February 2023, when he was a mentor and speaker of an organization. She explained she was seeking a sober community after being in recovery since 2005 due to the unexpected passing of her previous boyfriend. Ms. Koschmann indicated she exchanged information with the gentleman so she could assess his shoulder pain, as she was a personal trainer and owned a small gym. She reported she began an on-and-off romantic relationship with the individual after two and a half months of speaking and joining him in his volunteer work. She stated she ended the relationship in April 2024. Ms. Koschmann expressed gratitude for the services and family support that helped her move on from the relationship. She conveyed sadness for the other vulnerable women who did not possess the same resources and were victims of the individual’s regular abuse of power. She stated she resigned from two jobs in Reno due to the intimidation carried out by the gentleman and his associates. Ms. Koschmann decided to move out of Reno after the individual threatened her. She alleged witnessing him committing other abusive acts in addition to abusing illegal steroids. She claimed an appraiser employed at the Nevada Department of Taxation conveyed a belief over social media that Ms. Koschmann was served with a cease and desist prior to her receipt of it. She received support from Carson Tahoe Behavioral Health Services for her severe mental health concerns, and she was struggling to pay for therapy due to the referenced gentleman’s presence in the Reno Behavior Healthcare Hospital. She asked if a cease and desist letter implied she could no longer seek assistance for depression within the area of Carson City, Reno, and Sparks. She further questioned if the circumstances were part of an intimidation tactic. Ms. Koschmann conveyed her preference for a location without the gentleman’s presence but wanted to know where that alternative was. She questioned how the referenced individual could be trusted to work with at-risk women in the community despite his involvement in multiple domestic battery charges. She asked if the individual was an adequate candidate to be allotted additional taxpayer funds and spoke in opposition to his conduct. Ms. Koschmann requested that the Board examine the matter and asked if the Board was aware that no one was able to report the referenced gentleman without writing a public report that he could review. She asked if the Board understood how scary it was as a woman out of treatment and experiencing homelessness, grief, or depression to write an open report against a semi-public figure. She indicated she was speaking on behalf of other women who feared they would not be judged as credible due to their past circumstances, who believed they would not be protected, and who were previously disregarded.
Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) Mary Kandaras thanked the public for its comments and indicated the Board was aware of some of the allegations referenced by Ms. Henriques and Ms. Koschmann. She stated those allegations were being reviewed by management. She advised those who believed they were the victim of a crime should report the criminal activity to law enforcement. CDDA Kandaras noted the County had a
robust policy related to handling harassment allegations and assured the matter would be addressed according to law and policy.
Mr. Cliff Nellis provided documents that were placed on file with the Clerk. He indicated he was a 49-year County resident and expressed his lack of confidence in the County’s election system. He recommended that the Board not vote in favor of Agenda Item 14 and stated the Republican caucuses demonstrated the ability to count votes at the precinct level without needing to sort anything. He explained confidence could be restored in the election process if it was conducted through hand counting and paper ballots. Additionally, it would save time and money. Mr. Nellis said there was currently no confidence in the election process, and the Democratic party was overseeing the entire process. He stated signature verification was the only way to ensure there were no out-of- State activists assigning mail-in envelopes with fraudulent identities. He speculated citizens were being blocked from reviewing the signature verification because fraudulent activity was taking place. Mr. Nellis suggested showing the signatures on screen and on the ballot during the counting process with the adjudicators. He proposed organizing a recount of one of the elections in order to verify the machines, and the machines could be proven fraudulent if the recount was inaccurate by one-tenth of 1 percent. Mr. Nellis said if the tapes and paper ballots were counted by hand, the County could certify the one election and the accuracy of the machines.
Mr. Brian Beffort introduced himself as the Washoe County Sustainability Manager. He stated the sustainability team was developing the County’s first climate action plan as part of the commitment to sustainability and net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The sustainability team anticipated presenting draft reduction plans to the Board later that year for community-wide and County operations. Mr. Beffort indicated community feedback was crucial to developing a plan that reflected the diversity of the County and addressed the residents’ needs. He shared the methods of providing feedback, including responding to the online clean air survey, participating in the series of listening sessions scheduled for June 2024 at several community libraries, and participating in one of the two Zoom virtual sessions. Additionally, the sustainability team contacted over 75 community groups and welcomed discussions with the groups and members of the business community who wished to partner with the team to identify high-impact greenhouse gas reduction strategies. He mentioned the information provided was available on the Sustainability page of the County’s website. Mr. Beffort added residents and their friends, families, and neighbors were invited to participate in the opportunities. He conveyed the importance of the planning efforts because the Reno-Sparks metropolitan area was experiencing the fastest state of warming in the Country, which directly impacted public health and the economy. Mr. Beffort noted the effects of climate change were often experienced unevenly, so the sustainability team was interested in identifying solutions that supported vulnerable populations in rural communities. He specified the focus was on emissions reductions from buildings and transportation, as those sectors were responsible for the majority of emissions in the region. He added money-saving solutions that could improve indoor and outdoor air quality for everyone in the County would be prioritized. He thanked the Board for its time.
CDDA Kandaras asked that the documents provided by Mr. Nicholas St. Jon, which were distributed to the Board and placed on file with the Clerk, be passed to the Clerk’s staff prior to being supplied to the Board. Mr. Nicholas St. Jon asserted there was nothing within the law affirming what CDDA Kandaras directed. CDDA Kandaras reiterated her instruction to Mr. St. Jon, and Mr. St. Jon requested that the timer be stopped. Chair Hill expressed the Board’s eagerness to hear Mr. St. Jon’s input. Mr. St. Jon indicated he would start reading from his documents once the timer restarted and stated he had a document that the Board needed to review because it was regarding the election and the casting of one’s vote. He asked if the Board was denying him his rights. CDDA Kandaras stated this was his time to deliver public comments and informed the documents could be supporting material that would be provided to the Clerk. Mr. St. Jon alleged the Board was denying him his rights. He introduced himself as a real person and read from one of the documents. He continued to speak after his time concluded, and Chair Hill warned him his conduct might result in him being escorted out of the meeting by security. CDDA Kandaras announced Mr. St. Jon was disrupting the orderly conduct of the meeting, according to Chair Hill, and might be removed. Chair Hill thanked Mr. St. Jon for addressing the Board and asked Clerk Jan Galassini to call the next speaker.
Mr. Buddy Miller introduced himself as a registered County voter and indicated he was speaking as a private citizen. He supported Agenda Items 7D1 and 14.
CDDA Kandaras asked that the timer be stopped. Addressing Mr. St. Jon, she stated he was asked to leave the premises due to disrupting the meeting and warned that he could be charged with a misdemeanor if he continued to be disruptive and refused to leave when asked. She instructed him to only provide comments when it was his time to speak.
Mr. Miller continued his public comment. He hoped other stakeholders in the County joined in the litigation referenced in Agenda Item 7D1. He opined the sorting machine proposed for Agenda Item 14 would significantly accelerate the processing of mail-in ballots, especially since the SOS announced the counties would be permitted to start counting mail-in ballot votes at 8:00 a.m. on Election Day instead of waiting for the polls to close. Mr. Miller pointed out that the County would only need to contribute $4,500 for the sorting machine purchase, and the balance of $586,000 would be fulfilled by the SOS based on funds that were allotted by the 2021 Nevada Legislative Session. He remarked it would be malpractice to not support Agenda Item 14. He commented that the sorting machine was a vital piece of equipment. Mr. Miller referenced previous public comments regarding the sorting machine that stopped operating several times. He noted the sorting machine satisfied one of the Elections Group (TEG) key recommendations in the final assessment report submitted to the Board. He commended the County staff that participated in arranging the acquisition of the new sorting machine, including Interim ROV Cari-Ann Burgess, as well as the SOS’s Office for its efforts. He thanked the Board.
Mr. Roger Scimé spoke about US Postal Service Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s plan to transport local mail to Sacramento before it was returned to the City of Reno. He noted the potential delay of some important items, such as bills and medication, and speculated mail-in ballots could be invalidated after Election Day. He said some residents would have three to five fewer days to decide on their votes. Mr. Scimé mentioned Mr. DeJoy claimed the relocation would save $3 million a year. He suggested the Board consider establishing a GoFundMe account to raise the $3 million, which would reveal how illogical Mr. DeJoy’s plan was. He remarked that $3 million would not pay the fuel cost for one of Tesla Motors Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Elon Musk’s jets.
Ms. D. Alexandra Profant introduced herself as a candidate for the Justice of the Peace position in Incline Village and Crystal Bay. She brought attention to an August 7, 2023, election report that was submitted to the SOS addressing some of her concerns. She recounted the SOS indicated her concerns were civil in nature. She recalled whenever family members of hers attempted to report incidents to law enforcement personnel, they were often told the incidents were civil matters. She said some of the complaints were not related to a monetary consideration in their opinion and were instead regarding enforcing the law. Ms. Profant reported that during the previous election, the ROV staff alerted her to a telemetry malfunction caused by hand sanitizer that was recording people’s votes as undervotes, which differed from their actual votes. She learned about the malfunction from an experience by a member of her household, and she clarified no such occurrence was experienced by her. She expressed concern regarding alerting people about errors occurring within the context of interfacing with the screen, as individuals who were experiencing issues should notify the polling workers before leaving so those issues could be addressed. Otherwise, nothing could be done to correct them. Ms. Profant stated a matter that was outlined in the complaint she submitted to the ROV was related to title theft and fraud and how those issues were displacing NV constituents out of their homes and with AirBnB transient occupant residents, notably in the Incline Village and Crystal Bay community. For those interested in additional information regarding her allegations or situation that affected NV voters and constituents, she advised contacting the SOS’s Office to access a copy of her report.
Mr. Richard Mahoney introduced himself as a Steamboat Valley resident. He stated Steamboat Valley was an iconic feature of the County and noted it had cattle and a large equestrian community. Referencing Agenda Item 15, he said Mr. Fry indicated his goal was to develop a large development east of Mr. Mahoney’s location in the hills, and Mr. Mahoney considered the development inappropriate. He mentioned Mr. Fry had some of his properties redefined. He indicated Mr. Fry had eight properties in the area of concern, all of which were eligible for a septic system, but Mr. Fry was requesting permission to install a sewage lift station. Mr. Mahoney stated the lift station was part of a process to further Mr. Fry’s agenda for Mr. Mahoney’s neighborhood. He commented that Steamboat Valley was a contributing factor to why people were fond of Reno. He wanted the Board to oppose Mr. Fry’s request because it was not in the community’s or the County’s interest, in his opinion. He noted the issue of connecting Toll Road related to Agenda Item 15, and Mr. Mahoney thought if a traffic study was completed, it would show there would be a dramatic impact for all the Steamboat Valley residents.
Mr. Lino Ortega was not present when called to speak.
County Manager Eric Brown announced that early voting commenced on Saturday, May 25, 2024, and would continue through June 7, 2024. He reminded members of the public that they could vote in person at any voting center or mail or drop off their ballots. He mentioned he visited 15 of the 24 voting centers during the weekend and thanked all the voting center workers for their service.
Manager Brown noted the nonstop livestream camera was running, and the YouTube connection was failing occasionally as expected; however, backup locations were available. He explained the backup feed was available to view, which he commented was working flawlessly.
Manager Brown informed it was likely that voters would receive more than one ballot, and if they made any recent updates at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or to voter registrations, every new transaction created a new ballot. He assured the old ballot was invalidated and the new ballot was the only one that could be used. Manager Brown advised the old ballot could be destroyed or supplied to the Office of the County Manager to be terminated. Furthermore, if a ballot was received for someone who did not reside at the same address, he asked that return to sender be written on the ballot before sending it back to the County, as doing so was the quickest way for the County staff to identify those situations and address them. Manager Brown informed a voter could not be removed from the voter rolls until certain mandated actions were performed to ensure a voter was truly no longer eligible to vote in the County.
Manager Brown explained the instructions page that voters received in their mail-in ballots was the secrecy sleeve. Voters were not required to use the sleeve if they did not wish to. He encouraged those with additional questions that were raised during the initial public comment period to contact the Secretary of State’s (SOS) Office.
Chair Hill commended Manager Brown and the election team. She noted that over the weekend, a lot of beneficial question-and-answer (Q&A) information was published regarding the voting process and the Registrar of Voters (ROV) Office. She announced that the information could be viewed on the County’s website.
Vice Chair Herman said Agenda Items 9 and 10 needed to be removed from the block vote. She wanted someone to report on Agenda Item 14 because she wished to know if the sorting machine was a replacement.
Vice Chair Herman commented that the election in some parts of the Country was laughable and said it was embarrassing to discuss the matter with people. She observed the Country could not seem to organize an acceptable, fair, and transparent election. She mentioned being informed about the Albert sensor. She stated the public was assured that the computers used for the election were not connected to the internet or any
other program. She noted knowledge of the Albert sensor proved otherwise. Vice Chair Herman declared a better system should be implemented.
Vice Chair Herman was contacted by an individual and informed that two Democrat candidates were included on the individual’s Republican sample ballot. She indicated that the same incident occurred in Sun Valley and Lemmon Valley, as well as three other areas within the County, and she expressed uneasiness regarding the matter.
Commissioner Garcia reminded the public about the ongoing survey for Rancho San Rafael Regional Park and mentioned the community’s fondness for the park. She recommended people complete the survey, which had a duration of roughly three minutes. She informed the last comprehensive plan was completed in 1990 and emphasized the changes in the community since then. She indicated the County was receptive to feedback. Commissioner Garcia stated the first phase of the survey was open and would close on May 31, 2024. The second phase would begin during the mid-summer. She instructed members of the public to access the survey by visiting the Parks webpage on the County’s website.
Commissioner Clark was uncertain why the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting was organized in the Northern Nevada Public Health (NNPH) Conference Room and talked about the Commission Chambers’ features. He was informed the microphones in the Commission Chambers were not functioning properly. He remarked about the County’s billion-dollar budget and the unavailability of one person to fix the microphones. He expressed discontent about the situation and commented that the County’s meetings were needlessly canceled. Commissioner Clark noted the meeting attendees were packed into a crowded room, which was overflowing in the back, and the Board could not view the audience. Additionally, the Board could not identify the public commenters.
Commissioner Clark apologized for his tardiness at the start of the meeting and explained he was discussing election integrity and ballots with a national newspaper during a phone call. He agreed with many of the public comments. He suggested having everyone running for public office proofread the ballots before they were printed and mailed out in order to simplify the process. He talked about the process of checking information prior to printing a document. Commissioner Clark remarked that all the candidates running for public office were aware of the spelling of their names, the offices they were running for, and their competitors’ identities. He said this was not the first time he suggested this protocol. He noted it could fix many of the referenced problems and would not be costly.
Commissioner Clark referenced an advertisement he viewed in a newspaper and requested that the staff report on how much the County was spending on television commercials for the Washoe County Leadership Academy (WCLA). He questioned why the County was advertising the WCLA when it consistently had full classes and was known to the public. He suggested posting about the WCLA on the County’s social media accounts. Commissioner Clark wanted to compare the cost of the advertisements to posts
for the bicycle ride events he hosted, as his request for posting about the event for this year was denied due to the cost. He said the County did not have enough resources to post the bicycle ride event.
Commissioner Clark noted that summer started last weekend, and children wanted to access the swimming pools. He observed on the news that the County swimming pools were not open for operation because a County employee retired. He inquired about a backup plan when someone was expected to retire and asked if the County was aware of retiring employees up to a month in advance, as people typically announced when they would be retiring. He questioned why someone was not trained to ensure the pools were open to the public. Commissioner Clark clarified the matter was reported on and was not his information.
Commissioner Clark requested information about all the federal, State, and donated funds provided for the Cares Campus. He also wanted to know the value of the land and improvements that were transferred from the City of Reno. He wished to have his questions answered.
Commissioner Clark reported he attended a training in Miami, Florida, and he believed the training was informative. He was uncertain if the County could use a lot of the information because, unlike the County, Miami, Florida, did not have a no-barrier shelter. He explained there were consequences for not honoring an agreement with the court. He was unsure how the information communicated through the training could be translated into the County’s procedures. Commissioner Clark indicated praise was earned for a county to have reduced the number of unhoused residents from approximately 8,000 to 1,000. He commented that the reported number was a significant improvement. He complimented the facility in Miami, Florida, that he toured and remarked he would live in that facility. He mentioned the facility was due to open soon to house individuals with mental health issues before they completed the program they were signed up for. Commissioner Clark thought the County should establish a similar facility and suggested rehabilitating and using a building on Record Street.
Commissioner Clark referenced allegations of harassment and recommended tabling Agenda Item 10 until an independent investigation was conducted. He clarified he was not affirming the alleged conduct took place and stated it was not his job to judge anyone’s personal relationship or behavior. He added it was part of his job to protect the rest of the County residents. He suggested employing a law firm to investigate the matter to confirm whether the accused conduct took place.
Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Project Management Chief Nick Johnson conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following
titles: NDOT U.S. 395 North Valleys and Major Projects Update, May 2024; U.S. 395 North Valleys Projects; U.S. 395 North Valleys Phase 1A; U.S. 395 North Valleys Phase 1B (2 slides); U.S. 395 North Valleys Project Phase 2; U.S. 395 Cold Springs Pavement Preservation; U.S. 395 North Valleys Pavement Preservation; Reno Spaghetti Bowl – Phase 2; I-80 East Widening – Vista Boulevard to USA Parkway; I-80 West Reno Bridge Replacements; Nevada NDOT Safe and Connected.
Mr. Johnson informed NDOT completed a regional traffic study for Reno and Sparks in 2018 through 2019. The study largely focused on United States (US) Route 395, notably for the North Valleys from McCarran Boulevard to Stead Boulevard. The study identified several improvements that were necessary to keep pace with the area’s growth and address aging infrastructure. Mr. Johnson indicated three major phases of construction were initiated, and there were additional preservation projects that NDOT began construction on or completed.
Mr. Johnson stated that Phase 1A involved replacing the Parr and Dandini interchange, which was originally intended to be part of the construction currently taking place. Due to the condition of the interchange, Phase 1A was expedited and finished in 2021. At the time, NDOT’s efforts continued in preparation for Phase 1B.
Mr. Johnson indicated Phase 1B was in progress, which comprised North McCarran Boulevard to Golden Valley Road, and the construction included widening the road to add auxiliary lanes in each direction. Many bridges were replaced or widened due to their conditions so they could support the additional lanes. Drainage, sound walls, intelligent transportation system (ITS) signs, and lighting were also elements of Phase 1B. Mr. Johnson stated the project cost approximately $230 million and commented that significant work was being done for the area. He mentioned the current conditions of the road due to construction and noted the reduced speed as a result of the two lanes of traffic. He added there were night closures down to a single lane in order to transport equipment and materials in and out of the work zone. He assured traffic would be moved onto the new road features as some of the work was completed later in the year, and NDOT would begin working on the pavement and bridges that were currently being driven on.
Mr. Johnson discussed the closure of the northbound on-and-off ramp in Panther Valley and indicated it would be closed later in the fall for approximately a year as new ramps and bridges were constructed in that area. He explained that traffic control would remain as the summer progressed, and later in the season, the traffic control would be moved around. During the fall, the two ramps in Panther Valley would be closed.
Mr. Johnson mentioned Phase 2 focused on the section comprised of the Golden Valley interchange to the Stead interchange. It was currently under design and had a similar scope of work to Phase 1B. He shared that NDOT partnered with the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) to include some multimodal improvements along North Virginia Street from McCarran Boulevard to the ramps in Panther Valley. He indicated bicycle lanes, pedestrian crossings, transit stops, and a shared-use path would be added. By partnering with the RTC, NDOT was able to secure roughly $89 million for Phase 2 for
the multimodal improvements and the improvements for US Route 395. Mr. Johnson stated the project’s estimated cost ranged from $150 million to $180 million. Additionally, NDOT was working through the designs with the intent to commence construction in 2026.
Mr. Johnson reported that NDOT started a pavement preservation project during the previous year, which encompassed the State line to around the Cold Springs interchange. The majority of the work for that project was completed. The work related to the drainage, signage, and some of the lighting still needed to be finished. Mr. Johnson commented about how smooth the area was and complimented the results. He hoped the project would be completed during the summer.
Mr. Johnson indicated a pavement preservation project would take place for the section from Stead Boulevard to the Cold Springs interchange, which NDOT was currently designing in conjunction with the activity for Phase 2. The goal was to include both projects in one contract. The project would consist of similar improvements to the section from the State line to the Cold Springs interchange, and construction would start in 2026. Mr. Johnson noted all the projects for US Route 395 and the North Valleys collectively amounted to an investment of over $450 million into the freeway system.
Mr. Johnson reported on an environmental study that was conducted on the City of Reno spaghetti bowl. He announced the first of five phases was completed during the previous year, which included Interstate 580 (I-580), Glendale Avenue, Mill Street, and the east Interstate 80 (I-80) to the southbound I-580 ramp. He added the area of east I-80 to southbound I-580 was one of the major safety issues in the Reno and Sparks area and was a high vehicular crash area. NDOT was advancing into Phase 2 of the spaghetti bowl project involving the section of I-80 in Sparks, from McCarran Boulevard to the spaghetti bowl. Mr. Johnson commented that there was a lot of labor related to Phase 2 of the project and stated the major challenge was working around the Nugget Casino Resort. NDOT was trying to identify unique solutions to the challenge in order to accomplish construction with minimal to no disruption to the Nugget Casino Resort. He added that NDOT’s team was actively engaged in the project with the City of Sparks.
Mr. Johnson spoke about an environmental study being conducted for the section of I-80 from the Vista interchange to the USA Parkway. He said NDOT was progressing quickly through the project, noting it started approximately one year ago, and NDOT anticipated its completion to be in the spring. Assuming everything was successful, NDOT would start the design before construction commenced. Mr. Johnson divulged it was a large project with challenging areas to build through, especially between Vista Boulevard and Mustang Road. He indicated that NDOT would determine the phasing as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process advanced and based on pending funding. He mentioned the section was approximately 13 miles long. He informed a lane would be added in each direction, which he said was necessary and assured those improvements would be promptly implemented.
Mr. Johnson reported seven bridges would be replaced for I-80 in West Reno starting in the following year as part of addressing the aging infrastructure. He
revealed there were approximately 11 bridges between McCarran Boulevard and the State line that needed to be replaced within the next five to 10 years. He stated that NDOT started progressing toward replacing these bridges, and NDOT was advancing through the environmental and design processes for the first seven bridges simultaneously. NDOT aimed to finish the environmental and design processes in order to move forward with the bidding phase and commence construction the following year.
Commissioner Garcia thanked Mr. Johnson for the presentation and expressed her appreciation for the investment. She acknowledged the constituents' nuisance and assured them relief was incoming.
Commissioner Garcia asked if there was any discussion prior to the US Route 395 North improvements taking place with a parallel project across Sun Valley on Pyramid Highway. She further asked how construction on those improvements might affect the residents located in Sun Valley. She indicated it was one of her constituents’ main concerns. She explained many residents in the North Valleys, Golden Valley, and Stead were cutting through either North Virginia Street or Sun Valley Boulevard to bypass some of the hinge points. Additionally, on the other side of the valley in Spanish Springs, residents were accessing Sun Valley Boulevard, and individuals were experiencing traffic conditions at Highland Ranch Parkway and O’Brien Pass. Commissioner Garcia inquired about the decision-making on the matter. Responding to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Johnson confirmed there were many discussions about the improvements and stated there were several factors involved, such as funding. He explained a grant was received for the Pyramid Highway project, which included a pressing deadline, and NDOT attempted to balance necessary projects. He noted the Pyramid Highway project would likely be completed a year earlier than anticipated, but the time in between would impact many people. Mr. Johnson mentioned similar situations occurred in Las Vegas. He indicated a key factor oftentimes was the availability of the funds and the ability to initiate and complete the projects. NDOT also recognized the driving fatigue from construction and tried to balance that factor with the project schedules as much as possible. Mr. Johnson indicated the matter was discussed, but the NDOT staff believed both projects were necessary and were aware of the available funding.
Commissioner Clark thanked Mr. Johnson for his report and complimented him on his efforts with a bridge that was rebuilt in 2021. He expressed remorse for the residents located in the North Valleys, noting the horrific traffic conditions. He was uncertain how emergency vehicles accessed the area, how people drove to and from work, or how individuals spent time with their families after spending a significant length of time driving eight miles. Commissioner Clark asked if any nighttime work was being done during certain times of the year to expedite the project and if crews were employed to work continuously. Mr. Johnson confirmed crews were working at night. He added the NDOT staff considered a number of factors. He believed US Route 395 was more suitable for night work, while Pyramid Highway was located within a more residential area, so the NDOT staff needed to be more cognizant of that aspect. The NDOT workers were trying to complete the project as fast as possible. Mr. Johnson pointed out the construction depended on the resources of the contractors. NDOT would often stipulate that the majority
of work be performed at night for major freeway projects because they were safer to execute at night for the workers, the contractors, and the traveling public. He explained that NDOT had been facing challenges with the availability of resources for night work over the past few years in relation to the volume of work and the associated deadlines. Commissioner Clark commented that there were seasonal aspects that made construction more suitable.
Commissioner Clark asked if the Panther Valley on-and-off ramp closure was permanent, and Mr. Johnson indicated the ramp was only under construction. Commissioner Clark inquired about the construction timeline, and Mr. Johnson replied that it would be completed in about a year. Commissioner Clark remarked that the traffic conditions in the area continued to worsen. Mr. Johnson noted it was a tight area with the utilities, some of the right-of-way, and the development of a new braid of ramps. He mentioned a new bridge was being constructed on the site of the existing ramp. Commissioner Clark commented that NDOT had a lot of work to complete and hoped it would be finished soon. He predicted the improvements would be obsolete by the time they were completed. He wished there were other access routes available because the side streets and the surface streets were experiencing significant traffic.
Chair Hill thanked Mr. Johnson for his efforts on the projects in the County that were important to the constituents as well as his service to the State. She looked forward to the continued discussion with Mr. Johnson.
PROCLAMATIONS
Chair Hill read the proclamation.
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 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 6A1 be adopted.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS – 7A1 THROUGH 7H2
retroactive to October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2027. Alternative Sentencing. (All Commission Districts.)
opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. §§ 3661-3664, and if an administrative action occurs before the Postal Regulatory Commission, authorize the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office to intervene and to fully participate in any such action, including filing a position statement and attending hearings on behalf of Washoe County as appropriate. If approved, authorize an amount (not to exceed
$25,000) for costs associated with pursuing such claims and/or representing Washoe County before the Postal Regulatory Commission. (All Commission Districts.)
Management (NDEM) awarding [$27,931.00, no County match required], to purchase an add-on module for Cortex XDR, a threat detection software. Grant term is retroactive from April 18, 2024, through November 30, 2025. If approved, authorize the County Manager or his designee to sign the grant award documents when received; and direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary budget amendments. Manager's Office. (All Commission Districts.)
purposes -- to support their mission to advocate for and with individuals with Down Syndrome and their families to break down any barriers to full, productive and satisfying lives; and a [$5,000.00] grant to the Robert Unsworth Foundation -- a nonprofit organization created for religious, charitable or educational purposes -- to support their mission to provide tennis equipment and instruction to public schools and youth groups; approve Resolutions necessary for the same; and direct the Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary disbursement of funds. Manager's Office. (Commission District 2.)
traffic enforcement checkpoint events and limited travel expenses, for the retroactive grant term of October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2024 and if approved, direct Comptroller’s Office to make the necessary budget amendments; and authorize Sheriff Balaam to execute grant award documents. Sheriff. (All Commission Districts.)
On the call for public comment, Ms. Penny Brock referenced Agenda Item 7D1 and said she supported the County pursuing the matter. She was primarily concerned about mail-in ballots, as the County would lose total chain of custody. She asserted the mail-in ballots should never leave the County and stated paper ballots previously would go directly from the polling centers to the Registrar of Voters (ROV) Office. She talked about the many entities that were already given access to the mail-in ballots. Ms. Brock commented that once Sacramento, California, became involved, the County would lack awareness of the mail-in ballots' whereabouts. She addressed Agenda Item 7F7 and said the $200,000 of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds should be awarded to a Human Services Agency (HSA) staff member. She speculated the funds would be granted to the County Manager instead. Ms. Brock thought someone should conduct an evaluation of the applicant’s finances because of the distribution of this money. She stated the person obtaining the funds might not handle their own finances well, and the taxpayers should not be forced to provide rental assistance. She did not believe County Manager Eric Brown had time to evaluate 300 to 350 applications. She also recommended performing a home visit to verify the validity of the request. Ms. Brock asked the Board to pull Agenda Item 7F7, and she thought the matter should be considered for HSA rather than the County Manager.
Keep Truckee Meadows Beautiful (KTMB) Executive Director Darcy Phillips was commenting in regards to Agenda Item 7F5. She indicated KTMB recently conducted its community clean up of 30 sites around the County, for which 1,000 volunteers were involved. She revealed over 100 tons of green waste and trash were removed from the County. Ms. Phillips stated one of the sites was sponsored by Commissioner Garcia and some County staff members. She spoke positively about the success of the event and thanked the Commissioners for their support. She acknowledged Commissioner Garcia for including the item on the agenda.
Ms. Amy Turner said her friend established a nonprofit called the Robert Unsworth Foundation after the tragic death of her son in 2021. She shared that her friend’s son, Robert, was a nationally-ranked tennis player who was especially fond of the game. After his death, the nonprofit was established to provide children who were less fortunate the opportunity to play tennis. Ms. Turner mentioned her friend was unable to attend the meeting, so Ms. Turner was asked to speak on the matter. She explained the foundation’s mission statement was to support tennis instruction, mentoring, and equipment for youth from communities that did not traditionally play tennis. She indicated the foundation hosted three youth days on the weekend of May 5 through May 7, 2023, and partnered with HSA, during which the focus was on foster children, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northern Nevada, and the local Boys and Girls Club. Ms. Turner announced the foundation partnered with the Boys and Girls Club to organize another youth day on June 29, 2024. The
foundation also sponsored four children for Reno Tennis Club lessons. On behalf of herself and her friend, she thanked the Board for the proposed $5,000 donation referenced in Agenda Item 7F6, as it would enable the foundation to assist more children. She expressed optimism in the Board’s assistance with promoting the youth days, as the Board had done so in the past.
On motion by Commissioner Andriola, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Consent Agenda Items 7A1 through 7H2 be approved. Any and all Resolutions or Interlocal Agreements pertinent to Consent Agenda Items 7A1 through 7H2 are attached hereto and made a part of the minutes thereof.
BLOCK VOTE – 11 THROUGH 13
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 11 be awarded and authorized.
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 12 be accepted, extended, authorized, and directed.
amount of [$413,782.00] and projected expenditures in the amount of [$383,441.00] for FY25. Recorder's Office. (All Commission Districts.)
On motion by Vice Chair Herman, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 13 be acknowledged.
Assistant County Manager (ACM) David Solaro recounted he presented a comprehensive overview to the Board on August 22, 2023, regarding the Washoe County property program, which included a list of properties that would be considered surplus to the County’s needs. Northern Nevada Public Health (NNPH) was currently using the property located at 10 Kirman Avenue for the Tuberculosis (TB) Clinic, which was under design to be placed in a new property at the West Hills facility. The facility was anticipated to be available and ready for NNPH to move into in early 2026, so the Board was tasked with directing ACM Solaro on what to do with the 10 Kirman Avenue property. ACM Solaro indicated that in December 2023, an offer was received from Renown Health, and the Board needed to help determine for the staff what the best process in State law was for the sale of the property. He outlined the Board’s two options, the first being directing the staff to conduct a full appraisal and auction the property to the highest bidder for no less than the appraised value. He stated there was also a statute allowing for disposition in the public’s interests for economic development, potentially for Renown Health as the property owner adjacent to the property.
On the call for public comment, Ms. Valerie Fiannaca believed the figure being offered by Renown Health was $450,000. She remarked that Sparks Florist would like to build a design center at any property the County was selling and stated Sparks Florist had been in business for 63 years. She expressed delight regarding a building in the location of 10 Kirman Avenue for the offered price and said she would also demolish it to construct something nice there. She was opposed to selling the property to Renown Health at
$450,000 if it could be sold for more money, and Ms. Fiannaca objected to the County conducting fire sales.
Ms. Penny Brock asked why a full appraisal was not performed prior to bringing the matter to the Board. She remarked that the process seemed backward and wondered if Commissioner Clark, as a former Assessor, had input to offer. As a taxpayer, she disagreed with the way the matter was being handled. She advised putting the property on the market to negotiate a sale. She objected to Renown Health purchasing the property for $450,000.
Vice Chair Herman advised that the building, which was the County’s old morgue, would need significant cleaning. She spoke with people at the hospital regarding the property and noted the County was running out of locations to build healthcare facilities for the hospital to care for patients. She realized the County wanted to be financially responsible and acquire the most money for the property. She wished to listen to the other Commissioners’ input.
Commissioner Andriola wondered if there was consideration given for obtaining an appraisal and assessing possibilities for the property. She understood there was an opportunity statutorily to offer Renown Health a prospect. She questioned whether there was a way to negotiate the sale of the property. She was uncertain where the $450,000 amount was derived from. ACM Solaro said the County would need a new appraisal on the property either way. He indicated two appraisals were performed over the years, including in 2017, at which point the property’s appraised value was $1.1 million. In 2021, the appraised value was $5 million. He stated a valid appraisal needed to be completed within six months of the facility’s sale. ACM Solaro clarified $420,000 was offered by Renown Health because it had a need for the property and identified within its master planning that the property could be utilized. However, Renown Health would not utilize it in its current configuration. He added the Board could request the County to negotiate the sale. Commissioner Andriola understood there were infrastructure costs that Renown Health would have to assume, and she aligned her support more with engaging in negotiations for the sale. She proposed possibly evaluating the cost Renown Health wanted to expend compared to the appraised amount in order to have better data for a decision. She also suggested the staff evaluate the information.
Commissioner Garcia asked for clarification on who conducted the previous appraisals. ACM Solaro stated the appraisals were completed by Anthony J. Wren and Associates, as that was the only appraiser on the County’s approved appraiser list at the time.
Commissioner Garcia inquired about how the $420,000 figure was determined, and ACM Solaro indicated he did not know that information. He referenced the letter from Renown Health that was included with the Staff Report.
Commissioner Garcia spoke about the difficulty of determining the plans Renown Health was considering for the parcel. She asked if Renown Health communicated
any of its intentions to ACM Solaro, to which ACM Solaro indicated Renown Health had not done so directly.
Addressing Chair Hill, Commissioner Garcia acknowledged Renown Health was an excellent partner in the community and expressed her enthusiasm for supporting Renown Health if there were plans for the parcel that would support a mutually beneficial community need. She stated the property was a valuable piece of land and commented that the $420,000 figure seemed low. Without a lot of discussion or data, she was in favor of directing the staff to negotiate a reasonable price that was mutually beneficial between the County and Renown Health.
Commissioner Clark said he was a proponent of abandoning the property; however, that did not mean giving it away. He expressed disappointment that the staff did not present the matter with a prepared appraisal. He conveyed there was a need for more information and noted ACM Solaro’s input was correct regarding appraisals. Commissioner Clark considered how Renown Health was negotiating the sale and talked about how illogical the approach for the negotiation was. He stated the value remained the same and indicated Renown Health could demolish the facility once it owned the property. He said the County’s role was not to finance Renown Health’s future project plans. Commissioner Clark believed an appraisal needed to be conducted on the property. He supported selling the property to Renown Health but insisted that did not mean the County needed to donate it. He encouraged treating the matter logically and to the same extent that real estate sales were handled. He had not experienced anyone negotiating the cost of a property by suggesting a reduction of the cost based on future plans. Commissioner Clark mentioned he received a phone call from a Renown Health representative and remarked he felt as though he was speaking to a time-share salesperson. He recounted the exchange regarding the property’s worth. His question to the representative was whether she had a recent appraisal, to which she answered in the negative. The representative continued providing reasons as to why Renown Health should own the property. Commissioner Clark recommended treating the sale as a business decision and agreed with Ms. Fiannaca’s input. He proposed organizing an auction and thought a flower shop next to the hospital could generate revenue.
Chair Hill agreed with Commissioner Garcia, Vice Chair Herman, and Commissioner Andriola. She wanted to work directly with Renown Health and negotiate a price to present to the Board.
Renown Health President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Brian Erling explained when Renown Health saw the parcel was listed as surplus by the County, it took an interest. He said Renown Health independently obtained its own fair market valuation of the property, which was where the offer amount was derived from. He stated three valuations were completed. Renown Health averaged the second-lowest and the highest valuations and removed the demolition cost. According to Mr. Erling, Renown Health believed there were challenges to identifying a fair market valuation for the building itself, as it was over 60 years old. He noted the uses of the facility and indicated it was full of asbestos. Renown Health did not have the ability to offer healthcare services in the building
as it was, but Renown Health believed healthcare services were important on that parcel. Mr. Erling conveyed the importance to Renown Health regarding the type of healthcare services that were offered directly across from its pediatrics clinic. Renown Health believed it was important to acquire the property and have the ability to invest in it. He offered to answer the Commissioners’ questions. He said Renown Health was not trying to obtain a special deal and calculated the offered price to start the discussion on the matter.
Chair Hill expressed the Board’s appreciation for Mr. Erling attending the meeting and relaying Renown Health’s perspective.
Commissioner Garcia moved to direct staff to negotiate a price with Renown Health. Commissioner Andriola seconded the motion.
Vice Chair Herman suggested obtaining a new appraisal on the property, and Chair Hill assured the County would do so as part of the process.
On motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 8 be directed.
$515,000.00], commencing on June 1, 2024, for architectural and engineering design services necessary to support the project. These services include architecture and interior design, civil, mechanical, electrical, and structural engineering design along with engineering bid support services and engineering construction administration The TB Clinic will be located at 1240 E. 9th Street and funding for the project comes from a State of Nevada Department of Health and Human Services grant (no match required). Community Services. (Commission District 3.)
Commissioner Clark recalled the matter was brought to the Board’s attention previously, and he had asked the Northern Nevada Public Health (NNPH) staff to share the number of tuberculosis (TB) cases in the County as well as the number of tests. He wished to know the number of TB cases there were in the County for the last 10 years. Chair Hill asked if Commissioner Clark knew the answer to that inquiry, and Commissioner Clark thought there were less than 10 cases each year and wanted to get the information on the record before voting on Agenda Item 9.
Vice Chair Herman echoed Commissioner Clark’s request. Chair Hill noted the Board would obtain that information.
Commissioner Garcia acknowledged that some Commissioners wanted to defer voting on the agenda item, but she did not believe that was appropriate given the need to provide the service. She stated that TB was a public health concern, and the clinic was
available in the community and was grant-funded. She expressed concern that progress would be impeded by postponing the vote or voting in opposition to the item.
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 3-2 vote, with Vice Chair Herman and Commissioner Clark voting no, it was ordered that Agenda Item 9 be approved.
(2) approve Amendment #4 to the contract currently awarded to Volunteers of America, Greater Sacramento and Northern Nevada (VOA) for Operator of the Emergency Shelter on the Nevada Cares Campus, authorizing an increase in the amount of [$569,112.30] for a total not to exceed [$7,102,109.00] for the term of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025 in support of the retention and recruitment of shelter staff and additional staffing and operations needs to operate the Nevada Cares Campus; (3) approve Amendment #9 to the contract currently awarded to Reno Initiative for Shelter and Equality (RISE) for Operator of Our Place Women and Family Shelter on the Our Place Campus, authorizing an increase in the amount of [$328,736.00] for a total not to exceed [$3,086,049.00] for the term of July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025 in support of the retention and recruitment of shelter staff and additional staffing needs on the Our Place Campus; (4) authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Manager to execute the amendments. Human Services Agency. (All Commission Districts.)
On the call for public comment, Mr. Travis Sandefur introduced himself as the Regional Vice President for Volunteers of America (VOA) in Northern Nevada. He stated that his journey with the VOA started as a volunteer in 2018. He remarked that he had been employed at the VOA for about one year and saw some remarkable instances of compassion and care during that time. He appreciated the Board’s consideration of the item and claimed the worst thing in the face of suffering was indifference. He spoke about efforts from the VOA and the Reno Initiative for Shelter and Equality (RISE) staff in preparation for the previous winter. He declared it was a challenging job and thanked the Board for entertaining the possibility of a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for staff, as many of them lived paycheck to paycheck. He thought the approval of the item would be a meaningful gesture in support of the organization’s efforts.
Mr. Matthew Grimsley was not present when called to speak.
Ms. Penny Brock wondered why the Karma Box Project (KBP) contract was slated to increase from $552,000 to over $1.7 million. She questioned why the County planned to contract KBP to oversee and appoint staff to the new resource center at the Cares Campus. She opined that the 5 percent COLA should be included in the contract increase, not as an additional item. She asked what the 10 percent administrative fee was for and why taxpayers were responsible for funding it. She mentioned some allegations made during public comment and thought the Board should not vote on the KBP contract until it investigated the claims.
Mr. Cody Marriott announced he worked with Silver State Law and represented Mr. Grant Denton. He discussed the allegations made during public comment and welcomed an investigation to clear Mr. Denton’s name and absolve his reputation. He reminded the Board that KBP did positive work in the community, and the claims were against Mr. Denton, not the organization; therefore, he believed the funds should still be allocated to KBP.
Ms. Janet Butcher remarked the public was informed that the unhoused population had decreased in the community, which she thought was untrue. She sympathized with people who were financially insecure. She speculated about large bonuses and salary increases given to certain County employees and opined the pay among County staff was unbalanced. She agreed with a previous commenter’s request to pull the agenda item until an investigation could be conducted regarding allegations leveled during the meeting. She mentioned a relative who had been abducted and claimed that no action was taken in response. She alleged her family faced criticism when they attempted to locate the individual.
Commissioner Andriola asked if there were any legal issues with moving forward with the item in consideration of the allegations mentioned during the meeting. Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) Mary Kandaras said the item would allocate funds to the KBP, not directly to the person who was the subject of the claims. Legally, there was nothing that would prevent the Board from moving forward with the agenda item. She stated any allegations or investigations would be separate from the contract referenced in the item. Commissioner Andriola noted the funds were not only for KBP, as there were other entities listed in the item, which CDDA Kandaras confirmed.
Commissioner Garcia opined unexpected information could be difficult to absorb. She thought it was helpful to note the separate and independent nature of the KBP contract from the accusations, as she did not want to lose sight of the work being done. She asserted the VOA, RISE, and KBP contributed to the betterment and wellness of the community. She noted the difficulty of addressing homelessness in the region. She recalled legislators who traveled to the region from other parts of Nevada noted the way the communities in Northern Nevada, particularly Washoe County, could cooperate to identify solutions. She remarked people wanted nonprofit operators to manage the effort because the County could not do everything for everyone. She declared the item was specifically for retention and recruitment to help the organizations remain healthy and operational. She
did not wish to downplay the significance of the allegations, but the Board was tasked to do a job and vote on difficult matters.
Commissioner Clark asserted each contract should have its own agenda item. He thought the item should be placed on hold until an investigation was conducted on the accusations. He did not know if anyone was innocent or guilty and asserted he did not have a side to pick regarding the issue. He said that he represented the citizens of the County, who deserved the best. He requested an independent investigation be carried out as soon as possible and asked that the item be pulled so the contracts could be heard separately.
Chair Hill stated she supported the item and the incredible work of the nonprofit partners who helped shelter and house people.
Commissioner Clark requested that future contracts be presented as separate agenda items so the Board could examine them individually.
Chair Hill asserted that the County wanted to treat all its nonprofit partners equally. She recalled an issue in the past where certain nonprofit organizations received more funds than others, and the Board was trying to prevent that from occurring.
On motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Chair Hill, which motion duly carried on a 4-1 vote, with Commissioner Clark voting no, it was ordered that Agenda Item 10 be approved and authorized.
Vice Chair Herman asked if the new machine was a necessary replacement. Interim Registrar of Voters (ROV) Cari-Ann Burgess responded a new sorter was essential because the existing one regularly broke down, which required staff to solicit emergency repairs on weekends. She stated the current ballot sorter would not be compatible with the new top-down voter registration system, as the machine operated on Windows 7 and the new system used Windows 11; therefore, the system would not interface with the ballot sorter. She indicated a BlueCrest, Inc. machine was selected because the County had an existing contract with the company, and it worked with TotalVote to ensure the machine was compatible with the new system.
Commissioner Andriola divulged she met with the Secretary of State (SOS) and learned about the legacy systems in place. She appreciated that the Legislature dedicated funding to help counties. She mentioned comments from people who claimed the voting system was connected to the internet and wondered if that was a valid concern with the new system. Ms. Burgess assured there were no concerns of that manner, as the voting machines were on a closed system and did not have cloud-based access. Commissioner Andriola asked how much time a new machine would save, to which Ms. Burgess replied that the new sorter would more than double the capabilities of the current machine.
On the call for public comment, Ms. Marie Rodriguez mentioned some complaints from other attendees about the meeting venue change and opined she had been quite comfortable since her arrival. She expressed support for the agenda item and noted she regularly volunteered during elections. She thought the mail-in ballot process was helpful and said many people received their ballots without issues. She thanked the Board for its hard work.
Ms. Janet Butcher opined that elections conducted at the precinct level with hand-counted ballots would save a lot of taxpayer dollars. She asserted there was a way to connect legacy systems. She spoke about the SOS’s plan for top-down voter registration and wondered how the system was implemented for the 2024 election when it was initially slated for use in 2026.
County Clerk Jan Galassini advised the Board that she received emailed public comments that were placed on file.
On motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 14 be approved, directed, and authorized.
4.99 acres and 0.01 acres (480 square feet). The 480 square foot parcel is for public utility purposes and will be dedicated to Washoe County for the purposes of constructing a sewer lift station.
The applicant is Harry Fry, who owns the subject parcel located at 1221 Chance Lane, Reno, Nevada; Assessor’s Parcel Number 017-410-69. The appellant is Richard Blake, who owns 175 Cedar Lane, Reno, Nevada.
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) shall consider the appeal based on the record on appeal and any additional evidence presented at the Board’s public hearing. The Board of County Commissioners may affirm, reverse or modify the Parcel Map Review Committee’s decision to approve Tentative Parcel Map Case Number WTPM23-0015, or remand the matter to the Parcel Map Review Committee with instructions. The Board’s analysis may also include a finding on whether the appellant has standing to challenge the Parcel Map Review Committee’s decision. Community Services. (Commission District 2.)
Chair Hill announced the appellant, Mr. Blake, requested for the item to be tabled because they were unable to attend the meeting.
Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) Mary Kandaras referenced Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 278.3195, subsection 2, which stated that there was an ordinance adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) that set forth an appeal time and the procedures. Furthermore, it mandated that a governing body must affirm, deny, or reverse a decision within 60 days. So, statutorily, it appeared as though there was a requirement to act within 60 days; however, she was informed by Assistant County Manager (ACM) David Solaro that, in the past, the Board had allowed continuances. CDDA Kandaras did not think it would automatically make the appeal valid or invalid if the Board continued it; therefore, she believed the Board could continue the agenda item. She noted there were many people present at the meeting who volunteered their time to speak on the matter. She indicated it was within the Board’s discretion to decide if it wished to hear the item. She suggested the Board hear the item and then continue the decision. CDDA Kandaras shared that when dealing in court, which differed, an appellant typically needed to be present for hearings; otherwise, he or she waived the appeal. She was not suggesting that should be the Board’s action because people often had other matters arise. She thought the Board had the interest of the property owner and the public to consider.
Chair Hill said she tried to call the Appellant, Mr. Richard Blake, that morning to offer the option to attend via Zoom. She knew the County’s Technology Services (TS) Department sent a Zoom link to the email on file for Mr. Blake. She asked the Board their thoughts on the matter. She stated the Board could ask for a staff presentation and make a decision from there.
Vice Chair Herman asked if the Board knew why Mr. Blake could not attend. Chair Hill responded no, which Vice Chair Herman thought was concerning. Vice Chair Herman said that in the absence of more information, she thought the item should be continued.
Commissioner Andriola indicated it might have been a personal matter that resulted in Mr. Blake’s absence and requested a staff presentation.
Commissioner Garcia agreed with Commissioner Andriola’s input.
Commissioner Clark indicated he received several phone calls over the weekend regarding this agenda item. He thought there was a family emergency that turned into a family tragedy and did not think Mr. Blake was trying to delay the item. He believed it was important that all parties be present. He was receptive to moving the item to a later date.
Chair Hill agreed with Commissioners Andriola and Garcia.
Community Services Department (CSD) Planner Timothy Evans conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following titles: Appeal; Request; Background; Background (2); Site Plan; Evaluation; Findings; Recommendation; Thank you.
Mr. Evans read details on the appeal, the original project request, and background information on the project from the PowerPoint. The reasoning behind the lift station was after the applicant, Mr. Harry Fry, engaged in discussions with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), he was informed that the area had poor groundwater, so to have sewer as opposed to septic systems was an attempt to improve the groundwater issues or to prevent them from worsening. The intention for the parcel creation was to have it dedicated to the County for operation as opposed to an easement. There was a lot of concern related to the size of the proposed lift station. After speaking with the engineering personnel and Mr. Fry, it was determined that the sizing of the lift station would accommodate the eight parcels that were there and any parcels in the area that might have failing septic systems.
Mr. Evans displayed the site plan for the proposed project and pointed out that the upper left corner contained the 480-square-foot parcel proposed for utility purposes. He then read from the Evaluation, Findings, and Recommendation slides.
On the call for public comment, Mr. James Ross introduced himself as a 40- year resident of Steamboat Valley. He asked the Board to be careful and alleged someone was trying to manipulate the Board. He declared the Board was not aware of all the details pertaining to the matter. He stated this had been going on since 2016. This application had been brought before the Board several times and had been denied each time. Mr. Ross believed that each time it was denied, Mr. Fry found a new approach and tried again. He opined it was wrong. He thought there was no need for a lift station because there were five-acre lots on septic. His property was on septic, and so were his neighbors’ properties. Mr. Ross wondered why someone wanted to construct this project. He thought Mr. Fry wanted to build the lift station because he had other plans once this agenda item was approved. He indicated there was a history of this happening. He shared that the property was an old farm 25 years prior, which had been subdivided into 40-acre lots. It sat for six months before the developer went before the Board again to subdivide the property into 10-acre lots. He opined honesty should be the one requisite that the Board made of anyone who stood in front of them. Mr. Ross wanted people to tell the truth. He thought if the applicant was put under oath, the Board would learn there were a lot of devious plans in the back of his mind. He would appreciate it if the Board would seriously consider the item.
Ms. Laurie Smith stated she resided on Rhodes Road in Steamboat Valley. She hoped the Board received the emails that were sent to the Commissioners over the weekend regarding this project. She thought it was going to result in a major impact on the community. She recalled during the Parcel Map Review Committee (PMRC) meeting in March 2024, there were several public commenters. She did not know if the PMRC listened to the commenters’ feedback. After everyone’s comments, the committee voted in the affirmative on the item without providing answers to all the public’s questions. Ms. Smith said everyone else in the area was on septic tanks and wells. She wondered why the project needed a lift station. She thought it was a backdoor approach for Mr. Fry to come into the valley, acquire those lots, and make many more homes. She knew the matter was money to the County, but she did not think it was right that it happened. Ms. Smith indicated there currently was a structure that had a well and septic tank where Mr. Fry wanted to add the lift station. She informed Mr. Fry was constructing a large house north of the property, and it was not stated if that house would be on a well, a septic tank, city water, or sewer. She was uncertain how Mr. Fry obtained a building permit to have the house 60 percent built without that information identified on the website. She asked if the Board had been out to the area to look at the subject property and suggested the Board do so before it voted. Ms. Smith thought the Board should either postpone the item until questions were answered, deny the project, or halt the project.
Ms. Kerryann Aceves indicated she lived in Pleasant Valley for seven years. She said the only way to get into Pleasant Valley was death or divorce and shared how she acquired her property. Every year since she moved into the area, this group of neighbors had fought the County for something. She talked about the quarrels the neighbors had each year regarding other matters. She explained the function of a lift station. Ms. Aceves believed the agenda item was disarranged and that people should be aware of the cost. She noted the community fought two fires and three floods in March 2023. For the last flood, her elderly neighbors’ homes were flooded due to the hill ditch being impaired by the natural flow, as they were was a private equestrian center that was constructed up the mountain. There was no recourse or anything else for the County. Ms. Aceves said the community fought to keep Pleasant Valley enjoyable, and the community needed the County’s assistance to do so. She stated there were currently 1,242 privately owned horses, and she remarked one of them was probably worth more than her house. She indicated there was one road in and one road out for the area. Ms. Aceves informed one road currently had a bridge that could not handle the amount of heavy construction. In the two fires that she had lived through, she had four horses, and she had to yield to the huge horses’ worth. She did not understand how someone could take a valley that had been a simple valley for years and allow any type of sewer to go up a mountain when it flooded on an average of every three years, ending up in her neighbor’s yard.
Mr. Jeff Fischer notified Mr. Blake had a major family emergency. He explained residents within the Steamboat Valley community were upset because there was a lot of deception related to this agenda item. He stated when the house currently being constructed was first permitted, it did not have sewer or water identified, which no one else could do. He wondered what was going on there. Mr. Fischer said the lift station did not financially plan for eight houses, and it was financially inappropriate. He asked about the
long-term gain of the project. He stated Reno was rated second in the Country for increasing temperatures. He read the biographies of all the Board members and their mission statements from when they were elected. Mr. Fischer stated they talked about advocating for the citizens and listening to the constituents. He said the Commissioners indicated they wanted to spend tax money appropriately, and there was no admission related to supporting a developer who had the ears of the Planning Commission (PC). He said the Board talked about wanting to be honest and open, but he did not think that was taking place with this project. He was opposed to this project. He recommended the Board postpone or deny the project. Mr. Fischer asked those present in opposition to the agenda item to stand. He declared Steamboat Valley was a prestigious, clean place, and it was beneficial for the City of Reno and the County to recognize that. He requested the Board to honor its mission and deny the item.
Ms. Lynda Fischer was strongly opposed to the item. She echoed Mr. Fischer’s input regarding the deception taking place related to the agenda item. She declared a lift station did not make sense for the County and thought it was not an efficient way to spend tax dollars. She speculated Mr. Fry would build the lift station, but the County would be responsible for it. It would also be responsible for all the road construction because ingress was not possible without major road construction. Ms. Fischer believed the bridge had not been in service for four or five years, and it would cost $750,000 to repair it. She indicated the community had been told the County did not have the money for it. She wondered how something could be approved that would deteriorate the bridge without the County having money to repair it for the residents in the valley. She stated Chance Lane was a one-lane dirt road. She often had to yield to horse trailers or a large truck. Two vehicles of any size could not fit on the road. That would mean the County would need to upgrade the roads to ensure fire and police could enter. Ms. Fischer thought the lift station was not just for eight homes. She stated her property had been on well and septic the entire time she had lived there, and she was content with it. She commented that she had the lift type of septic. She did not think there was a reason why the developer could not add lift septic tanks on his property for the eight homes and avoid additional costs to the County. She hoped the item would be continued.
Ms. Penny Brock chose not to speak on the item.
Ms. Diane Berry stated that in 2018, Mr. Fry attempted to construct a housing tract for 58 houses. That was denied twice, so he decided to change his approach with five-acre parcels. She referenced previous public comments stating the lift station was a backdoor to try and subdivide those five-acre parcels and construct additional houses on the property. Since that time, Mr. Fry also purchased another five-acre parcel, and it was rumored he wanted to split it into ten half-acre parcels, which would use the same lift station. She thought the developer would subdivide all the parcels he owned into half-acre lots.
Mr. Emerson Reed stated he lived on Rocky Vista Road, which was a one- lane dirt road that was nearly impassible in the winter. He said Mr. Fry had been denied because the Rhodes Road bridge could not support the heavy construction equipment, so
he had been using Rocky Vista Road to access his property, which Mr. Reed thought was destroying the road. He did not think Mr. Fry intended to repair or replace the road because it was all on private property easements. He noted the bridge was still broken, and Chance Lane was not able to be paved, as it was a one-lane road. As a 20-year construction worker, Mr. Reed said he had witnessed the occurrence of similar situations in which a little bit was completed sporadically, and eventually it was all done, but not in compliance with the original plan. He asked the Board to deny the agenda item.
Ms. Janet Butcher hoped the Board listened to the residents within the area of the proposed development. She said it was unlikely that the parcel would be rezoned and referenced experience from the areas of the County she lived in. She requested that the County avoid making Pleasant Valley similar to Spanish Springs.
Ms. Ledena Brooke indicated she lived on the corner of Rhodes Road and Chance Lane, and she accessed her property from Chance Lane. She recommended viewing the location before considering the development. She noted Chance Lane was a dirt road. Ms. Brooke had been informed that Mr. Fry’s properties had addresses on Rocky Vista Road, and he had them changed to Chance Lane. She explained they were originally Rocky Vista Road properties that were accessed from Toll Road, but since the addresses were changed to Chance Lane, the likelihood of accessing the properties from Chance Lane increased. She added that was not the original intent for those properties. Ms. Brooke requested the Board to deny the proposal. She noted Mr. Fry still had access to build on five-acre parcels. She pointed out the Board would not be halting Mr. Fry’s ability to construct the eight homes, but rather denying the lift station that could enable the construction of more homes in that area.
County Clerk Jan Galassini advised the Board that she received three emailed public comments that were placed on file.
Chair Hill expressed discomfort regarding allowing Mr. Fry to speak based on the situation due to Mr. Blake’s absence. She requested CDDA Kandaras’s legal advice on the matter. CDDA Kandaras advised it would be appropriate for the Board to continue the agenda item if it was considering doing so. She didn't believe it was necessary to only hear from one party. Furthermore, if the Commissioners believed they were prepared to make a decision, she recommended considering Mr. Fry’s input.
Vice Chair Herman was in favor of continuing the agenda item.
Based on the feedback offered by the meeting’s attendees, some of whom could not stay, and because the presence of all relevant parties was lacking, Commissioner Andriola supported continuing the agenda item.
Commissioner Garcia favored continuing the agenda item.
Since Mr. Blake was not present, Commissioner Clark believed the Board should continue the agenda item.
On motion by Commissioner Andriola, seconded by Commissioner Vice Chair Herman, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 15 be continued.
The appellant is the Mount Rose Bowl Property Owners Water Co. The applicant is the Sky Tavern Junior Ski Area. The subject parcel is located off Nevada State Route 431 approximately 10 miles south of Reno on parcel APN 048-050-03, has a master plan designation of Rural (R) and a regulatory zone designation of Parks and Recreation (PR).
The Board of County Commissioners (Board) shall consider the appeal based on the record on appeal and any additional evidence submitted at the Board’s public hearing. The Board may affirm, modify or reverse the Board of Adjustment’s decision. Community Services. (Commission District 1.)
Chair Hill opened the public hearing.
Chair Hill disclosed she obtained a film permit earlier that year to film at Sky Tavern in a different capacity from her role as a County Commissioner. The District Attorney’s (DA) Office did not detect a personal or pecuniary interest from Chair Hill regarding the matter, as the ability to obtain a film permit was open to anyone; therefore, Chair Hill would be voting on the matter.
Commissioner Andriola disclosed she was familiar with some of the board members and the parties involved in the agenda item. After speaking with Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) Mary Kandaras, Commissioner Andriola believed there was nothing legally preventing her from voting on the item.
Commissioner Clark disclosed his grandchildren would be attending Sky Tavern during the following year. He indicated the disclosure would not impact his vote.
Planning and Building Division Senior Planner Katherine Oakley conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following titles: Special
Use Permit WSUP23-0016 (Sky Tavern) Appeal; Request; Background; Appeal; Ski Slope Lighting (3 slides); Master Plan Analysis; Noticing and Neighborhood Meeting; Findings; Possible Options; Thank you.
Ms. Oakley indicated the agenda item was regarding an appeal on a single element of a larger special use permit (SUP) for an expansion to the Sky Tavern Junior Ski Area. She noted the SUP had many elements, and one of them was appealed, which was the approval of the lights for night skiing. She oriented the Board to the location of the property and indicated it was surrounded on two sides by Bums Gulch Road and Sky Tavern Road. The property was otherwise surrounded by public land. Ms. Oakley reported the request’s components included a utility services use type for the installation of snowmaking infrastructure, repaving, lighting of the existing parking area, the addition of lighting for night skiing, and major grading to support the referenced work. She read from the slide titled Background.
Ms. Oakley stated the Board of Adjustment (BOA) reviewed the SUP and approved all requests on April 4, 2024. The Mount Rose Bowl Property Owners Water Company (MRBPOWC) filed an appeal on April 12, 2024. The appeal only referenced the approval for the lights for night skiing. The appeal outlined concerns regarding the impacts to dark night skies and the area’s scenic value. Additionally, the appeal alleged the documents presented at the neighborhood meeting were not consistent with the final proposal and the noticing was insufficient.
Ms. Oakley explained the proposed ski slope lighting consisted of approximately 77 35-foot-tall lighting standards with downcast lights on some of the major ski runs at the Sky Tavern Junior Ski Area. The originally proposed hours of operation were 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., which would mostly be for winter. The BOA approved light operation until 9:00 p.m., and the adjustment was made during the hearing based on concerns delivered by members of the public related to the impacts of the lighting. Ms. Oakley mentioned there were no month or days-per-week restrictions on the lighting as currently approved.
Ms. Oakley referenced some photographs, one of which was taken from Rattlesnake Trail showing a test light that was installed at the top of Sky Tavern and taken at different vantage points. She pointed out the photograph revealed some of the lights from residences and cars. She noted the additional lights for night skiing would be a significant increase in lighting. The other photograph was a photometric rendering of the lighting, demonstrating how the runs that were intended for night skiing would be illuminated. Ms. Oakley stated the glow on the hillside would be visible from large parts of the County. She indicated the subject property was located in a high scenic value area and in the community viewshed, meaning it was visible from large areas of Reno, Sparks, and the unincorporated County.
Ms. Oakley explained there were four cross-cutting themes in Envision Washoe 2040. Two themes that were relevant to the project were the conservation of natural resources and outdoor recreation and access. She stated this proposal had inverse
impacts on two of the themes. Ms. Oakley affirmed the proposal would expand outdoor recreation and access as well as access for the population served by Sky Tavern; however, there would be a negative impact on a designated scenic resource, which was the Mount Rose Highway corridor.
Ms. Oakley informed the BOA that the lighting would significantly benefit recreation and that the timing restrictions placed on the lights would limit the negative impacts on the Mount Rose Highway corridor. As a result, the BOA was able to make the finding of conformance with the Master Plan, as required for the SUP’s approval.
Ms. Oakley talked about the neighborhood meeting organized on May 16, 2023, for which notice was provided by the County staff. The meeting complied with the noticing policies for neighborhood meetings requiring a minimum of 750-foot noticing radius or a minimum of 30 separate property owners. Ms. Oakley divulged the intent of the neighborhood meeting process was to create public engagement earlier in the design process. She stated it was not unusual for the design at the neighborhood meeting to be an imperfect match to the submitted design at the application stage. Part of the reasoning for the process was to obtain input earlier so designs could be adjusted where possible to meet the community’s needs. The appeal alleged the noticing was insufficient because not all impacted property owners received notices. Ms. Oakley noted many people would be affected in some capacity by the proposal because of the lights’ visibility, but the noticing satisfied all legal requirements outlined in State law. These requirements included a minimum of a 500-foot noticing radius and a minimum of 30 property owners.
Ms. Oakley reported the BOA made all five required findings. She outlined the Board’s three possible options for the meeting.
MRBPOWC representative, Mr. Chris Minnes, conducted a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed slides with the following titles: Sky Tavern Night Skiing Concerns; Mount Rose Property Owners Water Company; Goals of Sky Tavern; MRBPOWC Goals; Sky Tavern Solutions; MRBPOWC Concerns (8 slides); MRBPOWC Solutions (7 slides); MRBPOWC Concern; Alternatives; Questions.
Mr. Minnes mentioned he lived adjacent to Sky Tavern and graduated from Sierra Nevada College with a degree in ski resort management. He stated the water system comprised 14 properties on Bums Gulch Road and Old Mount Rose Highway. The community was located nearly 8,000 feet in elevation. He indicated the residents were people who enjoyed the lifestyle within that elevation and were well-versed about living at that elevation in the Sierra Nevadas.
Mr. Minnes explained that Sky Tavern’s goal was to serve more children. He noted that 3,700 children were served during the previous year, and Sky Tavern was forced to refuse service for 200 families. Sky Tavern also aimed to increase the time for race teams. The MRBPOWC was also seeking an increase in capacity for the junior ski program and wanted to give the skiers from Reno the opportunity to one day perform at the Olympics. Mr. Minnes mentioned other priorities, including maintaining Mount Rose
Scenic Byway rules and dark skies, reducing the environmental impacts, ensuring the safety of the skiers, avoiding traffic accidents, and clarifying the definition of operational days. He stated the MRBPOWC met with the Sky Tavern senior management team and determined there was a desire to achieve many of the same efforts. Some of the concerns discussed included the large snowmaking system and the transportation of dirt, during which many miscommunications and misunderstandings were resolved. Mr. Minnes communicated the MRBPOWC’s existing concern with the lighting, for which defining operation days was relevant because it was currently a broad scope as written in the SUP. He asserted the current definition allowed Sky Tavern to use the lights year-round. At a minimum, the MRBPOWC wanted the operational days to be defined, to which Sky Tavern agreed. Mr. Minnes pointed out a road was indicated on the SUP, but there was no road in that location, so the MRBPOWC wanted to ensure the documentation was completed properly.
Mr. Minnes said Sky Tavern’s solution to its capacity problem was to spend
$1.5 million on 77 light poles, which would amount to 154 lights. Sky Tavern also wished to install 26 additional lights and 13 bullhorns in the parking lot.
Mr. Minnes indicated that the MRBPOWC was concerned about the proposal violating existing programs related to bylaws and visual quality. He noted that the MRBPOWC did not review an adequate study indicating the impact of the lights. He pointed out that the lights were much more powerful than those seen on an automobile. He voiced the MRBPOWC’s desire for the guidelines to be maintained or to assess similar science and research to those used to establish the guidelines related to the drawbacks of the lighting.
Mr. Minnes commented that the dark skies were important to Nevada (NV). He stated each light for the proposal emitted 40,000 lumens of light and pointed out the average car emitted approximately 1,000 lumens, so the proposed lights were 40 times brighter than a car. He noted there would be another 20,250 lumens of light in the parking lot. He specified the proposed lights were equivalent to 6,666 cars being parked on the mountain. Mr. Minnes noted the 200,000 residents would be able to see the lights, and they would affect the view corridor for everyone residing in the valley. He informed the astronomy, wildlife, human health, and climate change mitigation would be impacted. He compared the ambient glow that would be created by any overcast to traffic in Los Angeles (LA).
Mr. Minnes expressed the concerns of the MRBPOWC related to the operation of Sky Tavern in the past. He referenced photographs showing a slope that was torn away with minimum oversight and erosion. He mentioned the photographs were similar to what he and his neighbors observed over the years. The MRBPOWC was in favor of oversight that would be expected for any corporation. He noted a concern with drinking water quality being affected. Mr. Minnes conveyed a major concern about a skier traveling out of bounds at night and explained going out of bounds at the location of the subject property could cause a skier to travel into the Galena Creek ravine. He conveyed how challenging a rescue situation would be involving Galena Creek during a whiteout and
informed the snow could reach depths of 20 to 30 feet. Mr. Minnes discussed the avalanche terrain, provided a hypothetical scenario in which an avalanche slide occurred after an individual entered the avalanche terrain area, and informed that 50 percent of slides occurred within 24 hours of a storm. Mr. Minnes mentioned the presence of switchbacks on Mount Rose Highway with 20-foot banks, which could cause concern for a skier after leaving the avalanche terrain area. He referenced a photograph of his house and expressed concern about skiers colliding with the powerlines to his house. He stated many of the houses had similar powerline structures as well as many other features that could be hazardous to children. Mr. Minnes commented that the pyramid shape of the mountain made it easy to descend from any of its three sides rather than sliding straight down toward the base area. He did not want minors driving in a blizzard late at night, and it was also a concern for other people traveling on the same road.
Mr. Minnes brought attention to the concern about rime ice and showed photographs of the damage it could cause to ski equipment. He mentioned rime ice was especially detrimental to light-emitting diode (LED) light bulbs. He referenced a list of night skiing programs that were discontinued for the reasons he outlined.
Mr. Minnes summarized the solutions proposed by MRBPOWC, including increasing the parking capacity by 5.4 percent. He noted removing several unnecessary items from the parking lot could increase capacity by 12.5 percent. He suggested limiting the parking passes to one per family to mitigate families using multiple vehicles to pick up one child, and the money gained could be donated to families in need. He proposed assigning buses to run steadily from Galena High School, which would amount to four trips in the morning and evening, which would save a total of 96 parking spots and increase the parking lot capacity by 50.2 percent. Mr. Minnes stated the season could be extended by
78.5 percent with the assistance of the snowmaking system. By extending the season, he calculated the management toll to be seven minutes per run, which would increase the total possible runs per person to 1,320.
Mr. Minnes discussed opening Sky Tavern earlier for race training, noting the firm snow needed was available early in the morning, and the latest time for the sun to rise was 7:18 a.m. on December 21. He suggested opening the resort at 7:30 a.m., for which the conditions would be ideal, and the ski racing participants could gain 642 more runs each per season with the increased hourly operation and number of days. With the proposed changes, the total parking capacity could increase by 130 spots and 229 hours would be added to the hours of operation without the addition of lights or night skiing.
Mr. Minnes referenced a road that he said did not exist. He expressed the MRBPOWC’s support for the Sky Tavern Lodge to return to its original condition. The MRBPOWC was in favor of the installation of a lift that would accommodate mountain bikes because mountain biking was a major aspect of the Sky Tavern’s program. He believed Sky Tavern could locate the support for the suggested lift, and he pointed out that more services could be offered to the community.
McDonald Carano Attorney Josh Hicks indicated he was representing the Sky Tavern Junior Ski Area and mentioned other representatives intended to speak on the matter. He stated he submitted a letter dated May 24, 2024, to the Board that outlined some legal concerns regarding the appeal of the BOA’s decision. He emphasized the fact that the appeal was filed by the MRBPOWC as an important factor for the Board’s determination. Mr. Hicks explained an appeal of an SUP to the Board could only be filed by an individual who was considered aggrieved, which was required by Washoe County Code (WCC) Section 110.912.20 (a)(1). He read the definition of an aggrieved person set forth in the WCC. He established the question for the Board was regarding what personal or property right of the MRBPOWC was impacted by the SUP. He inquired about the relevance of any of the concerns raised in Mr. Minnes’s presentation to a water company and indicated none of the information discussed was relevant to the appeal itself. Mr. Hicks further asked what possible concern a water company could have related to dark skies. He commented that there was an important preliminary question regarding standing, and the section about standing in the WCC ensured people who had property rights and were impacted by a decision could address the Board. He asserted that was not the case for this matter. Mr. Hicks pointed out there were no allegations of any injury to the MRBPOWC itself and stated there was no indication of any of the MRBPOWC’s property rights at risk. Based on the reasons he provided, he indicated the case should be dismissed, and the SUP should be affirmed. He reminded the Board the appellant had the burden of proof in this matter that needed to be satisfied by substantial evidence. Mr. Hicks added substantial evidence was not only speculation but was technical, admissible evidence that a reasonable person would accept. He opined substantial evidence was not submitted.
Mr. Hicks requested the Board to consider the BOA’s decision. He stated there were competing interests in a master plan. He defined master plans as statements of general aspirations and goals and referenced a United States (US) Supreme Court decision holding that requiring technical compliance with every part of a master plan was not feasible. He commented that the issues related to recreation and enhancing recreational opportunities were paramount in Envision Washoe 2040. Mr. Hicks pointed out recreation and skiing were specified as the top reasons why people enjoyed living in the area, and he indicated the BOA’s decision was appropriate. He noted there was no County ordinance related to dark skies. He believed the BOA’s efforts to balance its decision were sufficient and mentioned the BOA added some conditions for the SUP, including the 9:00 p.m. closure time. Mr. Hicks indicated the Sky Tavern Junior Ski Area submitted a lot of evidence for the BOA meeting, which was not refuted.
Sky Tavern Executive Committee Chairman Yale Spina thanked the Board for allowing those affiliated with the matter to speak. On behalf of Sky Tavern, he expressed respect and affection toward the neighbors and said they all worked together on the hill to promote safety and ensure people could enter and exit the slopes. He voiced Sky Tavern’s opposition to removing children from school for any reason, especially at this point because children residing in the County were roughly one year behind academically due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Spina revealed Sky Tavern was Reno’s largest city park and said the land was not utilized to its highest and best use. He spoke positively about
the Sky Tavern Junior Ski Program and divulged it was a national award-winning program. He mentioned the program was the oldest and largest of its kind in the Nation.
Mr. Spina informed the Sky Tavern Junior Ski Area was overwhelmed on Saturdays and Sundays because of the major demand for affordable skiing and family programs. Mr. Spina indicated the Sky Tavern Junior Ski Program made a concerted effort to effectively handle the traffic. He said the City of Reno was in favor of its largest city park being utilized more often than two days a week for 10 weeks a year. As a taxpayer, he wanted that park to be used more often, and because of the new lease with the City of Reno, there were more obligations connected to the property related to increased utility and use. After assessing the matter, providing the ability for children to visit the Sky Tavern Junior Ski Area after school was identified as the only way to help the community. Mr. Spina wished to provide after-school access to the ski area for some of the children whose parents worked in the casinos on the weekends, which he hoped would result in less traffic on the weekends and fewer vehicles on the highway. He informed the average ski racer in high school had approximately one hour and 45 minutes of training. Furthermore, Washoe County School District (WCSD) was struggling with employing bus drivers to transport children. He revealed it was more feasible for bus drivers to transport the children from school to the mountain after school. Mr. Spina concluded it made sense to conduct the after-school programs. He added the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) wished to use the area, but it was unable to travel to the location on the weekends because Sky Tavern operated at full capacity on the weekends. He informed UNR was in favor of organizing its own junior ski program.
Mr. Spina affirmed Sky Tavern compromised on the hours of operation and when the lights would be turned off in order to maintain a positive relationship with its neighbors. He asserted affirming the proposal was in the best interest of the community and stated Sky Tavern made affordable skiing available for everyone, which was what Sky Tavern Reno Junior Ski Program Co-Founder Marcelle Herz’s ideals were about. He stated that the City of Reno owned the property because of Ms. Herz.
On the call for public comment, Ms. Sally Sue Broili spoke positively about the MRBPOWC and declared it was dissimilar to other water companies, as the members owned the company. She stated everyone who owned a home in the area served by the MRBPOWC owned the company, so everyone was a person with appeal rights. On behalf of the members, she said they donated two 5,000-gallon polycarbonate black containers to Sky Tavern to generate snow and had worked with the ski resort in the past. Ms. Broili clarified the property owners did not oppose Sky Tavern and were concerned about the lighting, the safety of the students, and the lack of signage. She expressed concern regarding the residents’ water supply, which she noted was a factor that required caution because of potential infectious contaminants that could cause illness. Ms. Broili indicated the property owners were not in favor of the lights because of the difficulty they posed to monitoring activity on side streets. She pointed out the lights were contained in one area. The property owners wished Sky Tavern the best of luck, and Ms. Broili voiced the property owners’ desire to work with Sky Tavern in a better capacity.
Ms. Susan Broili Kamesch stated her family’s home was the second one built on Bums Gulch Road, so her family lived there since 1947. She mentioned her mother was the MRBPOWC President, and her father, Mr. Robert Broili, was a practicing attorney in Reno. Referencing Ms. Oakley’s presentation, Ms. Broili Kamesch clarified the County originally was opposed to the lights. She expressed concern regarding the installation of lights for night skiing due to the negative effect of her view of the Sierra Nevada mountains as well as other residents’ views in the City of Reno and surrounding areas. She noted Sky Tavern was not open to the public and pointed out the lighting would only benefit individuals participating in the program while being disruptive to others. Ms. Broili Kamesch noticed none of the letters in support of the proposal were from property owners who would be directly affected by the lighting. She remarked that UNR President Brian Sandoval would likely not be directly impacted by the lights. She conveyed concern regarding teenagers and young adults navigating Mount Rose Highway in the dark during the winter. She referenced the Safety Overview section of the Nevada Department of Transportation’s (NDOT) 2022 Mount Rose Corridor Plan, which discussed the hazards and incidences of fatalities related to Mount Rose Highway. Based on Sky Tavern’s existing plan, Ms. Broili Kamesch stated there would likely be an excess of 150 teenage and young adult drivers added to the highway who enjoyed speeding. She speculated the addition of drivers to Mount Rose Highway would result in more fatalities. She suggested that Sky Tavern consider employing buses. Addressing the Board, Ms. Broili Kamesch noted its decision would affect people visiting the area in addition to its constituents. She requested denying the proposed lighting and directing Sky Tavern to consider alternative solutions.
Mr. Emerson Read was not present when called to speak.
Mr. Bob Levitt introduced himself as a former WCSD school administrator overseeing athletics and a current liaison for the Northern Nevada 4A and 5A High School Athletic Directors to the Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association (NIAA). He thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak in support of the SUP to allow Sky Tavern to add lighting. He spoke on behalf of himself as the parent of a former high school ski racer and a former school administrator supervising high school athletics at Reno High School. Mr. Levitt commented that high school ski racing was the only sport sanctioned by the NIAA that required students to miss significant amounts of class time for every scheduled league event. He added all other sports’ practices, league games, matches, and meets were scheduled after school and on weekends. Furthermore, little training was provided for the ski racers to develop their skills to the same extent as all other athletes in different sports. Mr. Levitt informed children who lived in ski mountain communities often finished their school schedule by 1:00 p.m. and spent the rest of the day training without missing classes. Additionally, they were able to train after sundown under night skiing lighting. He said high school athletics and athletes encountered barriers to meaningful participation and experiences. He reported participation in the high school ski team was limited by such factors as transportation restrictions, and students had to leave class at 9:30
a.m. in order to gather their gear and board a bus around 10:00 a.m. to travel to the mountain on the day of a race. The same bus was unable to pick up the students until after the completion of the end-of-day runs, which was often after the resort was inactive. Mr. Levitt
shared his experience of waiting with students for a bus until it was almost dark outside, which he noted was expending the students’ time that could be used for studying and completing schoolwork. He informed high school ski racers were previously afforded one half of one weekend day for training, which typically meant his son was able to complete two to three training runs. He stated the decision to transfer training and events to Sky Tavern expanded opportunities to develop the student ski athletes’ skills, but the daylight posed a challenge to securing opportunities for children without being absent from class. Mr. Levitt indicated schools located on the south end of town were able to train at Sky Tavern after school, but that created an inequity for schools.
Mr. Brett Weible indicated he was employed by the WCSD as the Ski Racing Coordinator of the high school. He shared his over 20-year experience with coaching, administration, and ski racing. He mentioned the high school ski racing program he was involved with had been active since 1974, and he expressed pride in that. He noted there were many community alumni and residents who were involved in ski racing and had fond memories of improving their skiing. Mr. Weible shared he began using Sky Tavern’s resort during the previous year, and he experienced a limited amount of time on the weekends at Mount Rose. He spoke positively about his experience with Sky Tavern. He indicated that 24 of the best athletes in the program competed in regionals at Mammoth Mountain each year and commented that the athletes while performing decently well, could improve with more training time that was currently unavailable. Mr. Weible believed the athletes’ performance and safety could improve with more time practicing on the mountain. He noted there were several alumni in the community. He outlined the challenges, including that students were released from school at 2:30 p.m. every day for most high schools in the area. He was in favor of keeping children in school. Mr. Weible pointed out that the transportation time to Sky Tavern could take up to an hour for students of such schools as Spanish Springs and North Valleys High Schools, leaving limited time before it got dark outside. He said with the installation of lights and the ability to ski later, students could train for two to three hours to improve their skills and experience. He informed there were a couple of schools that allowed the students to travel to Sky Tavern, so professional drivers who knew how to drive in snow transported students, and he commented that there was no problem to report.
Robison Engineering Company, Inc. President and Environmental Engineer Julianne Zotter introduced herself as one of the engineers who worked with Sky Tavern long term. She addressed inconsistencies referenced during the meeting. She referenced the concerns regarding the lighting and clarified the skiing lights that would be used were dissimilar from a car headlight in that they were aimed downward toward the snow in order to illuminate the snow. She affirmed the snow would reflect the light somewhat and emit a glow, but it was not the same as a point source, such as a traffic light on the mountain. Furthermore, the lights would have shields on them. Ms. Zotter stated the purpose of the lights was to provide much more light on the snow. She informed Robison Engineering Company, Inc. completed a profile analysis of the viewshed from the homeowners’ perspective to the lighting that was proposed, and she offered to provide proof that the homeowners would not see the lights based on the typography. She assured the developers were in possession of a letter of support from the Arrowcreek Homeowners Association
(HOA) and remarked that the issue of the views from the valley did not seem to be as significant a concern as some comments suggested. Ms. Zotter referenced Ms. Broili Kamesch’s public comment and confirmed the County denied the proposal for the lights in the initial application for the SUP. She clarified the point of the BOA meeting was to obtain approval for the lights, which was the outcome of the meeting. She said it was not necessary to point out and question how many items were denied and approved in the course of a project. She supported the project and did not believe lighting pollution was as significant a concern as some individuals were suggesting. She added there was no need to use the lights during the summer because the sun was out until 9:00 p.m. in July. Ms. Zotter believed that 9:00 p.m. allowed for plenty of darkness throughout the night.
Ms. Mybritt Malbec indicated she lived on Sky Tavern Road, which she described as a small dirt road behind the lodge. She stated there were 10 houses in the area she resided in, and seven homes shared a spring a few miles above Sky Tavern Road. She said her main concern was that a hydrological survey was not completed on how the snowmaking and the two wells would impact the drinking water supply. She noted the importance of the water to the area’s residents. She mentioned four of the homes on Sky Tavern Road had access to wells, but those residents were also concerned. Ms. Malbec said all the homes on Sky Tavern Road faced the ski hill, so she did not believe the residents would be unaffected by the lights. She stated the residents in that area were able to view the ski hill from their kitchen windows. She expressed discontent about the project.
Mr. Michael Chapman stated he was a member of the MRBPOWC and described it as being more of an HOA. He shared similar concerns with Ms. Malbec regarding the water supply. He noted the water supply was fed by a natural spring that was expected to last approximately 50 years; however, it surpassed that. Mr. Chapman expressed concern about the potential negative outcomes of adding a couple million gallons of water storage. He believed the residents should retain some benefits from the project, such as being able to ski at night, since they were forced to deal with the consequences resulting from the project.
County Clerk Jan Galassini advised the Board she received emailed public comments which were placed on file.
Chair Hill acknowledged Sky Tavern's concern regarding the MRBPOWC's standing in the matter. Nevertheless, she perceived that aspect as a cooperative effort among neighbors utilizing the water company as the appellant. She was amenable to granting the MRBPOWC standing.
Commissioner Andriola was not opposed to considering the MRBPOWC’s standing in the Commissioners’ discussion and mentioned that the MRBPOWC was described as somewhat of an HOA.
Commissioner Garcia asked Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) Mary Kandaras’s legal opinion related to the MRBPOWC’s standing in the matter. CDDA Kandaras stated the Commissioners could consider the issue of standing and determine
whether that would be dispositive in deciding if the appellant had the right to appeal the BOA’s decision. Because the MRBPOWC was not given a chance to discuss the matter, the Board might be required to revisit the matter so the MRBPOWC members could be allowed the opportunity to explain why they had an injury or met the standing requirements. CDDA Kandaras recommended advancing on the merits because all relevant parties were present and had the opportunity to address the merits. She added the Commissioners could ask the MRBPOWC members to return to a Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting and address standing, which she would want them to be able to prepare for.
Commissioner Clark indicated his concern was also related to CDDA’s
legal opinion.
Commissioner Andriola requested clarification regarding whether one of the slides referenced during Ms. Oakley’s presentation demonstrated a single light or all the proposed lights. Ms. Oakley responded that the image on the left was a photograph taken of one of the lights, and the image on the right was a photometric rendering showing the appearance of all the lights.
Commissioner Andriola shared her experience skiing at night, and she recognized the need for the lights to point down in order to see the snow. She asked if there were any concerns related to the water supply issue, and Ms. Oakley indicated that topic was discussed at length during the BOA meeting. Additionally, the BOA considered that concern and made its decision.
Referencing Ms. Oakley’s response to Commissioner Andriola, CDDA Kandaras stated the issue regarding the water supply was not being deliberated on and requested the Commissioners to stay on the topic of the agenda item.
Commissioner Andriola thanked Ms. Oakley for her work.
Commissioner Garcia commended the MRBPOWC for providing creative possible solutions and commented that the Board did not normally experience that. She also appreciated everyone who attended the meeting to share their perspectives and opinions. She understood the subject location was an asset for the community and the decisions related to such matters were difficult. She supported the BOA’s decision to approve the SUP and indicated she could make all five findings. Commissioner Garcia expressed appreciation for the time restriction imposed by the BOA and thought it showed concession. She encouraged Sky Tavern to continue working well with the neighbors and neighborhoods to consider incentives, programs, or packages that could be offered.
Commissioner Garcia moved to affirm the BOA’s decision to approve the SUP based on the ability to make all the findings required by WCC Section 110.810.30. Commissioner Andriola seconded the motion.
Commissioner Garcia mentioned her children visited Sky Tavern; however, she would still be voting on the agenda item.
On motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Agenda Item 16 be affirmed based on the ability to make all the findings required by Washoe County Code Section 110.810.30.
Chair Hill opened the public hearing.
County Clerk Jan Galassini, read the title for Ordinance No. 1722, Bill No.
1912.
On the call for public comment, Mr. Drew Ribar stated he was a candidate for Nevada (NV) State Assembly District 40. Based on his review of the ordinance, he concluded that the County aimed to simplify the process of increasing fees. He referenced the definition of fees as indicated in Article 4, Section 18 of the NV Constitution, which stated fees were a tax. He commented that the NV Constitution made raising taxes difficult, including requirements for a two-thirds majority in the State Assembly and Senate as well as the governor’s signature. Mr. Ribar spoke in opposition to simplifying the process for fee increases and did not believe a change should be approved. He was opposed to all the fees he observed that were continuously added by the government during his lifetime. He acknowledged costs were increasing, which negatively impacted the ability to balance budgets and participate in activities. Mr. Ribar said the point was to make it difficult to spend the public’s money or collect fees from the public. He noted the referenced fees were related to supervision and commented that most of the population that the ordinance was relevant to were not employed. He assumed most of them were released from custody or involved in a program. He advised the Board to be cautious with the authority it relinquished and encouraged the Board to vote in opposition to the ordinance so the County could maintain its current process.
On motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Andriola, which motion duly carried on a 3-2 vote with Vice Chair Herman and Commissioner Clark voting no, it was ordered that Ordinance No. 1722, Bill No. 1912, be adopted, approved, and published in accordance with NRS 244.100.
If supported, adopt and enact the new ordinance by title. Finance. (All Commission Districts.)
Chair Hill opened the public hearing.
County Clerk Jan Galassini, read the title for Ordinance No. 1723, Bill No.
1913.
Office of the City Manager Internal Audit Manager Katelyn Kleidosty indicated that a presentation on the agenda item was prepared for the last staff meeting, but it was not advanced. She offered to respond to any of the Commissioners’ questions and indicated that the redlined copy of the ordinance with all the changes Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Nathan Edwards previously noted was available in the agenda support materials.
Vice Chair Herman asked Ms. Kleidosty if she believed the proposed ordinance was complete, and the Board would not need to amend it. She also asked about the difficulty of changing the ordinance in the event it did not work as intended. Ms. Kleidosty responded that there should not be any additional amendments at this point and noted it would be effective 10 days after being voted on.
Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) Mary Kandaras clarified Vice Chair Herman’s question and requested an overview of the changes made to the ordinance. Ms. Kleidosty highlighted the main amendments that were suggested. She indicated they included defining independent external auditors, transferring the responsibility to hire the external auditor from the Office of the County Manager to the Comptroller’s Department, and establishing a minimum requirement of financial experience to serve on the Audit Committee (AC). She indicated the final change she mentioned was added because of the
nature of what was viewed by the AC, as it required expertise. An item that ADA Edwards mentioned was included in the proposed ordinance. Ms. Kleidosty revealed the titles of a chair and a vice chair were outlined in the ordinance. She noted the amendment assigning the internal auditor with the responsibility to retain the staff’s work documents for three years instead of indefinitely. She clarified the audit reports were stored permanently at the Clerk’s Office for the permanent record because they were supplied to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). She stated the final key change was requiring the independent external auditors’ reports to be reviewed by the AC on at least an annual basis. Ms. Kleidosty assured she could pursue changing aspects of the ordinance that were ineffective.
In response to Vice Chair Herman’s question regarding whether Ms. Kleidosty believed the proposed ordinance would be useful in many ways that would improve the AC’s efforts, Ms. Kleidosty responded in the affirmative and indicated it formalized the AC.
Ms. Kleidosty mentioned the proposed ordinance would change the audit schedule from a three-year plan to a one-year plan. She said that would also help the staff with their ability to respond to risks in emerging issues somewhat quicker. She added the ordinance established new guidelines. She explained the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) governed the Internal Audit Division and instituted new standards that were effective in 2024 and progressing into the succeeding year.
On the call for public comment, Mr. Drew Ribar commented that government accountability was one of the reasons why he was running for Nevada (NV) State Assembly. He was in favor of some of the items that were discussed. He expressed concern about the change in records retention from indefinitely and questioned the County's rationale for disposing of records after three years, especially those concerning money. Mr. Ribar believed the County should keep the records. He stated his primary objections to the ordinance were related to records retention, public accountability, and public assessability. He requested that the ordinance be amended to prevent records from being discarded so government accountability and transparency to the public were upheld. He thanked the Board.
Commissioner Andriola indicated the records were contained in the minutes, which were indefinite, so they could be available to the public at any time.
On motion by Commissioner Andriola, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, which motion duly carried on a 5-0 vote, it was ordered that Ordinance No. 1723, Bill No. 1913, be adopted, approved, and published in accordance with NRS 244.100.
Addressing the elections, Ms. Janet Butcher commented that the matter was embarrassing and thought the Board would be embarrassed. She said there was no excuse for more than one ballot to be sent out, for receiving the sample ballot three to four days after receiving the official ballot, or for receiving the official ballot two days before early
voting started. She questioned if the training was sufficient, as there was at least one person who was removed from a poll worker position at a site because of a possible error. Ms. Butcher spoke to several people who were trained and stated the voting process changed for each voting period without correcting it. She asked if the County could correct the current process if it could not convert to a simpler system. Ms. Butcher referenced a comment about keeping up with the community's growth and indicated the County was trying to catch up with the growth. She requested that the County defer construction until the necessary infrastructure was established. She shared she lived in the Pyramid area and talked about the issues that resulted from the construction of apartments there. Ms. Butcher said apartments were built on Eagle Canyon Road, including a four-story building, which was located in a semi-rural area.
Ms. Penny Brock referenced Ms. Kimberly Koschmann’s public comment from Agenda Item 3. She expressed consternation regarding the Commissioners’ decision during Agenda Item 10, as the female Commissioners could have chosen to table the item in support of Ms. Koschmann. She stated one man on the dais supported Ms. Koschmann. She said the incident would be covered by news outlets throughout the valley. Ms. Brock divulged she obtained a copy of Ms. Koschmann’s report. She questioned the outcome of constituents’ votes for the Commissioners who were running for reelection once the news was released that the women on the dais did not support Ms. Koschmann. She added the Commissioners she was referring to needed the women’s votes. She mentioned an individual formerly affiliated with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was standing with Ms. Koschmann. She asked if the Commissioners believed they would be contacted by the ACLU and wondered how the domestic violence nonprofits would respond to the matter. Ms. Brock pointed out some of the individuals at the dais were strong women’s rights advocates and opined women’s rights were set back by the Commissioners. She asked if the Commissioners understood how difficult it was for Ms. Koschmann to speak on the matter and said she did not receive any sympathy. Ms. Brock asserted the Board did not need to approve Agenda Item 10 and questioned the message that was sent to individuals who experienced domestic violence based on the Board’s action. She remarked that the Commissioners sent a message to the homeless encampments and the Cares Campus indicating domestic violence was acceptable in those environments. She speculated something improper was taking place. She pointed out the Commissioners did not direct an investigation.
County Clerk Jan Galassini advised the Board she received emailed public comments which were placed on file.
Vice Chair Herman pled for the County to try to make the election as honest as possible considering the obstacles.
Commissioner Clark requested that an item be placed on the agenda regarding a future direction to the Registrar of Voters (ROV) Office to provide drafts of the ballots to be proofread by the candidates running for public office. He mentioned
previous examples of the ballots had inaccurate or missing information. He noted the County could avoid embarrassment and save tax dollars by having the information on the ballots reviewed. Comn1issioner Clark said no one affiliated with the County should be embarrassed by the inatter, and this was why documents were proofread.
* * * * * * * * * * *
ATTEST:
Washoe County Commission