Clark County Redevelopment Agency - Regular Meeting

Good morning. We're gonna get started with the meeting of the redevelopment agency. I'll turn it over to manager Schiller.

Good morning, commissioners. Your first item is public comment.

This is the first time set aside for public comment. Anyone wishing to provide public comment with regards to any matters on today's redevelopment agency agenda, please step forward to the microphone and please limit your comments to three minutes. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the first public oh, did you want to provide public Okay, please identify the matter on which you want to provide public comment.

Morning, commissioners. Monica Gresser, Brazen Architecture 900 Liberace Suite C 111, New Orleans Square. Talk I'm speaking today about item five to rehabilitate New Orleans Square. Asking you to vote to rehabilitate it, not to demolish it. It brings a lot of community or at least it used to bring a lot of community to commercial center.

And once we start putting people back renovating renovating the building and then bringing people back into the building, we'll bring that community back again that we used to have. There used to be a lot of events. My friend and neighbor, William Powell, who is now in he's in Building B. He used to host a lot of events there. He brings in, people from the local community and tourists.

He would have, whodunnits, mystery scavenger hunts, and wrestling events in New Orleans Square. Would have Sin City Sisters would also have events in New Orleans Square. So it was a you know, it was a lot of activity. There were what do you call those things? Like little fairs in the courtyard area.

So a lot of things used to happen there, and those things can happen again, but we don't have the, tenants we used to have. They've all left since there's been so much up in the air about the future of New Orleans Square. And if we renovate and rehabilitate New Orleans Square, then we bring more people in, and we can contribute to more of the activities that happen in all of commercial center. So I'm asking you to vote to rehabilitate New Orleans Square and let's use that for small business and the community. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to provide public comment? Okay. If there's anybody else that wants to provide public comment, please step forward to lineup.

Sean Grooms. I am a resident at 3335 Hawk Street. I have tavern owner at 501 East Twain. We're very close friends with the Sin City Sisters. We support them fully. I ask that you guys vote to rehabilitate New Orleans Square. I've I've had a lot of personal history in Commercial Center, you know, all the all the different businesses that have been there as part of the LGBT community. And I think that knocking it down, we're gonna end up with a dirt lot for a couple decades. And I don't think that's gonna help the community. I don't think that's gonna bring anything back to the Commercial Center as a whole.

Think it'll have a very negative impact. So I ask you to vote to rehabilitate it and get the community back in there and bring it back to life. I don't think it's going to get replaced easily. Thumbs it up. Thank you.

Next speaker please.

Good morning commissioners. My name is Paula Sadler and my address is 900 Liberace Avenue Suite A 202 Lambda Alano 12 Step Recovery Clubhouse and 953 East Sahara Avenue Suite A 20 Suite E 11 A, a Harmony Nail Spa. I've been connected with commercial centers since I was 16 years old. I attended beauty school there, attended my first twelve step meetings there, opened a Harmony Nails Spa over twenty two years ago, founded the Commercial Center Business Association in 2006, and today serve as president of the Association and Historic Society, and also president of Lambda A lotto twelve Step Recovery Clubhouse, which has been serving Las Vegas since 1984 and in Commercial Center for over thirty years. I have been a part of the neighborhood for more than three decades myself, and my greatest concern today is not politics, it's people.

I support the full rehabilitation and preservation of the New Orleans Square and the continued preservation of the historic character of Commercial Center. The viability of New Orleans Square and Commercial Center has already been proven. Looking at Building H, just across the way fully occupied under good ownership and management. Only a few years ago, the county owned New Orleans Square buildings were also vibrant, highly occupied and thriving under the late Ron McMenemy, who invested heavily into improvements and brought in a diverse mix of businesses, art studios, restaurants, retail and services. Commercial Center has also lost already historic buildings over a 100 businesses through years of redevelopment uncertainty.

We should be careful before creating additional vacant land without a clear long term plan. I understand the county must make a decision regarding item number five. But no matter what decision is made, the businesses and nonprofits at New Orleans Square should not be displaced without meaningful support. Many of these organizations have served Las Vegas for decades including nonprofits and recovery organizations, vulnerable serving vulnerable members of our community every day. Since 2023, substantial public funds have reportedly gone towards security, public events, infrastructure improvements benefiting only portions of commercial center.

Yet little has been publicly discussed regarding relocation assistance, moving costs, non profit transition support or tenant protections if displacement occurs. Redevelopment should not only focus on buildings and land, it must also focus on people. If relocation becomes necessary, there should be adequate notice, relocation assistance, business transition support, and protections for long standing community organizations that help build the neighborhood. I respectfully ask that you consider what is truly best, not only for the property, but for the businesses, nonprofits, residents, employees, and community members who still remain here today. I respectfully request that my comments today, along with any written materials, be submitted and be included in the official public record for agenda item number five. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Tracy Simon, and we own Get A Haircut Barbershop in New Orleans Square. When you look at a bit small business, it's easy to see just the brick and mortar, the sign on the door, or the numbers on a lease. But if you look a little closer, you'll see that those walls are held together by something much more fragile yet incredibly resilient, human sacrifice. Every single day for the past five and a half years in this location, we have poured our life, our savings, and our souls into that space. The success we built wasn't handed to us. It was earned with the blood, sweat, and tears, and the weekends missed with friends, and in the relentless drive to serve our community. We didn't just build a business here, we built a home and a lifeline. But today, the future of all that hard work rests entirely in your hands.

Your next decision is so much more than a standard business transaction. It is a turning point. It has the power to either honor the years of sweat and loyalty we poured into your property or to erase them with the stroke of a pen. Behind the door is a family, behind the success stories and many years of hard work. We're asking you to see the human being behind the tenant agreement.

Please choose to protect what we have built together. Let us continue to grow to succeed and to thrive right here where we belong. Thank you, JJ and Tracy. I'd also like to add that on April 29, my husband stopped breathing and almost died inside that business, And an ambulance had to revive him outside where they almost lost him, and yet he still wants to go back to work in that shop. So please, this is how important it is to us that my husband wants to go back after almost dying. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to provide public comment? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the firstselectcom period. I'll turn it back over to manager Schulder.

Commissioners, we can now move to the agenda section. Item two is approval of the minutes of the regular meeting on 02/18/2026.

I'll entertain a motion. There's a motion on the floor. All those in favor, please signify.

Alright. Motion carries. Commissioners, your next item is approval of the agenda with the inclusion of any emergency items and deletion of any items.

I'll entertain a motion. There is a motion from Commissioner Segerblom to approve the agenda. Please vote.

Motion carries. Moving on to your business section. Item four is review the current Clark County Redevelopment Agency fund balance and expected FY 2027 revenue.

Thank you, Director Coleman.

Good morning commissioners. This is a budget overview for the redevelopment agency. Current fund balance, we have roughly $52,000,000 this is actual cash in the bank. However, we do have current obligations and allocations already made of roughly $6,100,000 and when you take that into account, that brings our available cash balance down to approximately $46,000,000. We also have tentative estimates of revenue for fiscal year twenty seven.

You can see that we're looking to bring in an estimated $22,700,000 This also anticipates any interest that would be paid on those funds. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any comments or questions from the board? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and move on to the next agenda item.

Commissioners, I'll read items five and six into the record. These are gonna be taken as companion items. Item five is to approve the rehabilitation or demolition of 900 Liberace Avenue located on APN162-ten-five Ten-twenty 9 which consists of a 1.14 acre developed parcel with four two story retail office buildings containing a gross building square footage of 72,500 feet, authorized the Director of Operations to sign agreement and other related documents to facilitate and complete the full and restoration or demolition of the site improvements. Item six is to approve and authorize the Director of Operations to repair the Public Purpose Impact Analysis Report required by NRS 02/1986 in connection with a proposed project consisting of the construction installation of certain improvements to the Clark County owned parking lot at Commercial Center 953 East Sahara Avenue, APN 160 Two-ten-five Ten-one.

Thank you Mr. Manager. I have some thoughts, but I kind of want to get some input from the Board on this and honestly start with Agenda Item Number six. There has been discussion for quite some time now that Insomniac was interested in the improvements that have been requested with regards to the parking lot, but I am not aware at present if there is any specific agreement with Insomniac with regards to improvements of their own property or for use and expansion of the portion of the parking lot that would be in front of their property. So can I get a better understanding of where we are on any agreements with Insomniac or any other promoter or owner with regards to the proposed improvements to the parking lot?

I don't know if Commissioner Segerloom you wanna chime in or Ms. Coleman.

Yes. I would agree that we don't have anything in writing from them. They've verbally told me, I think they've told Maryland too, that they are committed to the event center and that's going to cost them probably about $20,000,000 to renovate that. But and they do want to work with us on the Southwest corner of the parking lot. But I don't think we have to make a decision right now because they're still as I said, they have not formally come up with their commitment to rehab the event center, although they have verbally told me, and I think Commissioner Kirkpatrick would vouch for that, that they plan to do that any day now.

Okay, Commissioner Kirpatrick.

Well, I'll just chime in. So, we did meet with them. Commissioner Sagerbloom, myself, the county manager, met with them and then we asked kind of what kind of things would you need in order to make your commitment to the $15,000,000 And last time I checked, we were still working on our side on what some adjustments that we could make or things that could be. So I think we're all still waiting to get back together to figure out exactly what that looks like. But they did and at one point, I believe they had pulled some building permits to start looking at that, is it an ice house that it used to be or something? It was some type of place.

It wasn't an ice house, it was an ice rink.

Ice rink.

And where the doors flayed.

Yeah, right. So I do know that I think we were still trying to work out some details. Details.

Okay, I feel like we've kicked the can down the road multiple times here. Ms. Coleman?

So we did receive a list from Insomniac that had a number of items on it. They prioritized priority one, priority two, priority three. We worked with our district attorney's office to identify which of those items, were in alignment understanding the current deed restriction. And there were four items that were identified. One being extension of the sidewalk, passenger vehicle drop off zone, lighting and restriping of the entire parking, upgrading of lighting and restriping of the parking lot.

We received an estimate from our real property management group for those four items for the entire parking lot, and that number is $19,900,000

Okay, and that's $19,900,000 without any kind of written agreement. That would be just, the request here today is to approve $19,900,000 without any

I kind of think maybe D. A. Rogan can jump in and clarify what this We wanted for you guys to have all of the information when considering this item, but D. A. Rogan can explain for you explicitly what this item calls for.

Thank you. Ms. Rogan. Thank you. Jeff Rogan, deputy district attorney. So we can, before you can authorize the expenditure of this money, there has to be some kind of report generated for the Board of County Commissioners to make certain findings that this is a worthwhile investment. Those are outlined in NRS 279.486. And so there generally are that the buildings or improvements are a benefit to the redevelopment area or the neighborhood and some other findings as well. So what your vote today would be just to begin that process, and then we would bring this back to a joint meeting of RDA Board and the Board of Accounting Commissioners for you to ultimately determine whether to make the expenditure of the $20,000,000

Alright. Anyone else want to speak publicly? Just

to clarify, this is $20,000,000 for the parking lot.

It's not even for the parking lot, it's a portion of the parking lot.

A portion of the parking lot.

Well there there are certain features like the extension of the sidewalk and the passenger pickup zone that are very specific to the Southwest quadrant. However, upgrading of lighting and re striping would be for the entire parking lot. So yes, it's $20,000,000 for those four items.

Which, could I ask this question? So I remember when Chris Chi was here, right? And so we barely maintain it, right, to keep it parking worthy. But I mean, this would be kind of an entire rehab of the parking lot as a whole, right? Because I think the parking lot, if I remember correctly with Christie, she had the Boy Scouts come out and paint it at one point, right? Lisa, you remember that?

Yes.

So I think that this would entire this would like be starting from scratch, right? You'd have to dig it up and put it back, which then for the long term commercial center could, for years, it would be a long time before you came back and did it.

I would want to defer to Real Property Management. They put the quote together to maybe tell us a little bit more about what that $19,000,000 entails. I know it's the restriping of the parking lot, but I don't know the details.

Thank you. Doctor. Bradley.

Hello. Shauna Bradley, director of property management. We did do an estimate for a rehab of the entire parking lot. It does include all new asphalt and lighting. A lot of concrete flat work goes into the $19,000,000.

Okay. But it's notwe looked at the request from Insomniac, the priorities identified by Insomniac, and what you put together is an estimate of the highlighted items, extension of sidewalk, passenger vehicle drop off zone, lighting, parking, restriping, not an estimate of every single thing that they've requested.

I don't know that we had a list of everything they requested. Gonna let John come forward to speak to that.

That is correct, yes. John Advent, Real Property Management. We concentrated our estimate on the things that were the top four, but the scope required that we made our way through the entire parking lot for paving, which is why you saw that number reach 20,000,000.

Just I point of think it's a really important point, I think you tried to make it. What's before us today on this item is not to allocate any dollar amount, but whether or not these potential improvements can be taken to the stakeholders, the tenants really, and ownership groups that are impacted. Is that right? Because I am not at a place where I'm willing to allocate those dollars right now without a whole lot more

in terms of commitments. Right, part of, Jeff Rogan, Deputy District Attorney, part of the consideration that you'll have to make when you, if you authorize to begin this process, we have to come back. You have to make findings that the expenditure is worthwhile under the statute. And one of the things that you can take into consideration is neighborhood comments about that. So part of our examination about whether this is an investment that you should undertake would include reaching out to those neighbors.

Additionally, as has been mentioned, there is a restrictive covenant on this parking lot, so we would have to discuss the continuation of that restrictive covenant or discontinuation of that restrictive covenant with those neighbors. Because technically, legally, all that we are allowed to do with that parking lot is provide for parking and walkways. So if we were providing for events, that would be technically something we would need to revisit.

So that seems pretty logical to me as a point to move forward on that does no harm. But I'll leave it

there. Christian McCurdy.

Yeah, as you indicated Mr. Chair, we've been talking about this for quite some time. A few years now. And I think this would allow for the ability to move forward with getting us something back that we will be able to thoroughly analyze based upon the information that you've been getting.

Very good. So do you want to go ahead and take a vote on six and then we'll go back to five?

You should take the vote separately, yes.

Okay. Alright, on agenda item number six, I do want to just bring up also, we've had these discussions, Mr. Rogan and Commissioner Segerloom, spending $20,000,000 or frankly any dollars on the parking lot without a serious change to the restricted covenants is pointless and not a good use of taxpayer funds, plain and simple. So I know that you've already started that process and we're sort of going through what it would take to make that happen. I will make a motion to move to approve agenda item number six with the understanding that the redevelopment agency along with the district attorney will engage in direct negotiations discussions with all of the other property owners to release the restricted covenants that go along with that parking lot.

How long do we think that that will, sorry, Before we vote on that, what amount of time do we need in order to bring this back to the board? Because again, we need to move forward with things and not be kicking the can down the road.

With the assistance of D. A. Rogen, we've already started looking at what some of those documents could be. And so, I don't know, Jeff.

So the issue is there's a number of property owners that we would have to what this looks like. So I don't know how long this will take. I think some may be ready to have a discussion and willing to engage in that. Others may not be. So we could have, we could continue to keep you informed about the progress of those discussions, but I can't honestly give you an estimate of how long

this So would can I just make a suggestion? Because I do think that, and I don't even like redevelopment, so I can't believe I stayed for this meeting. But I do, so can I just make a suggestion? People do got to say yes or no sooner rather than later for the budget as a whole on what the expectation is for it. Think and Commissioner Sagerbloom, know you've had a couple of meetings with people, with groups already, but I think ninety days if you get people in a room and you say, okay, and you go back to not only Insomniac, but all the other people there to say, are you even interested in this?

Because if we can't get 75 plus percentage to start with, then we should drop it and do something totally different, right? I think ninety days, that's the end of summer. I do think that if people really want it, they're gonna step up, and we have to get 100%. So that's work on Commissioner Sagerbloom do, but I do think we have to set a hard date. I do think these folks keep coming out every time wanting to know what their future is, and I do think that they know people, that ninety days seems more than reasonable.

It doesn't mean that we're gonna finish the process. Just don't get panicked about legal descriptions and all that other stuff, but at least we're going to have them it's no different than when I do an SID in my district. You're just gonna agree to this. Right? And we'll get you the paperwork later so that we as a board can make educated decisions. I think ninety days is more than sufficient myself.

And people talking to people, everybody's ready to go. We just need some something legal. There's not be the perfect document, but some draft of what they would have been asked to sign and an explanation for what it would be.

Mr. Rogan. Thank you, Chair. Jeff Rogan, Deputy District Attorney. I completely understand Commissioner Kirkpatrick and I can work to make that happen. I just want to clarify that you said 75% would have to

do I know it's 100, but I'm just saying not everybody's gonna make every meeting, you gotta start with a bulk. 100% is needed, I get it.

Truthfully, if it's not 100%, if one of the property owners wants to sue us, so be it.

Let's not invite lawsuits, commissioner. Well, Mr.

Schiller

We can't let one one of the problems has been in the commercial center is some property owner says no and everybody says, oh, we can't do anything. The truth is we can do something. We have majority of people here already that own the property. So, we're ready

to go. Understood. Schiller.

I just wanted to add for some context. The meeting and my conversations with Insomniac, to Mr. Rogan's point, the issue of the parking lot in relationship to the plans. Them coming in as a private entity to invest in the event center is really a key investment. Part of the dialogue just to connect the parking lot to it is the deed restriction tied to how they utilize the parking lot both for attendance at those events and also outside activities. So I think that's why you're seeing kind of some of the detail coming forward related to that. A little bit of the cart before the horse with the dollar so I agree with that but I just wanted to give context to kind of the overall plan when I've met with insomnia.

I say

one thing? Yes sorry, question mark.

Wouldn't it make more sense to vote on number five before number six?

I would say no because it is a much more complicated discussion.

But if there's a vote to demolish it, why would we vote to do an analysis report?

Because the parking lot's a separate issue. It's different building. Building.

It's still a get, it is still an issue that could be seen together and it makes a big difference on how we handle number five.

I respectfully disagree. There's a motion on the floor for approval Director of Operations to prepare the Public Purpose Impact Analysis Report and bring back an agenda item within ninety days and direction of the District Attorney to move forward with direct negotiations with other property owners Moving back to agenda number five. So I have walked around New Orleans Square multiple times, including last Friday. I've talked to tenants. I respect all of those that have come to this meeting and many, many before.

I don't get the nostalgia for the shopping center myself. I truly don't. I have talked to developers who have a more nostalgic view of commercial center and downtown and other areas, and I don't pretend to understand the nostalgia for New Orleans Square. That said, in talking to Director Bradley and Mr. Advent, it is a more complicated process to simply demolish New Orleans Square than I understood.

And so would like Director Bradley, mister Advent to come just remind us exactly of the additional challenges that come along with demolition that are different than the other building.

Again, Shana Bradley, director of real property management. The demolition that we have provided an estimate for, the difference between the demo of this building and the building that we just demolished is that this has a shared property wall with an ex a building that we do not own and a fire exit stairwell that we would also have to replace. It's not just coming forward to demo one building.

What are the additional costs associated with having to rebuild the fire staircases and other amenities?

Looking for specific costs or just kind of general?

Generalized,

yeah. So I mean obviously there would be additional engineering going for that building that we would have to basically create access for them. I believe that we are also their elevator access so we would have to create that 2nd Floor. So we need to do some improvements to properties in order to make it accessible.

Okay.

I know that some of the tenants have raised and I've raised before the concept of relocation. I think that probably should have happened before now. But Ms. Coleman, can you chime in on whether there's been efforts to try and relocate tenants within Commercial Center or outside of Commercial Center, regardless of what we do today, whether it's renovation or demolition, can't stay in the spot during renovation, so there's gonna be a need to vacate the place.

Right, we have discussed the possibility, Clark County, the redevelopment agency nor Clark County own any additional space in Commercial Center. And so we've had a variety of discussions regarding helping folks relocate or helping them find others. We've had conversations about putting together potential relocation packages where we provide a cash amount to compensate potential tenants that gives them the opportunity to relocate on their own. We were waiting for the board to make a decision one way or the other so we know. The concept of rehabilitation provides an opportunity once the building is complete for maybe potential tenants to come back and in a relocation situation may look different versus if there is a decision to demolish the building where there wouldn't be any future opportunity for tenants to come back.

And so that decision could change what and how we address the tenants moving forward.

Okay. Mr. Chair. And Ms. Gibson.

How many tenants are we talking about?

Currently right now we have 10 tenants.

And what percentage of occupied the buildings are occupied?

Well, the built let's see. I don't have the percentage, but it's a small amount. So of the leases that we currently have, we have 2,200 square feet, 2,200 square feet, seven fifty square feet, 2,200 square feet. We have one unit that's 800 square feet, 1,100 square feet, 1,100 square feet. The building's roughly 73,000 square feet.

10,000 square feet. May

I ask a question? So we do tentative improvements all the time ourselves. Because I'm looking at your budget, I'm looking at just two items that we've talked about, and I don't see how we could do all of it at once regardless, let alone the other redevelopment agencies that we've done. But when we

do

tentative improvements, I've seen us do things like put everybody on the 1st Floor, and then we do the 2nd And 3rd Floor, and then we move them. I mean, would be a little inconvenient, but I got to believe that if you've been there for thirty years, you're probably not interested in moving somewhere else because you likely would have already done that. Is that not options that we could do, Shauna and John? Or I mean, I feel like we gotta know what we're getting into on top of it, right? And so you gotta start on one floor to figure out what you might see in the walls or when you bring things up to coat.

Could I just, because as you answer, I'd like you to consider one other thing. Do we know whether or not there's asbestos in this building, and if there were, are you able to do a floor with occupied space above or below it if there's asbestos there?

Management. I'll I'll start with, we have not RPM has not had the opportunity to go in and do testing to determine what type of materials are in the building, so we do not know that yet. We did create this estimate. Our recommendation, if you did move forward, would be to vacate the building and do all of the tenant improvements because we have to install fire sprinkler lines. There's no fire sprinkler protection in the building currently. So in order for us to bring it up to code and give you vanilla shell, we would need to bring in fire lines, and that would be difficult construction to do in an occupied building.

I haven't been I have to admit, I've I've felt that the complexity of all of this would would militate a demolition as opposed to a a, you know, fix up. But I I'm willing to consider that. It's just that I don't think we know enough yet. I mean, we're talking about making a commitment the way this item is written. We make a commitment to demolish it or not.

If we decide not to demolish it, then we've made a commitment to fix it. And I think the thing that we need to do first, we can probably go in there without blowing the building up and without hurting anyone and do an investigation to determine whether or not there are things that would need to be remediated that would blow the price of this thing up. Because I think that the if there is if there really is a a, for instance, an asbestos issue, at least we wanna know what we've committed ourselves to. And I don't think we can do that unless we know that there is a contamination that needs to be addressed.

I I would agree. We were asked if we could a 100% hold to that number, and without a feasibility study, we could not.

Commissioner Naft? I

agree with that comment, but I also think in tandem we owe it to our tenants now to be honest about what the future looks like for that building. And I what I've heard today and in lots of prior discussions is there isn't a way to feasibly modernize and bring that building up to code without emptying the building. And so why we would not start on a tenant relocation program, I don't understand. I think we ought to because I don't see a scenario that we don't get to that end regardless.

So a question for Mr. Rogan, because it's not technically on the agenda for today. Can we authorize a program today or give direction for a program today for tenant relocation and enable RPM to go in and do testing so that we can have a more honest discussion about this?

Jeff Rogan, Deputy District Attorney. I you can direct staff to do that. That's not really an action item.

Alright. Ms. Coleman, is that That was it? Okay. Alright. Commissioner Segalin?

Can I just add, the truth is this is 70,000 square feet? If it comes in anywhere close to the $15,000,000 and I'll throw my $5,000,000 in there, you're getting a bargain. The building itself, once it's done, is gonna be worth 55,000,000 to $60,000,000 So there's a real purpose to doing this rehab if we can do it. I agree that we want to make sure that there is no asbestos or something that is uncertain, but they've done an investigation and come back with around $15,000,000 So, I do think it's important to consider what we'd end up with if we do rehab it. And also, if we tear it down, you're gonna have a hole between those buildings.

Commercial center, we spent the last several years actually getting it back into shape and we're already there. We're we're lowest as I am just opened. We're we're making progress. The the center building's all all leased. Most of the other stores are leased.

I mean, we've made tremendous progress and to tear this out without realizing what we're gonna end up with, which is a space for ten years, is is really gonna hurt everybody in this in the New Orleans Square. Not just the people in the building, but everybody in commercial center. So I think if we could make a motion to let them do further investigation, we can start the process to see how we would move people if we wanna move people. But I just I I just wanna reiterate the fact that keeping this building, in my opinion, is critical to commercial center to the extent we can do it and it could end up being a bargain if we have 70,000 square feet for 15 to $20,000,000.

Well, I might, mister chair, respect that. I respect that. I think the concern right now for me is, I think clearly as Commissioner NAFTA said, we're gonna have to move people out anyway. So we need to get after that, get a program going, and figure out exactly what it's gonna take to do that and then execute on that plan. I mean we're gonna do something. The only concern I have is that if for instance you've persuaded me that we need to rehab it as opposed to demolish it, then I think we need to do the investigation before we authorize it so that we know what we're committing ourselves to. That's all

I'm saying. And I I totally agree with that.

Okay.

But, you know, if there's asbestos demolishing, it's gonna cost a fortune too.

Yeah, I get that.

And I do wanna clarify, Commissioner Sayer Bloom, I know you and I had this discussion. I had a follow-up discussion with Director Bradley and Mr. Advant about your statement that this building is going be worth 55,000,000 to $60,000,000 after the fact. I asked that question to them. I position, I don't think they've taken on that responsibility to project what this building might be worth post renovation, but if I'm wrong, please correct me.

I believe that, again, Shana Bradley, Real Property Management, that number is based on an estimate to rebuild a from scratch that spot.

Right, so that would be the replacement cost of tearing it down and building a new building, which is a very different proposition for if we do the renovations, it will be worth in the marketplace $55,000,000 So think sort of getting back to some of the comments from the current tenants, 100% understand where you guys believe that we should spend 20,000,000 to $40,000,000 of taxpayer funds into this property. If you were the property owner and you spent that kind of money of that would be to substantially increase your rents in order to recoup that investment. So I think that we as the property owners who will then have to rent this building out in the future or sell it to somebody else who would then rent understand better what are we really buying for $15,000,000 if that's actually the number that we're going to spend on this. Because we can't just rely on some replacement cost value, we need to really understand in the marketplace what are we buying for $15,000,000 to make a cogent evaluation of it. So I would say as part of this discussion today, where I don't think we're really voting on five, rather giving direction, we need to have an expert in the real estate field tell us if we do these renovations, what are we really buying for that after the fact?

And that's going to be projections of what the lease rates are, and quite frankly those lease rates might well be higher than what you guys are willing to pay. That's the complaint that I know Downtown Las Vegas is getting from Ferguson's and a lot of the East Fremont Street area, is the City of Las Vegas renovations in that area, and now the lease rates are too high for exactly the type of tenants that are in New Orleans Square right now. So I think we need to have that information to make a realistic evaluation of whether the investment is worthwhile of taxpayer dollars. Mr. McCurdy?

Thank you Mr. Chair. What we're not going to do today is have action on item five. Item six has already been taken care of, which us for further interrogation of what's to come. But also, the direction will be for staff to go ahead and take an evaluation, see if there is any asbestos in the building, come back to us after you also speaking to an appraiser to see what, you know, the possibilities are on this on this site. And once we have that information, we'll come back and possibly take action on demolition or rehabilitation.

Think that's your understanding Ms. Coleman and Director, I'm sorry.

Along with putting together potential relocation option, package options that would address either or demolition or rehabilitation of the building? Because they would be different. So we would put together two and depending what option the board chose to go with that you would have a relocation package to reflect that.

Commissioner Becker?

Yeah, just for legal, what are the implications if it's determined that asbestos is in the building? Because the demolition changes and a rehab would change as well. And personally I've had to deal with this with Clark County charges with there wasn't even asbestos present and I had to deal with it. And the threat was hundreds of thousands of dollars. So I'm just curious what would happen if this comes back with asbestos. How are we going to go forward then?

Jeff Rogan, deputy district attorney commissioner Becker. To to your question, I don't know any legal implications. I think that RPM would have certainly implications for how they conduct either the demolition or rehabilitation. Obviously they have to remove the asbestos before they can and that's a cost. But I know of no legal claims or legal issues that would arise simply because of the presence of asbestos in the building.

Ms. Kramer?

Commissioners, in addition to the testing that you've directed RPM to do, I would ask that it include a full feasibility analysis of the facility, all the mechanical systems and kind of the entire realm and scope of work of what we typically do when we buy purchased property. But in addition, they are gonna need funding to conduct that analysis, so I don't know if part of the record can include an allocation to perform that task.

And if we need to bring back on a more expedited basis an allocation of redevelopment funds at our next board meeting, then I think we can work on that. Ms. Riley, Director Riley, did you have another comment? Just

to address the asbestos question, I just wanted to let you know that the building that we just demoed at Commercial Center did have asbestos. It just changes the way that we go about the demolition.

Thank you.

What if so what if what are we talking about the difference in cost for rehabbing something with asbestos?

We would be able to better that question after feasibility if we found that there were asbestos in the building. It would depend on where it is located, whether or not it was going to be friable or something that could be impacted.

And the building right next door did have it. They were built, I believe, 1975.

Don't have it. Cabby Corner.

Can I ask this question, where was asbestos in the other building? A lot of times the linoleum is where it is. I mean, that's what I find in my manufactured home parking lot. So a lot of times it was the flooring and not necessarily the walls. I mean, maybe you could just share with us what the findings were from the last demo.

We don't have that information with us today, Commissioner, but we would be happy to get it back to the board meeting.

No, I just think that it would help everybody to kind of know so then we can have all the facts and figures before we go forward.

Very good. Commissioner Gibson?

Timing's critical here. So how long do you need to find someone, get a number, bring it back, and then have a have a study conducted? How much time are we talking about?

Gonna let Jon Advan answer that.

Yeah. Comfortable with about six months to get that done.

Six months. Well, maybe you could come back in

I'd say be prepared at the ninety day timeframe that we're all going be coming back to give us an update, even that's obviously not going to be the full scope of things.

But

yeah, think this thing's been kicked down the road so many times, we're trying to move forward and we'd love to get it moving, at least have answers back sooner rather than later. All right, any other direction from the board relating to agenda number five? All right, with that I'll go back to Commander Schiller.

Commissioner Schiller. Next item is to approve and purchase nine adjacent and semi contiguous parcels comprising of 2.76 acres of vacant land. Assessors parcels numbers 161Dash27Dash 2120 to 2008, 1600 to 14, and 160 fund the purchase price of $2,405 and $10,000 for closing costs, ratify the appraisal performed by Matthew's appraisal and authorize the Director of Operations to sign escrow documents and any other related documents to complete transaction.

Commissioner Gibson?

These are the parcels that we've been working on that lie between Clark And Boulder Highway and Missouri on the North End. These are parcels that we've worked with the owner on. There are plenty of opportunities I think for different development, but not if we don't take the whole all of this land. There's also I don't know that anything is ongoing now, but Public Works is taking a look at the alignment of Stephanie there because this is a really messed up area. You come in to you come along on Stephanie from Russell Road, then the the Stephanie kind of curls to the west a little bit, and you end up at a 90 degree angle coming into Missouri, which then intersects with, at the intersection of Boulder Highway.

And then when you cross, you just came off of Missouri, you go right straight across and there's a really straight road that is Stephanie again. So we can't do that unless we own this property, and we we need to look at a way to reconfigure that intersection if it works. So I I think this is a worthwhile investment. I'd move approval of, the purchase of these parcels.

Any other comments or questions from the board? If not, go ahead and vote. Motion carries. Manager Schiller?

That concludes your agenda.

This is the second time set aside for public comment. Anyone wishing to provide public comment with regards to matters before the Clark County Redevelopment Agency, please step forward to the microphone, state your name, and please limit your comments to three minutes.

Sorry, Sean Grooms. I actually sent an email over to Commissioner Segerbroom's office. I think maybe there for item five, I think maybe there might be other options even to explore here. One thing I suggested was possible commercial subdivision. If you guys can find a way to sell off New Orleans Square piecemeal instead of redeveloping it yourselves, it would invite the sorry, invite the community to personally invest in the building and perhaps be another off ramp for the county with that property. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to provide public comment? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close public com period and we are adjourned. Thank you.