Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. It's 1.30, and I'm calling to order this July 15th meeting of the Elko County Board of Commissioners. Thanks for being here, and let the record show that all commissioners are here except our chairman, Delmo. Now, if you'll all rise.

Join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you. Okay, first item is comments by the general public. Pursuant to NRS 241, this time is devoted to comments by the general public, if any, in discussion of those comments. No action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item on the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included in the successive agenda and identified to be an action item. Do we have any public comment?

Yes, for the record, Scott Gavorski, Elko. I rise on behalf of the Elko County Republican Party, and on behalf of such, I just want to say thank you to the county for the America 250th celebrations, the dedication to the flag mosaic. Of course, the chair was master of ceremonies, had a wonderful ceremony outside the courthouse, and we just really appreciate the county stepping forward and helping celebrate the anniversary of our country. Just also wanted to bring to the public's attention that the next meeting of the Elko County Republican Party will be Saturday, July 25th at 9 a.m. here in this room. Of course, all registered Republicans are invited to attend. And then finally, as we get into the campaign season, we're expecting some of the Republican candidates to be through town. As they reach out to us and schedule visits, of course, we invite all members of the public to attend those events. We'll try to get the word out, but you can keep an eye on them through our Facebook, social media, and also our website at alconvgop.org. Thank you. Thanks, Scott.

Any other public comments?

on the item D, recognitions. Discussion and consideration of proclamation number 2026-07 entitled a proclamation by the Elko County Board of Commissioners designating August 4th, 2026 as National Night Out 2026 in Elko County. Recognizing the 42nd annual National Night Out event. National Night Out is an annual community building event that promotes partnerships between law enforcement, fire and emergency services, local government, and the communities they serve. The event provides an opportunity for public safety agencies to thank the citizens of Elko County for their continued support while encouraging residents to become better acquainted with the men and women who work to keep the community safe. The 42nd annual National Night Out will be held on Tuesday, August 4th from 5 to 8 p.m. at the Elko City Park. The free event will include food, public safety, displays, emergency vehicles, informational booths, demonstrations, and activities for family and children. And John, could you please read the proclamation?

Oh, Travis. John's delegated.

He kept passing it down.

A proclamation by the Elko County Board of Commissioners proclaiming August 4th, 2026 as National Night Out 2026. Whereas National Night Out brings neighbors, community members, and public safety representatives together to build trust. improve communication, and celebrate safety through activities that promote the theme Stronger Together. And whereas this year marks the 42nd year of National Night Out with the purpose of uniting communities across the country and promoting the strengthening of public safety and community partnerships and supporting local crime prevention efforts. And whereas the participation of Elko County residents is vital to reducing crime, drug activity and violence as community engagement plays a crucial role in creating safer neighborhoods. And whereas the National Association of Town Watch, the Elko County Sheriff's Office, the Elko County Juvenile Probation Department and the Elko Police Department are sponsoring this annual unique nationwide crime, drug and violence friendship program on August 4th, 2026. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Elko County Board of Commissioners that August 4th, 2026 is National Night Out 2026 in Elko County and encourages citizens to learn about their important roles in enforcement situations by learning more about public safety and emergency services and those who provide them at this annual event.

Thank you, Travis. Can I get a motion to... I'll make a motion to approve the proclamation.

Second that.

OK, motion by Travis, second by John. Do we have any public comment? All in favor? Aye. I vote aye also. And we need a picture?

OK.

Who's going to receive it?

Corey? Corey up here to receive it.

Okay on to item e appointments Discussion and consideration of approval of the appointment of one member of the jackpot advisory board for a term expiring December 31st 2026 The county received two applications from individuals interested in serving on the board Lillian Molina and Steven Anderson The Jackpot Advisory Board reviewed both applications and recommends the appointment of Lillian Molina to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term.

Mr. Chair, I don't see any reason to go against the Jackpot Advisory Board on this recommendation, so I'm going to make a motion to go with their recommendation of Lillian Molina to fill the vacancy. Second.

Thank you. We've got a motion by John and a second by Brian. Do we have any discussion on the commission? Any public comment? All in favor? Aye. I vote aye also. Item F, facilities update, discussion and consideration of a presentation from HA Architects regarding revised concepts for the downtown county complex and directions on next steps. At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, HA Architects revisited the downtown county complex facility assessment following the Board's discussion of the initial facility concept. The Board expressed concerns regarding the scope anticipated cost of constructing new facilities and directed the project team to evaluate alternatives that would better address the county's long-term facility needs while addressing the overall fiscal impact. Since the discussion, Commissioners Carr and Gerber have met with the staff of HA Architects to provide input regarding revised planning assumptions and potential alternatives that reflect the Board's previous direction. Based on those assumptions, HA Architects has developed revised concepts for the county complex for the board's consideration. And although this is marked for possible action in light of the fact that our chairman's not here today, I think we're going to listen to the presentation and open it up for discussion. But I'd like to put the vote off until Delmo's back. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Let's see, Curtis.

And your name for the record. Yep.

OK. My name is Brian Coleman. I'm a principal at HA Architects. And joining me virtually is Bill Valdez with KMB Architects, our judicial expert and planning consultant. Today we'd like to provide an update on the downtown campus study. Throughout this presentation, we're happy to answer questions or pause for discussion as needed. I'd like to begin by taking a step back. Oh, I skipped a page. Today's presentation will be in four parts. We'll begin with a brief review of the original 2023 downtown campus feasibility study and how it continued to serve as the foundation for the county's long-term planning. We'll then discuss the direction we received earlier this year to revisit the study within a defined budget, present an updated recommendation, and review the preliminary budget, and finish with a discussion of potential next steps. I'd like to begin by taking a step back. In 2023, Elko County retained HA and KNB architects to complete a comprehensive programming and feasibility study for the downtown campus. The study evaluated two primary components, a new district and justice court facility, and renovation and adaptive reuse of existing courthouse and campus buildings. The effort included programming for multiple county departments, assessments of existing facilities, conceptual planning, project scheduling, and planning level cost estimates. The study established a long-term vision for the campus. However, because of the recommended project exceeded the county's available funding at the time, implementation was deferred while the county evaluated future funding opportunities and capital priorities. Over the last couple years, the county continued to evaluate the facility's needs, evaluating priorities and recommendations from the 2023 study. As those discussions continued, it became clear that the long-term needs identified in the original study remained valid, but the county needed a more financial attainable implementation strategy. Earlier this year, the county asked us to revisit the study with a specific objective, preserved a long-term vision while developing a solution that could realistically be delivered with an approximately $20 million budget. That meant prioritizing the county's most critical operational needs, maximizing the use of existing county facilities, and identifying opportunities to reduce overall project costs without compromising the project's primary goals. That direction became the framework for the update we'll be presenting today. Before we walk through the recommendations, I'd like to spend a minute explaining how we evaluated the different options. The county asked to revisit the original study with a more focused objective, so every recommendation was measured against the same set of priorities. We asked, does it improve courthouse security? Does it improve day-to-day operation of the courts and county departments? Does it make the best use of the county's existing facilities? Does it help align the project with the county's budget objectives? And finally, does it provide a long-term solution that will continue serving Elko County well into the future? Those priorities guided every recommendation you'll see in the remainder of today's presentation. And with that, I'll turn it over to Bill to walk through the courthouse and the judicial recommendations.

Good afternoon. Yes, as Brian indicated, these were driving principles that we wanted to be able to focus on creating these new options and opportunities for the project. The concept that ultimately was developed that you end up seeing here is adding a new roughly two-story secured entrance, which allows us to accommodate additional ADA access into the courthouse, as well as be able to move a security screening more down to the plaza grade. This presents a new public entrance and face of the courthouse. We also are then able to free up additional space within the courthouse and within the annex to be able to meet the court's programmatic needs, which the key driver of that was actually moving the justice courtrooms and staff out of the lower level of the courthouse and be able to bring them up into the main and upper levels of the existing courthouse. So those were the kind of key drivers and the big idea here to be able to make and optimize operations and efficiencies here. You see the bridge here in blue in this diagram, which Aaron links. the existing courthouse to the annex building. We did analyze the floor-to-floor heights within the two buildings. They are fairly close, and we think those can be accommodated with regards to access in between those different levels through that bridge link that we have created and we're showing here. Going to the recommendations, which is on the next slide, slide uh what you end up seeing here is essentially um the green spaces are our justice and um just a court um that we end up having or that we're kind of showing here um and we're trying to overlay them over the top of some existing spaces uh so here on level one uh we end up having a new Justice Court would be added, where essentially the Treasurer's Office is currently located at. And then the small existing Justice Court, which is across the hallway right there, that would be repurposed back into office spaces, which it was originally in previous iterations of how this building was designed. We would then be able to have that link to the annex building at this location as well through this bridge. We would keep the fire escape in place, which would allow for continued use from an egress standpoint and from a code compliance standpoint. You're able to see here in this larger gray area is essentially that new public entrance and security screening area that would be developed, which would be pulled out of the center of the courthouse. It would allow us to incorporate an elevator on the exterior of the building within this secured screening area. And then that would allow us to interconnect to all the existing floors within the courthouse. We would and are anticipating doing some minor renovations to the existing district courtrooms and office spaces. They're already there just to be able to make them a little bit more operational improved and be able to really meet the sizes needed for the current court's operations. Going to the second level, which is on the next slide.

Excuse me, can you back up there and show me where the bridge is? Too bad. That whole thing? So above what it says, the chambers will be the bridge?

Yes.

Correct. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, that's currently a breezeway that you can walk through, but it would just be filled in with a building so you'd have more floor space plus you'd connect the two buildings.

Exactly. Okay. Going to the upper level, so level two, still reusing the existing district court, the large courtroom that's there in place. Again, we'd be using the bridge area to create some additional floor space for being able to provide more office.

Oops, we lost her bill.

I think that's us. Bill, hold on just a second. We're having some technical difficulties.

They have to leave that secured area and go to another space to be able to have jurors deliver... the chambers as well as some of the court staff over into the annex building. As you can kind of see here there in green, the treasurer's office that was displaced on the previous slide would move over to this upper level of the annex building. There's plenty of space to be able to accommodate their programmatic needs here. The existing district court that's up on the second floor on the left side of the screen, that would be repurposed as a justice court. The jury rooms are already there. We would just have to reconfigure some of the staff areas in the darker green to be able to make sure that that is as operationally improved as possible. Again, we'd be reusing the majority of the public restrooms and other spaces. On this level, we're anticipating we'd have to do some minor modifications to those since the level of renovation that we're doing throughout the building will most likely require that from a project development and a code standpoint. And then going down to the basement level or the lower level on this slide, Again, what we're planning on doing, what was discussed, was really converting these spaces back into general storage and use. We would still keep the Justice Court hearing room that's down there and chambers as an overflow. So if there happened to be a visiting judge or any additional issues, docket that requires additional space, we'd always have that as an opportunity down there. We'd also, in the first floor of the annex building or the lower floor of the annex building, we'd end up moving a court clerk over into that space as well. It's able to accommodate their program and still has a very nice and already established public service counter that's there, which again, the court clerk is a very public facing department. And that's primarily what we're anticipating with regard to how the courthouse and the annex building would be modified to be able to accommodate essentially all courts functions as well as the treasurer's department within the existing buildings.

OK. Thanks, Bill. The second major component of this recommendation is a new county office building. Throughout the study, we evaluated several opportunities to address the county's administrative space needs while preserving the courthouse for judicial functions. The recommended location was selected because of its proximity to the courthouse, its ability to maintain a connected county campus, and its capacity to accommodate future growth. The proposed building is approximately 15,000 square feet and is designed to house the public defender, the assessor, and the recorder. Along with shelled space for future county needs, the building also provides a modern public service areas, improved accessibility, and more efficient workspace for staff. Relocating the public defender into the new building creates a better working environment for the department and improves service to the public. It also opens an opportunity for the county clerk to be relocated into the former public defender space in the George Buescher building. providing additional room for the staff, records, storage, and customer service. Overall, this recommendation isn't simply about constructing a new building. It's about reorganizing county departments to improve operations, better utilize existing facilities, and position the county for future growth. During the study, an additional property became available that wasn't initially considered. The property on the corner of Fifth Street and Idaho Street I think if you go to the next slide, Amanda's got the quick options. At the county's request, we evaluated whether it could serve as a better location for the proposed office building. We compared both sites based on operational efficiency, accessibility, future growth, and how each supports the overall campus. While the alternate site has some merits, we believe the original recommended location remains the stronger long-term solution. It keeps the county services more closely connected better supports campus operations, and still remains our recommendation. Based on the recommended plans, we've prepared an updated rough order of magnitude estimate. The current planning level estimate is approximately $21.3 million. While that's slightly above the original $20 million target, it represents a significant refinement from the original feasibility study and provides a solid baseline for moving forward. We've also identified an alternate for renovating all the existing courtrooms. While not essential to the project's core operational improvements, it would provide a consistent appearance and level of finish throughout the courthouse. By separating this work as an alternate, the county has flexibility to manage the overall project budget. If additional funding becomes available, the courtroom renovations can be incorporated later without affecting the primary goal of the project. While this study establishes clear direction, it also preserves flexibility. If you go to the next page, Amanda. The project advances into design, the recommendations can continue to refine through scope adjustments, finish selections, phasing, and other value engineering efforts. The focus will remain on preserving the operational improvements that are most important while continuing to align with the project and the county's budget objectives. With the completion of this study update, we believe the project is well positioned for the next phase. It will allow the team to further develop and validate the recommendations presented today, continue refining the project scope, identify additional opportunities for value engineering, and further align the project with the county's budget objectives. Just as important, design doesn't lock the county into a final decision. Rather, it provides the level of detail needed to make informed decisions regarding scope and ultimately project costs before construction. That concludes our presentation. We appreciate the opportunity to share the work that's been completed, and we'd be happy to stand for any questions.

Mr. Chairman, I've got a question. How many court rooms do we have right now? Our court is actually held three.

There's two justice, two district, and then the district court across the street. Isn't that right, Bill?

Yeah, we have five.

Plus the bank building.

That's correct. That would still exist. Correct. We would still leave the bank building across the street as a courtroom.

Okay, so there's still at least two points of entry for security. I mean, the bank building isn't going to change.

No.

Okay, and so this, how does this compare, how does our office space compare with what's currently? I know the, what's the building across here, George Boucher? That's the public defender's office. They're pretty, you know, they're rubbing elbows in there.

That's why they would move into the new office building, and then we would relocate the election clerk into that. Okay, and how does their,

Future space compare in this plan. It's about double.

It's about double Okay off the top of my head I believe there when we did the initial planning with their future needs they needed about 7,700 square feet, okay I was surprised about the 15,000 square feet Is that one story? It could be one story be two-story. We haven't looked at the exact parcel It'll probably be better to be a two-story building

I didn't think that there was that much space there. I was surprised to see the 15,000.

Yeah, I'm guessing it would probably be better to be a two-story building.

Sorry, Brian.

No, that's great. And you, after looking at the new building down in the, what is that, southwest corner, there you go, right there, boom, the new office building there, you still suggest that we go with the previous plan That that building now is a bail bonds office. Do we own that across the street?

So the building that we looked at is the hotel that's on the corner of 5th and Idaho. Yes, right. And then Lipparelli still has their office building there. And when we looked at the opportunity, we knew we didn't have that parcel. But if the opportunity to be able to purchase it, we wanted to be able to look at a complete block about how we'd incorporate that whole block into the scenario.

Brian, so to answer your question, we're in the process of going through the appraisals right now. We should have those reports back soon. My expectation would be possibly by the August 5th meeting for you guys to review and consider. And at that point, we can negotiate the purchase of either one of those. They're both on the table right now. So the Esquire and the property across the street here on Court Street.

They're both for sale.

Yes.

So you suggest that we still go across the street for that 15,000 square foot building. Correct. Why is that?

It anchors kind of the campus. It creates a corner to the campus and entryway. It provides the best opportunity to provide future growth for the campus. With the additional property behind it, that provides an opportunity to either provide additional building space in the future or additional parking. The other big piece of that one is the adjacency to parking. One of the big problems with the corner is is that it's kind of on an island and parking Is a real problem to get to it where it would probably work in more of an urban environment But in a smaller community such as Elko you'd have a real challenge of having parking so far from a front door, okay?

So is, can you scroll up, Amanda? Yeah, there you go. So the one entitled here, new office building, and then just to the north of that is future parking, future office. Are either of those buildings for sale right now?

Not currently.

No.

There's actually several parcels right in this red dotted line area. There's several parcels that are in here. It's kind of been part of the, unspoken or unwritten plan for years and years. So if you remember, potentially this parking lot space here used to be the Epstein House or building that we've purchased. And so we've kind of continued to purchase and pick up properties in this downtown campus area as they've become available. The bank building was one of those. And then obviously the Wright and Polaris properties were one of those that have come available and we've been able to move on those to really keep all of our services in this downtown campus area.

Okay. So the main, as I hear you, the main reason we would want the office building there across the street is for parking.

Parking and the ability for future expansion. If we put it down on the corner of 5th and Idaho, you're landlocked from future,

additions or expansion. So are you imagining a building that we could just keep building on the side of?

We haven't got that far, but you can definitely plan a building to do it that way. Okay.

And there is intended some shell space in the new office building so that we're not having to build a whole new structure for growth if that is the case. There's never enough storage, right? And so we could use that shelled space in the meantime for storage or other purposes. But we want this to be purpose-built with some growth in mind, but really this new office building should serve us for a long time.

Okay. And remind me again, is this new office building included in the $21 million? It is. It is.

Yeah, so the new office building, we're looking at about $6 million. Then the courthouse renovations, including the annex and the bridge and the new security entrance, that's what's included in this courthouse piece. And Brian, correct me if I'm misunderstanding or wrong. There are some renovations that we would likely need to do over at the Boucher building, and that is this piece here. And then as Brian mentioned, there are some aesthetic pieces that You know, we would like to consider, however, those are not have-to-haves. Those are nice-to-haves, and that's what this 1.8 is for. And certainly could be an alternate at some point when we get to that, to the point of bidding the project. Okay.

Just one more quick question. So the way this design stands right now, We still have two entrance points for the court because we're not moving court out of the bank building. Correct. You'd have two separate security, yes. Is that a concern? I mean, we have that now, but is that something that we want to do away with?

I can address that. The main point of security with the deputies would be at the courthouse security entrance. Currently over at the district court at the bank building, they just have the bailiff there. So it wouldn't add deputies there from my understanding. You basically have the same staff that we have right now. You just have a better facility at the courthouse. So I don't think it would add deputies. add security, just improve the facility. Or take away security, if that matter.

Right. I guess the other thing, too, to kind of mention, since we're talking about this holistically, is that we have technically vacated 6th Street in anticipation of potentially having the new judicial complex where the bank building currently sits. But that came with a price tag of over $80 million, right? And so there is still some opportunity for us to close vehicle traffic on sixth street um there's probably some logistical challenges with that but that certainly would provide for some additional security without people but just not having vehicles coming through here um would also increase the security for the bank building okay we don't and i just keep going but uh

Would there be any benefit to move the bank building's operations to the annex and put all offices outside so all the actual courtrooms where people come are in one secure location?

No. From a size standpoint, what we could fit, In the courthouse is what we could fit. And that's why the bank building still remains as the district court.

And I think that was the first proposal a year or so ago that cost $90 million. Right.

And the annex really isn't conducive to a courtroom because of the way the building's built. It's small. The rooms are smaller. So you'd have to have a small courtroom in there. And it would... So I think if we do this renovation, I think we will just put as many courtrooms into the courthouse as possible and have the offices on the outside, other than the one across the street, of course. Okay. Which is, it is nice to have that one for jury selection and for larger trials and so forth. You're talking the bank building? Yeah, the bank building, because it is such a large courtroom. It's huge.

Is all the jury selection currently done in the bank building?

No, but it could be, we've discussed that, that the judges could swap and share courtrooms as needed for small, large, medium courtrooms.

You done? I'm done. Does anybody else have any thoughts? I mean, I'd like to hear your thoughts and questions.

I'd like you to show me that bridge again. I'm still not understanding the bridge.

I don't know if bridge is maybe the correct term Essentially we would create a two-story building that would go in between the annex building and the courthouse building But you you could walk between the two you'll be able to walk through the two and that's where I'm not seeing that here, so That blue space would be this You got the chambers the restrooms

And this is the walkway between the two.

Oh, just that narrow one there. Okay. Okay. Gotcha. And then I think another important thing to point out, too, is that we can afford this. Yes, absolutely. Instead of $90 million where we'd have to borrow money and that's a huge, huge deal for me. The other question I have, what's the timetable? Like I said, I didn't want to take action without Delmo here, but our next meeting in two weeks, we say go ahead and go. Sure. You've got the green light. Give me an idea of what the timetable is.

Typically, we haven't put a full schedule yet together, but the duration for this design for probably, we can do the new office building and the renovation stuff all in one package. Well, one, they can run simultaneously. We'd be looking probably between eight to nine months to go from where we are today all the way to full design documents ready to give to a contractor. So it'll be next year? Yeah. And then what, a year build-out? I would guess it'd probably be at least 12 months, if not longer. It depends on the existing courthouse. That one is going to be a little bit of a hairy situation just because of how old of a building it is. I think there's some stuff that will

further refine in detail as we get into that building but surprise you is what you're saying right and there's some phasing components within that as well so that might extend out some of the construction duration a little bit longer you know beyond 12 months to maybe 16 just to accommodate that phasing and and and staff moves that free up the space for the construction to occur after they move yeah that's a good point bill we essentially have to build the

office building first to get the people out of the courthouse that we need to to relocate the space over there.

All right. Any more discussion from the commission?

The only one I would do is I like the idea of acquiring the Esquire Hotel in the future and everything we're looking at. We'll be going over that at a future date. But I'd also like you guys to ponder what we would do with that space aesthetically. What the heck's going to come? Are we going to end up just being a little pocket parking lot right there so you'd walk around maybe just for staff there or, I don't know, just continue the greenery from the courthouse because this is also our main parade route. So just keep that in mind of that area of how we design it and what we do.

Yeah, it's a very prominent corner, and I think it's got a lot of positive attributes to it. I think you're right, just studying it to figure out what would be the best use of it.

Thanks, sir. I like what we're doing. There is a little walk space you can walk through there, Mom.

Right here, yeah. There we do have some equipment in this alleyway generator and probably some HVAC stuff, I would assume that's what it is. So we've walked this together, Brian and Travis and I have walked this space and kind of talked about how that would work if there was a new office building here. And ultimately, our recommendation is that the new office building, if we're able to purchase this piece across the street on Court Street, would probably be best suited here. I mean, we certainly still would have an option to put something here if for some reason the Court Street property fell through.

I don't think you guys did a great job, but $20 million sounds a lot better than $90 million.

I'll make just a few comments as being part of this process and studying this. I'm open to all options. And I'll be honest, at first I didn't think this option of renovating the courthouse and keeping all the courtrooms in there would work. But as we've studied it more. and building that bridge, connecting the annex, adding more floor space. And what really started to sell me on this is that new security entrance, because right now the entrance of the courthouse is just, it's not designed for a metal detector and all that traffic through there.

Could you move real quick, Amanda, what he was talking about, that red area? Yeah.

And when you enter the courthouse, you have to go up half a step of stairs. And if you're in a wheelchair, you have to go through a special lift and then get over to another elevator. I mean, it's just really antiquated. So what really started to sell me on this is that new security entrance because it will have an elevator right there at the plaza level that can take a wheelchair or whoever on up. And there's still a lot of design that needs to be done with this to optimize it. Like, for example, designing how the inmates enter and where they're held and so forth. All that still has to come. We haven't gotten to those questions yet because what we're here to present today is just a preliminary to show that this is feasible, that it will save the county money. And if we proceed in the design, we're going to be able to ask more questions and get into the finer points of how this is designed. And it might even add some additional, you know, on the backside of the courthouse, we might add a garage where the inmates can be unloaded and then put into the basement or wherever, or maybe even an additional room that's built on or something so that they're not interfacing with the public, because that's a big concern.

All right.

My point is that this is still very preliminary, but I would be in favor of authorizing HA Architects, and they've already met the amount of money that we allotted to them for the design. So what we need to do is approve additional authority for them to continue and to continue to design this. And we'll still be able to vote on this in the future of what the final product is. But right now, we're just in the design phase. Oh, and one more comment. One of my biggest concerns going into this as well is that if we do make renovations, if we do... improve our existing infrastructure, which I'm all in favor of. Because if we were to build another $60 or $80 million facility, we still have to come back and fix the courthouse at some point and make it cohesive. This is an opportunity for us to use the existing courthouse and not only make it fit the county but also to make it a historic building make it beautiful many of these rooms haven't been renovated since the 1940s some of them have been renovated in the 50s 60s 70s so we've got a hodgepodge of decorating and and just making it work in the courthouse this is an opportunity for us to um to renovate the courthouse and make it all look

Like the 1940s?

Make it look finished. Make it look good. And they put a number on there for the extra finishes, and I would be in favor of doing that now rather than kicking it down the road. Of course, it may be phased in where we take care of the... the new office building first, and then get the security entrance and the bridge built, et cetera. And those things might come later, but I think that we should approve those, and we can pay for them as we go, basically, because it's going to take a year or two to actually build it.

So for an extra... Two years minimum.

Yeah, so for that extra price tag, I think we should approve that if we go forward with this project to make it finished. And that's my point is that I want this to be a project that lasts for 50 years, not just another quick fix.

All right. If there's no more, Commissioner Scott, do we have any public comment?

I just have one comment. I know Commissioner Gerber said there's more to be done, more to be planned. And I'm sure this has already been taken into account. But if it hasn't, I just wanted to remind you of NRS. 5696 that requires a separate and secure waiting area for witnesses and victims that the defendant doesn't have access to. I didn't see it in the schematic, but I just probably overlooked it. Those are required.

That's a great point, and we'll make sure those are incorporated.

Thank you, Tyler. Any public comment?

If I may, just one other staff comment. we've been working with Brian and team now for a couple of years and, you know, this is a relatively large project, at least for Elko County. Um, and so one of the things that we've also talked about along the way is, um, phasing this project out so that we can keep, um, our local contractors involved and we're making sure to keep as many dollars local as possible. And of course, we'll talk more about this as we move through their project, but I just want you to know that that has been a consideration. It's been top of mind for Brian and team and, I think that will be also important going forward, whether or not the general contractor is local. We still have a lot of other subcontractors and different ways to get them involved and make sure that those dollars stay local.

All right, I assume there's no public comment. Okay, well, thank you very much, and I don't see any oppositions. We just need our chairman here, and we'll give you the approval at the next meeting. That sounds very good. Appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you, Brian. And Bill.

Okay, on to Item G, Nevada Rural Housing Authority. Discussion and consideration of resolution number 2026-24 regarding the transfer of the county's 2026 private activity bond volume cap to the Nevada Rural Housing Authority for the purpose of financing housing for low to moderate income individuals and families and this is for possible action

Mr. Chairman, we do this every year, and I've never seen a problem in the 10 years I've been on here, so I'm already okay to make a motion to approve it.

Got a motion.

A second.

And a second. We don't want to hear this speak.

I'm happy you still haven't talked. I just wanted to get known that this is not some weird new thing. We've been doing it for years, and I think it's been effective, so I have no issues, but no.

Would you like to say something? No, I appreciate that. Point out there was a little error in your package. It said that we've spent 496,000 and mortgages here in the county last year, and it really should have been 11 million so Just so you know just a little error, but we we do quite a bit of business here in Elko County We're very grateful for our partnership with it All right.

Thank you. Can we have a motion from John? Who was the second Travis? any public comment Sounds good, thank you Okay item a Choco County planning and zoning pursuant and notice Number 2026-32, discussion and consideration to approve an alternate compliance request submitted by Bob Thibault with High Desert Engineering to grant a 30-foot private access easement to Parcels 1 and 2 as shown on the parcel map for Jimmy Faulkner and Kelly Faulkner. Well, Corey.

Good afternoon. Corey Rice, Elko County Surveyor. So the Faulkner's submitted a parcel map application to separate this parcel into three parcels to access the rear parcel. They're creating a access easement for that. They're asking that that remains a private access easement and not be dedicated to the county. The staff is in support of that. Having this as a dedicated right-of-way would really have no benefit to the county at all because it dead-ends into I-80's right-of-way.

All right. Any discussion?

I've got questions. I mean, as a curiosity, why would you want to split that direction rather than having everything touch up on Idaho Street?

Some of that has to do with the way that the zoning is there. That parcel that's a long I-80 actually has some conditional use permits for billboards, and they can't change that zoning, and they wouldn't be able to live on it. And so if they were to change that zoning there, they'd have to get rid of the billboards, and obviously that's a pretty steady income stream, so they want to keep that.

Anything else?

I'll make a motion to approve then. Motion by John. Second from Brian. Any public comment? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. for the rehabilitation of Taxoy B design-only project at Hayden Airfield, Jackpot Airport, in the amount of $141,765. The project is funded through the Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program grant, which will reimburse 95% of the cost. The remaining 5% local match in the amount of $7,000 $88.25 is budgeted in the Jackpot Town budget. Approval of the agreement will allow the design phase of the Taxway B Rehabilitation Project to proceed in accordance with FFA requirements. And this is for possible action.

Yeah, so this is not a new item to you all. We have previously approved the funding for this project, and this is the contract with JUB to move forward with the actual work of that. Part of the process is to obtain an independent fee estimate. So basically what that does is it keeps the engineer honest in ensuring that they're not charging us increased fees. And so we go out to an external consultant and give them the scope of work and say, what would you charge for this? And the FAA also looks at that. In fact, it's an FAA requirement. And so that came back relatively close to JUB's quote for the scope of work. And so this is the approval of the contract to move forward with the design for the Texas AB.

I'll make the motion to approve. Second that. Motion from Travis, second from John.

Yeah, I've got some questions. Tyler, you brought up some concerns about mediation. Do you want to explain that or compensation adjustment?

Yeah, I can explain it. There were definitely not concerns whatsoever, actually. No legal issues. It just said that future contracts need to have a similar mediation clause that that contract has. And then the other one was just providing the notice within 120 days. Those are just logistical things that I know the county will be on top of. But absolutely not concerns.

All right. Very good. Any public comment? favor aye aye aye vote aye also item I to discussion and consideration of approval of the award of a construction contract stone house drilling and construction LLC in the amount of three hundred and thirty nine thousand four hundred and fifty dollars for their exploration drilling for Newman municipal well project in the town of jackpot on July 7th 2026 bids were publicly open for the project in jackpot one bid was received from stone house drilling the county's consulting engineer Kimberly horn and associates reviewed the bid and determined that the stone house drilling is a Responsive and responsible bidder and that the bid is consistent with the engineering estimate the project will provide exploration drilling for a new project municipal will to support the town's long-term water supply planning and infrastructure needs. Funding for the project is available and staff recommends awarding the contract to Stonehouse. This is for possible action.

So I think the agenda states it pretty clearly. We do have funding from the state to complete the project. In fact, the funding is $339,600 is what is available from the state. So this came in just under that, and we'd recommend approval to proceed. Well, then I'll make that motion then.

Motion from John. Well, I've got a question. So there's $339,000, and this is just for exploration?

Yes.

Wow. I assumed we could get, you know, maybe 1,000, 2,000 gallons a minute with a well worth $150,000. And that's for the actual drilling. Do we know how many wells they're going to, how many?

I don't know how many wells are going to ultimately end up drilling or how many test wells will end up drilling, but I know it's going to be more than one. Sorry, I don't have much more information than what's on the agenda, but my understanding is that we've been working with Kimley Horn to develop the scope of work and also working with the state because, as I mentioned, this money is coming from the state to be able to move this project forward. Okay.

Second. Second. A second from Brian any further discussion any public comment all in favor? On item J, Elko County code Discussion and consideration to approve the first reading of ordinance number 2026-02, amending Title VII, Chapter 10, Section 2, to add verbiage related to finger-based background check submissions to the FBI for gaming license applicants. The proposed amendment will ensure the county code is consistent with current licensing and background investigation requirements. If approved, the first reading, ordinance number 26-02, will be scheduled for a second reading and public hearing at a future meeting prior to final adoption. Talk about that, Patrick?

I can, for sure.

This is a very simple change. It's fairly inconsequential. What it does is it provides the FBI and it provides for FBI and state background check requirements. So as the code currently sits, gaming licenses are not included as a legitimate reason to run a background check. However, that's been the practice. So this simple change to the code gives the FBI and the state something to point to to say this is why they're running that background check in. Any questions or discussion?

I'll make a motion to approve J1 the first reading ordinance number 2026-02 and that's just for First reading and move to a second reading public hearings.

I'll second that a second from John any public comment All in favor aye aye aye vote aye also County Sheriff's Office Discussion and consideration of approval of the lease schedules with the bank court for the replacement of 21 vehicles for the local County Sheriff's Office The lease financing allows the county to replace aging vehicles while spreading the cost over the term of the lease Funding for the lease payments is included in the public safety inputs for infrastructure tax plan

Fire away, Justin. Under Sheriff Justin Ames, kind of like we discussed in the office, we moved to expeditions this year because Ford came out with both the F-150 and the Expedition SSV, which came in about the same price once you add the cost of the tonneau cover. They're within a few hundred dollars, and this is going to give the guys a chance to keep their gear and everything more secure and safe in the back. The F-150s, as they've got all their gear and stuff in the back, it just completely fills all their gear and everything that goes in the back with dust, and it's costing us a bunch of gear, so we moved over to the Expeditions versus the F-150s.

All right. Any questions, discussion? No, that makes sense to me, so I'll make that motion to approve it as presented.

Got a motion from John.

Second.

Second from Travis. Any public comment? All in favor? Aye. Aye. I vote aye also. Thanks, Justin.

Oh, you got another one here. Yeah, Justin. Wow.

K2, discussion and consideration of approval of a gaming license for Joseph Asher, doing business as Boomer Sportsbook LLC to operate at Four Jacks Casino in Jackpot. Applicant has completed the required application materials and submitted all documentation necessary for the licensing process The Elko County Sheriff's Office has completed the required background investigation and recommends approval of the application and says for a possible action if I turn our base up County Sheriff's Office The Sheriff's Office has concluded the boomer sportsbook NLC application We find no reason for not to move forward at this time.

Everything's pretty good

I'll take the sheriff's recommendation and prove K2 as presented. Second.

Okay, motion by John, second by Brian. Have any public comment? Seeing none, all in favor?

Aye.

I vote aye also. And I just add that the letters of recommendation accompanied that were pretty glowing, so. Mr. Asher must be a pretty upstanding citizen. Okay, item L, Elko County Treasurer's Office. Discussion and consideration of approval of amendments to the tax roll to strike off taxes deemed uncollectible pursuant to NRS 361.3653 for the fiscal year 2025-2026. Treasurer's office has reviewed the accounts included with the request and determined that the taxes are uncollectible in accordance with the statutory requirements Where's our trigger I don't see her I Have a couple questions, I mean if there's anyone from the treasurer's office you're gonna ask last guy tour he had to know I

If you want to move on, I'll see if Cheryl is available to come over and answer any questions that you have.

Okay, we'll skip down to item N then. Okay, Elko County Building and Safety. Discussion and consideration of approval of resolution number 2026-28, which modifies resolution number 2026-03 and moves the effective date of adoption of the 24 building codes to October 26th, 2026. And if you remember previous meetings, and a contractor come and ask us to do this. So that's about it.

Yeah, my only question is, is that long enough? Is that going to satisfy everybody's needs?

There's zero chance it will satisfy everybody's needs. That's just facts. Well, that's the line I draw. If it's everybody, nothing will ever pass.

The guy that came and asked us to lay is... It's 2026 long enough. I mean... Is that long enough?

Michael Stevens, representing Beck Construction. Yeah, I mean, the issue was it's not the 2024 codes. We're all about that. The issue was the lack of time frame that we found out about it that the building department never notified us. And I found out through word of mouth in April. So that's why we're looking for this extension. We're totally cool with 2024. October is plenty of time for us. We're almost done. We started on this stuff in April. We'll have all of our stuff ready to go by October for sure.

Okay, thank you. Can I get a motion? I'll make a motion to accept that. Motion from John. Second. Second from Brian. Any public comment? All in favor? Aye. I vote aye also. Remind me to go back to that one. I mean, look, I might not forget. It just says to adjourn. Item N, grants and award approvals. N1 is discussion and consideration of approval of a grant awarding Award from the Nevada Community Development Block Grant Program in the amount of $513,120 for the Tuscarora Water Storage Tank Replacement Phase II project. This project will replace the existing bolted steel water storage tank with a new welded steel storage tank, improving the reliability and long-term integrity of the community's water storage infrastructure. This is for possible action.

So like the FAA projects, CDBG projects come before you multiple times for discussion before we actually have an award. So I did share with you last week the governor's press release about awarding some of these projects. And so this is one of the few that the state selected for funding. And so essentially, we have CDBG funding to move forward this project.

And there's no local match?

There is some local match, but it is currently budgeted.

I move to approve the grant awarded for the Nevada community, the CBDG program.

Got a motion from Brian. I'll second. Second from Travis. Any further discussion? Any public comment? All in favor? Aye. I vote aye also.

Mr. Chair?

I was thinking the same thing.

All of these N's we've gone over and discussed, and unless somebody wants to point one out individually, I think we've gone over them. I'm happy to approve all of them because I think we've gone over them and I understand what's going on.

No, I was going to ask for the same thing. Does anybody have any objection to combining N2 through N8? If not, I'm going to make that motion.

I make that motion approve N2 through N8. Second. Noted, because once again, we've gone over these and talked about them in the past, and they're nothing new and shocking or information we haven't received. So that's my motion.

Motion, John. Second by Brian, right? Yes. Any public comment? All in favor?

Aye.

I vote aye also. I think I saw the treasurer walking across the courtyard there. There she is. IML Elko County Treasurer's Office discussion and consideration of approval of amendments to the tax roll to strike off taxes deemed unselectable It is for possible action Good afternoon Cheryl Paul Elko County treasurer.

Sorry. It's a super busy time of year. So pardon my delay Brian had some questions Yeah a couple of those

Pretty big I mean a couple of the larger ones value is divided amongst the private property owners within the common area Which page are you looking at or which parcel?

Let's see Or dollar amount

Well, he's looking for that. Cheryl, I had a question too. How come we don't include the addresses and names? Nobody knows anything about this.

When Nancy prints this off, it just gives you the information that you see. If it would be helpful, maybe in the future we could build onto the report that would at least give you an address.

Yeah, I think that would be helpful.

Okay, I'll make note of that.

Thank you.

You bet.

So one entry with that explanation is 45038015. Four or five? 04503, yeah, that's right. I'm sorry, 04503082. Oh, next one, okay. So 17...

One thousand seven sixty nine eighteen value is divided amongst the private property owners within the common area community What does that mean that I will have to check myself because I can see that there's these I'm not trying to throw Janice office under the bus, but these Entries the way they read out they begin over in the assessor's office and then they're pushed over to our office and We should probably make notes so that we understand what it is that we're doing. I will have to get with Janet to find out specifically what that means.

Again, though, if that had an address to it, that would help clear it up.

Yeah, yeah, we can certainly do that.

I mean, because I understand what it means to re-enter ag, put back into ag after receiving ag paperwork. I know what that means. Mm-hmm. Then the other question was exemption removed due to noncompliance. There was a $19,000 one in the, and then some of them are red and some of them are black. Which one's better?

Okay, so the ones in red were struck off, meaning they were deemed uncollectible. The ones that are in black, those were actually added to the roll, which we could never do before GSA. So you would have to, a supplemental bill would have to be created, but now we can do it to where you can see that 20,000 was actually put back into the roll, but 71,000 was deemed uncollectible.

So that's 28,000 that we would, we plan on receiving?

Yes.

Okay. And 71,000 that we won't plan on receiving. But this, we don't have anything that we can sell to generate that 71,000? No.

No. A lot of these were like the primary cap residence. That is what Janet's been pushing when someone buys a new property and it is their primary residence. Until they complete the card showing that it's their primary residence, they're going to have an 8% cap, meaning higher taxes. Oh, I see. Okay. So those were done after the fact as a courtesy. So those were given the 3% cap.

I ran out of questions. Can I get a motion? We're okay with that.

Yeah, I'll move to approve as presented. Okay, a motion by Brian and a second by John Scott.

Second there. Second by John. Any public comment? I'd just like to say I visited your office last week with my children and And Cheryl gave us a very nice tour of the treasurer's office and showed us how everything works. And what I was most impressed with is her commitment and dedication to this office. She talked about Cesar Salicki and how she was first hired. And you've had how many years at the office?

24 and almost a half.

24 and a half years. So thank you for your dedication, your consistency. You know what is happening at this office. And I know that you collect every penny. So I have no doubt that this list are just adjustments and revisions to the assessed values. Because as you go through it, I mean, look how detailed this list is. She knows what she can and can't collect based on reality of what's on the ground. And to address your question, Brian, there's a value divided amongst other owners in a common interest community. So it appears that it was assessed incorrectly, and then Cheryl caught that and made the adjustment here.

Yeah, so that one particular parcel is this kind of green belt out in Spring Creek.

Mm-hmm. Okay, so what I would guess that is is you know how there's that green space in between the parcels out in Spring Creek It's probably what it was when it was assessed it included that but it wasn't supposed to

Yeah, so all the members of Spring Creek are paying their values, which includes those amenities inside Spring Creek. So it's assessed to all the members of Spring Creek. So that $1,700 or whatever that green belt was is included in the thousands of assessments for the rest of the community. So anyway, I just add that and my confidence in you. Visiting your office, it just blew me away, your level of commitment to that office. So thank you. So much.

You were able to fit all your children in there?

Even in the safe.

We don't need to expand that office, do we?

Even in the safe.

Stop by sometime. I'll tell you all about it.

Okay, we lost track. We got a motion and a second, right? And no public comment? All in favor? Aye. I vote aye also. L2, discussing and consideration of Resolution 2026-27, entitled, A Resolution to Levy the Tax Rates for the County of Elko State of Nevada for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2026, Pursuant to Nevada Rights to Nevada, Revised Statute 361.460.

There you go. It's our standard taxing rate, isn't it?

Yeah, so you're required, the County Commission is required to certify our tax rates every July. So this is something that we do every year. So as I was talking to John and Rex earlier, we submit to the Department of Taxation in February of what our intended tax rates will be so that they can work on the pro forma and determine revenues and all that fun stuff. And now this is certifying those rates.

And nothing's changed?

Nothing has changed. Nothing changed.

Every- To approve?

Yeah, we didn't have to even move anything around.

Okay, I got a motion for Brian. Second by John public comment all the favor Get back to work Item O, purchases, contracts, and agreements. Item O, discussion and consideration of approval of a three-year agreement with Granitius for AI-generated live and archived closed captioning service for public meetings. The service will improve the accessibility of county meetings by providing real-time captions during broadcasts and caption recordings for archived meetings. The agreement includes 250 hours of captioning services during the first year of the contract at a cost of $15,000. Future annual costs will be based on the actual number of capturing hours used in accordance with the agreement. The AI-generated captions can be reviewed and edited by county staff following each meeting to improve accuracy. It is for possible action.

So with the continued change in ADA requirements for local governments this is one of the things that we will have to provide in the future is closed captioning and so Granicus which is our current agenda software and what we use to broadcast our meetings to the public does have the technology to provide that to us in talking with Michelle my understanding is that build for the number of hours that we actually use 250 hours is what we've kind of gone through all of our public meetings and determine what we might need. So if we use less, we'll pay less. If we use more, we'll pay more.

So keep the meeting short.

Yes.

I do my best.

Any discussion or motion?

So this is a question. So this is something we're going to have to do.

Yes.

Either we do it with Granicus or we do it with some other caption. Captionator right I move that we approve. Oh one.

Okay a motion from Brian Second that sir a second from John any public comment All right all in favor, hi hi what I also I MP Elko County finance p1 discussion and consideration to approve the Elko County debt management plan and Elko County fire protection district debt manager plan for fiscal year 2027 Nevada law requires local governments that contemplate issuing general obligation depth to annually prepare and adopt a debt management plan the plan provides an overview and of the financing over the upcoming planning period. Approval of this debt management plan satisfies the county's annual planning requirement and does not authorize the issuance of any debt, and it is for possible action.

So this is required to be, it has to be submitted August 1st of every year? In fact, P1, P2, and P3 all have to be submitted August 1st. They kind of go together. So we have to update it every year. The draft in front of you, it's pretty much just the same language. We're following the same policies. We have some numbers in there on our current debt, which currently is just the water bond for jackpot. Otherwise, we don't have any actual outstanding debt. And some numbers from other counties for comparison, that's all that's been updated from the prior years. The language and actual policy itself has not changed.

Do any of you have an objection to combining P1 through P3?

I don't, sir, and I'll make a motion to approve. Is the motion to approve P1 through P3?

Second. And a second from Brian. Any public comment?

All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

I vote aye also. On to item Q, Commission Meeting Calendar. And the note that the August 19th is going to be Elko, Midas, and Tuscarora. Senior always waiting for Rex to say move to approve. Move to approve. Motion by Brian.

Second by John. Can we work with Midas or Tuscarora or something? Well, maybe Midas and see if the bar wants to actually be open and not for the bar. So when somebody say that, I'm talking about their cooking side, their barbecue or hamburger. I would like to give them business if they're actually open and want to serve us lunch, but.

Yeah, the last time we were out, they weren't open, but yeah, we can do that.

Good idea. Okay, I got it.

So that was a motion by Brown, second by John. Any public comment? All in favor?

Aye. I vote aye also. What time will we meet here on August 19th?

7 a.m. 7 a.m. We'll start, we'll open the meeting here at 7 a.m. and then take care of any business that we need to and then we'll take off to Midas.

I demand consent agenda. Move to approve. Thank you, Brian. I'll second that. Second from John. Any public comment? All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

I vote aye also. County Commissioner and county staff comments. Tyler?

No, thank you.

Brian?

No.

I better not. No, I got nothing right now. Are we being charged for these minutes?

Hello, John.

Aye, sir. I'm good. Travis. Nothing at this time.

Thank you. Amanda.

I just do want to make you aware of a procedural issue that we had during our June 3rd meeting. That sounds bad, but when we had the item for the Elko County Sheriff's Deputies Association agreement before you for consideration, There was not a motion made however you all voted to approve that so we will be bringing that agreement back to you for ratification On the August 5th agenda my intention is to put it on the consent Since you've already discussed it if you have issues let me know beforehand, but you will see it again I So the association has been made aware. Tyler's office is obviously aware.

Who caught that?

It was actually the clerk's office when they were doing the minutes.

We can blame Jen. She forgot to type it in.

I think it's just wise to put it on the next agenda. Everything was approved. It was discussed. It was deliberated. Public comment was allowed. So this is more of a formality just to make sure that we're dotting our I's and crossing the T's.

Within the consent agenda is okay?

I think it is. And if I find something that says otherwise, I'll definitely let Amanda know.

And even if it is in the consent agenda, you all have the option to remove it from the consent agenda to discuss that separately.

And since Delmo's not here, can we still blame Delmo?

Any comments by the general public last chance we're adjourned