Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Go ahead and call the Elko County Commission to order. Welcome you all here today. Glad you're here. For the record, let the record show that all commissioners are present. This is a traveling day for the commission. We've got a number of items that we're taking care of here, and then we'll be closing this meeting and going to. wonderful city of Wells, and then on to the community of Jackpot. And we're taking guesses as to what time we'll get back. But it's always a great opportunity for us to get out and see those other communities and have some face-to-face time. So with that, I'd like to invite everybody to stand up, and I ask our auditor to lead us in the pledge. Terry Gage.

Thank you. Please join me in the pledge to our great flag.

Thanks, Terry. Appreciate that. So we'll move on to item C, which is comments by the general public pursuant to NRS 241. This time is devoted to comments by the general public, if any, and 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 on a successive agenda and identified to be an action item. Do we have any public comment? Do you have some public comment? Hi, come on up. Please state your name for the record.

I'm Debbie Thiel, and I live at 1144 Dysart Drive, Lamoille, Nevada. And I've lived at that property since 1995. And thank you all for allowing me this time to speak. In March, sorry, I've never spoken before.

Oh, you're among friends, so you're good.

In March, the residents of Dysart property received this notice from the Elko County Planning Commission referring to applicant number CUP26-003. Several residents got together, and our concern was mainly over the road and fire concerns. And we wrote letters and attended the March 16th Elko County Planning Commission meeting. The gentleman who put in for the CUP, Mr. Thane Church, did not appear. And so the planning commissioners graciously delayed it until the April 16 meeting. For the April 16 meeting, several residents wrote letters. And hours before the meeting, He withdrew his CUP. Mr. Corey Rice prepared a report with letters from neighbors about this, mainly over the condition of the road. It's a road that's not maintained by the county. And we've never had much of an issue.

You are just fine. You're doing great.

Todd of Jazz Ranch used to take care of the road when he owned the property up there, which was very gracious. But he had equipment. and he majorly used the road. Mr. Church withdrew his CUP, yet I'm here to inform you that events are happening every weekend, and the traffic on the road isn't just for one day, the day of the event. It's for days of setup, the event, and then, of course, breakdown. Our big question is, how can he be holding events when he doesn't have a CPU that he withdrew? Not only is he holding events, he's advertising through Facebook for weddings and events to occur. A neighbor told me, I've not found it on Facebook, that there are events scheduled through every weekend until the end of July. Just so you understand the... concern of the neighborhood over the use of the road, which is not in the greatest shape. I garden out there in the morning on certain days, and then I take walks. So this is only for that time on June 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 16, during those times that I'm outside gardening or taking a walk. Out of the 41 vehicles that went up the road on those times, only one was from the neighborhood. So there's significant use of the road to set up his events. And again, our concerns as neighbors is over the road condition, fire concerns, as well as the dust hazard.

Ms. Steele, may I ask you a question? Is this your first attempt to submit a letter of concern or something like that?

Well, no.

We wrote three letters before this meeting. I mean about this use that's happening right now.

We became aware of it in June, and my husband and I submitted a letter to, I believe, Mr. Carr. I believe Matt Peterson, and we mailed it last week from the Lamoille Post Office. And that's why we're here. We would love to resolve this issue together, and we don't know where to go in that we thought the CUP was needed to hold events.

Well, I don't know. My thought is, and Corey, correct me if I'm wrong, I think the very first thing we need to do is that You have a concern that maybe there's a zoning violation here or something like that? So maybe you just submit. We have a form that you can submit and you can explain what your concern is and then we'll look into it for possible zoning violation.

Great. And where do I get that form?

It's on the website or if you stop over here at planningandzoning.org. they should be able to give you a copy of it.

Thank you.

That's why I'm here.

Sorry, Mrs. Steele, did you email me or write me a letter?

It was a written letter.

Okay, I'll double check the box in there. I'll make sure I replied to that.

I'm pretty sure we mailed it from the Lamoille Post Office on Thursday. And we thought you were the chairman. I'm sorry, Delmo. Oh, it's okay. No, it's okay. Because I think you used to be.

No, no, I will definitely figure that, get a hold of you. I've known you guys long enough that we'll, I can't say that it gets addressed, but it'll definitely be researched and replied.

Okay, and we sent it to the Nene building?

It's probably just in my box. I haven't walked back there and looked.

I think so. Okay. So anyway, but thank you. I'll get that form.

Okay.

Okay, thanks. Thank you.

Thanks for coming in today. You're welcome. Do we have any other public comments? All right, seeing none, we'll move on to item D, Elko County Clerk's Office D1, discussion consideration of approval of the June 9th, 2026 primary election canvas. Becky, how are you today?

Good morning, Rebecca Blunkett. I'm doing great today. How are you guys?

Good. I'm a little bit sad with the voter turnout, but I guess it is what it is.

It is. It's a midterm election. It's about normal. I mean, we try to get everybody out, so do what we can. I just wanted to say a few things. I wanted to thank my staff, the election workers, Elko County Sheriff's Department, Elko PD, Buildings and Ground, Elko County Fire District for their help in making this a successful election. It went really smooth. It was really nice. The turnout wasn't great, but it was a nice election for everybody. This was our first election using the printers to print the full-size ballot, our new BMDs and our tabulators. We saved a lot of positive feedback. Our election workers did a great job of educating voters on the new process. And at the end of the election, when we balance our numbers, I'm happy to report There's zero discrepancies. We balanced. It was really nice. This means every vote that's cast in time and every ballot received by the deadline was counted and reported in today's campus. I did want to make a note that we had mail ballots. We received 3,207. We had 986 early voting voters in election day. We also had early voting of an Owyhee Indian reservation and also the alcohol eating colony in a few days. So we had a low turnout at Owyhee, but a really good turnout at the alcohol eating colony as well as the library. We had 26 rejected ballots. Their signature appears. It feels like those were on the rise. It seems like everybody, their signature does change. So we wanted to just remind everybody to check the website to make sure that we Have Canada about we have a spreadsheet on our website for the rejected belt We also send you guys a notice we also try to email if we have one on file We also try to call if we have a phone number on file to make sure your ballot does count Do you contact that person and tell them that they need to come refile their signature well, it's an affidavit so if you There's some ballots that we receive no signatures and some that are mismatched signatures. We try to do as much contact as we can by mailing out an affidavit. There's certain ways that we can key our signature. We can key it by phone. They can come in the office. They can return their affidavit in the mail by a certain deadline. Or there's also a program called ENCODE. which is you get on your smartphone and you go through a process and take a picture of your driver's license.

I understand, but I think my question is, if my signature was rejected because the signatures don't match, am I notified somehow?

You're notified, yes, with an affidavit.

I know signatures do change.

They do change.

That's when you get arthritis in your hands.

Yes, and if you've been writing your signature for so many years, too, it does that. But, you know, we do signature training, and we're pretty good about catching, you know, certain aspects of your signature. And we have a certain number. Sometimes we have a certain number of signatures on file that you've registered over the years so we can verify. But if we don't have your contact information, we can't contact you. So it would be nice if, you know, let us know at least your phone number. We won't get that out, or an email address. And that way we can at least contact you if your ballot was rejected in that way. Right.

That's good to know. Thanks for that. Because I know my signature has changed a lot.

I also want to know.

I don't have arthritis. I don't even know who arthritis is. Wait a couple more.

Okay.

Yeah, really, you're right, Demo. You have no.

You can't do it.

So how do you double check real quick on, because we all participate, well not all of us, but years ago participated in the double check of a machine. You got your machine, you vote, it's on the printed, you double check it, and then we randomly cross-checked machine versus the paper by hand. How do you do a double check now? Or is there a...

So it's a new, of course it's a new process. We're still trying to get some idea from the Secretary of State's office to do some of those audits. Yeah.

So you should come up to the front if you're going to speak.

They just did one.

Hi, Ali Guaman from the clerk's office. So I just conducted this audit with another clerk from the office. And it was a new process for us. So we randomly selected one of the tabulators that was at the polling location. And we took all of the ballots that were submitted that were fed into that tabulator. and we hand-tallied each vote for two randomly selected offices, and in the end, there was no discrepancy. So that replaced the audit that some of the commissioners participated in a few years ago.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

Okay, are there any other questions or comments?

I'd just like to comment that it actually is a paper ballot now that you go and you hand to them. That's an improvement, I think.

Think so yeah, we didn't have any negative feedback on it or anything like that everybody everybody it was easy to do Yeah, oh 19% of us yeah No it really isn't I mean a midterm primary we do get a little percent I was look I looked at 2022 we did get 30% We had more races on our ballot at that time too. We just had the the On the Democrat and the Republican, we had mostly state races and the Congress race, CD2 race. But for our local one was our TV board. So it was a nonpartisan race.

Okay. We're looking to approve the 2026 primary election canvas. I'll make that motion. You have a motion and a second? Is there any other comments on this? Any public comment? Yes, Mr. Kowarski.

Yes, thank you. Scott Gaworski, I rise on behalf of the Elko County Republican Party. I just want to echo our appreciation for the county clerk's office staff, the poll workers, and the election board. This has probably been the smoothest election we've had in a number of years here in Elko County and a large part of that. despite the new election procedures and some questions we've had from members has been the openness and willingness of the clerk's office and staff to work with us. So I just want to make the commission aware of that as a whole. We really appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to say that.

Okay, any other comments, questions?

Okay, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. And I vote aye also. Motion carries. Thank you. Move on to item D2, discussion consideration of an approval of a renewal contract with the City of West Wendover authorizing the issuance of marriage licenses and certificates of vow renewal on behalf of Elko County. Becky.

Rebecca Blunkett, Elko County Clerk's Office. This is just a renewal that we've had since 2017 with the West Wendover City Clerk's Office. They are authorized as a satellite office to issue marriage licenses in Wendover. And we get about, I did a search today. From January 2025, we've had about 49 marriage licenses issued in West Wendover.

Great. And I remember we did, I remember when the commission, through the clerk's office, did that as a means of community service. Right. Because in Wendover, they would have had to have come all the way to Elko to get a certificate.

Yes.

All right. Great. Any questions or comments?

I move to approve the contract as written.

Motion to approve. Second, Tom. And second. Thank you, John. Any other discussion? Any public comment on this item? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. I vote aye also. Motion carries. Item E, Elko County Planning and Zoning, E1. Pursuant to end notice 2026-28, discussion and consideration of approval of the final subdivision map for Schmitz Creek subdivision phase two as per application filed by HQ5 LLC for Schmitz Creek subdivision phase two, which creates 14 single family residential lots, two and a half acres and larger in size and two remainder lots.

Yes, sir. Corey. Good afternoon. Elko County surveyor and senior planner. This subdivision, the tentative map for this subdivision was approved back in April of 2022 and All of the requirements for the tentative map have been met, and phase one has been recorded. And I think they have sold a few lots on phase one. They're wanting to move forward with phase two now. The Elko County Planning Commission did recommend approval with staff's recommendations, findings, and conditions. It was discovered we missed something in one of our conditions, so we kind of need to modify condition I. And I would recommend that it reads, an instrument be in place to ensure the maintenance of the areas designated as open space and the maintenance of all roads within the proposed subdivision. Do you have any questions for me?

I don't. Any questions? Everybody clear on the addition?

I'm ready to make a motion. Yes, please do I would I move to approve This what do you call it final subdivision final subdivision map with the Require the in requested change to item I I would also like to make a change to number H and have it read, the developer shall comply with all requirements of the state of Nevada and obtain any required permits. Scratching the reference to the waters of the United States and the federal government. And I would like to include, what's the one where it fronts the two lots that?

Yeah, the addendum, which is item K. Was the addendum not attached to the agenda? Correct. It was not.

Well, it's... It was on a mine. It was in a different document.

Oh, okay, yeah. So K would be lots 20 and 21 shall not be permitted access onto the future Jennings Way.

Yeah, with that item K also.

Amanda, can you show us the overview of the subdivision so I can see where... Yeah. Yeah. So I saw lot 20, but I couldn't see, I couldn't see where, okay, there's 21. So where's Jennings?

Jennings Way, you see where the, it's this big strip along the east side of the subdivision there? Uh-huh. That's where future Jennings Way is going to be. And that's going to be a major collector, so we don't want new driveways going in onto it. Okay. When the city gets around to building it.

I had one other question. I remember earlier when this came up, I was adamant that we required fencing.

The fencing was done during the tentative map phase, and it has all been completed.

Right. They should be required to maintain it, too. Should that be in one of these?

Well, it is a condition of the tentative map.

Okay. So that's covered then?

Yeah. Okay.

Mr. Gale, do you mind just with this, with being a subdivision, would you reference the findings and then all conditions, like you said, A through with the amendment there, just to make sure we got them all with the stuff you're changing. The only thing, I totally understand what you're saying in respect to H, but I think the way they just write the conditions is, to be all encompassing just if it is a requirement, then it doesn't fall back to the county. That's, I think, is the biggest reason why it's stated that way. But I totally understand what you're saying with respect to the waters of the United States.

Just to be clear, you're proposing scratching that first sentence.

Yes, pretty much. That's pretty much it.

But he wants to, but you also want to scratch U.S. federal government from the second sentence as well, right?

Correct. Well, no, I think they have to, they need to.

The developer, so the developer shall comply with all requirements of the state of Nevada.

I feel that the federal government needs to be kept in there as well because that is considered a designated waterway of the U.S., and it is the federal government that controls this.

I agree with Corey. I mean, we might not want to put it in words that

We're accepting their premise, but yeah as far as the developer he's gonna Have to meet those federal requirements or he's gonna get in trouble down the road I think the one way you could potentially the county could get in trouble, too I think the way you could word it is just by saying the developer shall comply with all requirements And obtain any required permits and leave which is already in Condition number a Well, yeah, I guess that's specific to waters of 8 Mile Creek.

So the A already says they already have to comply with everything.

Actually, A is development standards with respect to the subdivision.

Oh, okay. So in H, with... So you would accept the motion as written if we leave in and the U.S. federal government in the sentence then?

Well, I think you could just say all required permits and not say it because I totally understand what you're saying. But I'm trying to keep the county out of liability if in case. I mean, we don't want to go to court to fight over this in the subdivision.

Well, I think if we're stating opinions, I think that would be the place to do that. We go over court, but not in this document. So I'm not in favor of changing. If we want to go to court, then we go on an action item some other time to claim the Eight Mile Creek is not a Waters of the US, and that's a different fight.

Well, the only reason, OK, can we debate this now then? I mean, is that all right?

Well, I think we just said our debate. So now it's who wants to make the motion and we vote.

Well, so the reason why the Eight Mile Creek is designated Waters of the United States with the federal government, that verbiage is there because the city wanted to put it in there. And whether or not it is, it's a sore thumb for anyone who's intimately familiar with the concept. And I don't want it to be there. I don't mind at all the developer shall comply with all requirements of the state of Nevada and the US federal government and obtain any required permits. I don't mind that at all. But I don't want- Just eliminate the first- Yeah, I don't want WOTUS in there at all.

Are you okay with that? Just eliminate the first sentence.

I still vote against it because I don't think there's a place to fight it. And it is designated by the Waters of the U.S. We're not making it designated. It already is.

There is eight miles got, you know, remember the dam structure up there? That is a... That is a, I mean, it's a flood zone. So, and that's function of FEMA, which is federal too. So, I mean, you've got a retention area up there that was, I can't remember, I remember it was built, you probably remember better than I do, but probably in the 70s when that was built, or maybe even the 60s or 50s.

So also, please keep in mind that this is a condition that was on the approved tentative subdivision map as well.

So that's why I'm not happy with it, Brian. I'm not agreeing with it. I'm saying it's already done, and if we want to go fight that somewhere else, fine. But in this case, I don't agree to fight with it here. It's what's here. It is designated, and I'm agreeing with the current wording.

I think, from my opinion, I think John's got a really good point here. I don't think this is the time we poke the bear. I mean, that's an issue that we need to address for sure, but we do this during a subdivision process. We might... harm the person that's trying to subdivide this, drag them into some type of situation that we don't want to necessarily be in over a subdivision. I think John's got a good point.

Okay. Well, that begs the question for me, at least. Why does the county then make these requirements that they follow federal law? Doesn't Doesn't the federal law have the muscle to enforce their own requirements?

Well, again, I think if you look back, once we say that they have to comply with all those laws, the ball is off our table. So if we don't say anything about that and they neglect to do that, then we're culpable. But if we say it and they don't do it, we said, hey, you need to do everything that's required by law. So it takes that liability away from us.

So we can be held accountable for... them not following the law if we didn't bring it to their attention?

Well, like I said, it's kind of a safety. I've seen this a gazillion times with all these developments because you can't possibly know what's all required and what's not. So it's usually just kind of a – it may not even be required. It's just like we're just saying if it's applicable, you need to – You need to follow them. I would say that there's some immunity for us if we missed it, but it's just the way we've always played safe. It's typical.

Yeah, I think the bottom line is that this is not the right place to have this fight. I agree with you 100% that waters in Lake Mill Creek should not be considered waters of the U.S., but this is a poor place to make that stand. Well, I'll rescind my motion then. And I'll make a motion that we approve this with the staff's conditions, including the addition that Corey made to item I.

Okay. Second that, sir. Okay, I have a motion, a second. Any other discussion? Any public comment on this item? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. I vote aye also. Motion, did you vote aye or did you vote nay? I'm sorry, you voted nay. Nay. Nay. Thanks, Brian. Thank you. And I think we all understand your point. Absolutely, for sure. Okay, moving on to item F, Elko County Finance. F1, presentation from I. Bailey LLP and consideration to approve the annual comprehensive financial report for fiscal year ended June 30th, 2025, including acceptance of the auditor's findings and approval of the corrective action plan as required by Nevada revised statutes. Hi, Terry.

Good afternoon. Thank you so much for having me. I know that you're traveling, so we're going to do a little bit more abbreviated version of the financial statement review. The good news is I'll be back in about a month to review the single audit. That's not part of this report, so if you want to drill into anything with more detail, we can certainly do that a month from now. So there are certain things I'm required to go through with you, so we'll just hit those requirements. You have two documents in front of you, the bound financial statements, and then there's a letter attached. All of the elements of the letter, we're going to walk through as we go through the financial statements. So I won't need to review that with you all. Page one, so a couple pages beyond the table of contents. That's your independent auditor's report. I'm very happy to report you have what we call an unmodified opinion. That's a clean opinion on the governmental activities, business type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information as of June 30th, 2025. Many of you probably remember we have to disclaim an opinion on the Agricultural Association District number four, the Fair Board, because they're not audited. So they're included in your financial statements as a component unit. However, they do not, they're not required to have an audit. So we disclaim relating to that. On page two, there are two paragraphs in the middle of that page that we had to report on. One we call an emphasis of matter. You had, we had a new accounting standard this last year, GASB statement number 101 relating to compensated absences, which basically changed the way you reported sick leave liabilities. It actually increased your liability by about a million dollars or so based on that new standard. The other paragraph was a correction of an error. There were two prior period adjustments relating to June 30th, 2024. One was in the RTC fund for diesel taxes that were due back to the state of Nevada that were not paid back until this year. And the other one was the recording of a contract retainage payable for the Town of Jackpot fund that was recorded in the wrong year. So we just have to note those here in our opinion. OK, now I'm going to skip to page 16. So on page 16, we call this your statement of net position. So that brings all your funds together, all your governmental funds, all your proprietary funds all come together in this statement, and they become full accrual. So we record all assets, all liabilities. There are certain items in this statement I wanted to review with you, and they're relating to your significant estimates. You do have several significant estimates that are included in your financial statements. One of those is the compensated absences we just talked about. That's an estimate where you basically calculate how much you think is going to be used, and that's what's included as a liability. You also have the net pension liability, which that's based on the PERS valuation that's done each year. So that liability is actually, $46.1 million for Elko County. That is an increase of about $2.5 million from the previous fiscal year. Your other significant estimate is your OPEB liability, other post-employment benefits. That's your retiree health care costs. And that liability has averaged about $7.4 million last year and this year. So it has stayed about the same.

Terry, really quickly, just a quick question. On the net pension liability, I show the $62 million.

Well, there's other factors that go in there. Under deferred outflows of resources, there's actually a debit, and then there's a credit under deferred inflows and outflows, and I combine both of those together. So that valuation is based, it's a year behind. PERS doesn't have the time to get a new valuation for your, current year audit. So they're always running a year behind. So you have other factors that go into those numbers that when you net them all, it ends up being about $64 million. I'm sorry, the $46.1 million.

So very good question.

And those other factors are like you have contributions that came through in FY25 that will decrease that amount. And then you have earnings. and your change in your proportionate share in conjunction with the state's proportionate share, and it changes that liability to where when you net them all together, it is that lower amount. So on page 17, once you add in all of those factors, you actually have in your governmental activities an unrestricted deficit of $12.5 million because of PERS and OPEB. And you're funding exactly what you're supposed to fund, but when you add in those other liabilities that are going to go out for 10, 20, 30, 40 years, it does create that deficit. So that's very normal in an entity your size.

And what I remember is that pension liability was one of those GASB...

It was a new GASB. Oh, God, I don't remember how many years ago.

It's been a while ago.

Yeah, 10 plus, yeah.

And I remember that because that would be an assumption on what you would have to pay out in. Today. Yeah, in today if you didn't get any other taxes.

If everybody retired today, that's what you would, to pay for all those retirees. And we know that that's not going to happen. So, yeah, they ended up, that GASB brought in all of these liabilities. And for entities your size, it did create that deficit. And when you budget, you don't budget for future pension or OPEB costs. You budget for costs that are going to be in that next year. And so yeah, but it creates that deficit. So overall, when you add all of these together, you as a commission are responsible for about $155 million in net assets. Several of that amount is restricted for certain activities. For example, you have the state statute that restricts certain revenue sources. You have the opioid funds that are restricted just for opioid-related expenses. So then you have, out of that amount, you do have certain restrictions there that we do report. OK, now we're going to skip all the way to page 42. The top of page 42, this is your statute compliance footnote. You did have several noncompliance with state statutes. The first one on page 42, this is relating to where you overspent your budget. Overall, you have a budget of about $165 million in expenses. And so you had two line items out of that total budget that you overspent. So I think that's pretty amazing that you came so close. You were pretty close to meeting your budget. This is normal. I mean, you probably have had this every year where you just are kind of a little bit off the mark in a couple of places. The first one was your capital project fund by about $10,226 and the internal service fund for your group health insurance by $358,000. But like I say, overall, those things happen, and you can't project to the penny where you're going to be at the end of the year. So very normal. Second one was relating to an inter-fund loan. If you have deficit cash balances in a fund at the end of the year, state statute basically says, gee, you're borrowing from another fund. You should have an inter-fund loan resolution. And you did have a deficit cash balance in the local emergency planning commission fund by about $55,000, and there was not an inter-fund loan. I think Mary probably has the next agenda item to approve your year-end inter-fund loans. Common one, again, things happen, and this is a grant-funded fund. So if those grant funds don't come in, it creates a deficit cash balance. The last one was relating to the audit report. Audits are due by November 30th of each year, and we're into June. So you had an extension through February. So that is a violation of NRS 354.624. The reason that the audit was so late this year was related, you changed accounting systems. You had a new comptroller. You had lots of things happening. And with all of that, I think capital assets were probably a thorn in Mary's side. And it just took a little bit longer to get through that conversion and then for us to be able to audit it. So that is included as a statute violation. All right, now we're going to jump all the way. Sorry, I'm trying to follow my notes, too. We're going to jump all the way to the general fund, which is at the bottom of page 81. I'm just going to highlight the general fund today. And like I say, when I come back, if we want to highlight any others, we certainly can. So on the bottom of page 81, your general fund, so the main operating fund of the county, you ended the year with a $21.2 million ending fund balance. That is an increase of about $2.5 million from the previous fiscal year. Over the years, you've heard me say you never want your general fund ending fund balance to be more than 8.3% of expenditures. That's one month. So you want to make sure you have enough cash and fund balance to run the county for a month as other revenues are coming in, you're actually at 47%. So I have a lot of local governments, and that ending fund balance is coming lower and lower and lower each year. So yours actually increased. So I was really happy to see that. And great job, because that means that you're spending less than you budgeted. So let's see. Now we're going to go all the way to the end to the findings. As part of our audit, we're required, page 182, if certain things come to our attention during the audit process, we have to show them on our schedule of finding and responses in accordance with government auditing standards. So on page 182, you did have several audit-related findings. The first one was relating to report preparation and journal entries that were found as part of the audit process.

Most of these journal entries were year-end journal entries.

They weren't the day-to-day transactions. Those were fine. They're just when you have to go full accrual at the end of the year or do some sort of journal entry. They weren't made correctly. So we had several of those type of items. And as a whole, they are considered to be material items. Accounts receivable for the utilities was overstated in several funds. Accrued payroll and insurance premium revenue was overstated in the group health insurance fund. Your investment gain or loss, it was just they recorded the entry backwards. So once you flipped the entry, it was correct. It was just recorded backwards. And a lot of that, I think it's hurrying to get it ready for the auditor and just having that cross-check to go back and check those numbers. A couple of the other larger ones, just a few receivables that didn't get recorded at the end of the year correctly. Cash was out of balance. I think that was changing over to the new system. And I think we went back and forth with the treasurer's office. And there was one entry, it was recorded backwards. by $167,000. So then your cash was perfectly in balance. And then those two prior period adjustments that we had already discussed. Top of page 183, a couple of others relating to property taxes that weren't recorded correctly at the end of the year relating to personal property taxes where some of those you have changes throughout the year and those aren't going to be collectible. So they actually wrote some of those down for some of the larger mining properties that had some changes. And then a couple relating to your leases where a lease wasn't recorded correctly at the end of the year. Bottom of page one. I did have a question. Yes.

Sorry, Terry. I didn't mean to. That's all right. I was trying to think of 20 year building lease.

So a few years ago, um, there was a new Gatsby relating to leases that came into play. And, um, You had a building lease. Mary, which one was it? It was the bank building. Yeah, it's for the drug court. For the drug court, okay. And so all of the payments for that went through correctly, but under that new lease standard, you have to record a lease payable, a liability, and an asset, and that piece wasn't recorded. So a few years ago, you wouldn't have this finding because it wasn't in effect.

Well, I didn't realize we had a lease for that.

You do. You have a 20-year building lease, correct? So that's what created That was I think one of the last things we found yeah, I mean it's review that we reported We're just having a hot sidebar about what the location of that building is but former Southwest gas, thanks, okay? Second finding was relating to single audit federal financial assistance throughout in the audit process The LATCF, so that local tribal assistance grant for the $12 million, that was an on your schedule expenditures of federal awards and should have been. So that's included as a finding. And then there was an emergency management grant that was on your schedule of federal awards and shouldn't have been. The one at the bottom of page 184 relating to capital assets, that was due to the system conversion I think we probably had 10 copies of capital assets that went back and forth throughout the audit trying to get that to match with the new system. So that was a challenge. Top of page 185, a few other smaller, we call them significant deficiencies. So don't rise to a level of a material weakness. But your P cards, all of your expenditures are all approved. But for some reason, P cards... didn't go through that secondary review process. And I think it just kind of got missed. And so that's kind of been tweaked a little bit, and now that's going through the review process. And then the very last one is relating to system user rights. When you converted to the new system, everybody had the same user rights, which kind of causes a control issue. That means anybody can set up a payroll, an expenditure, approve it, process it, to where you don't really have segregation of duties when everybody has those same control rights. So I know they went in and tweaked those. And that kind of happens a lot when you put a new system, you're just trying to get used to how it works. But you always want to make sure you have those controls in place that you have proper segregation of duties. So those are the findings relating to this fiscal year. We're still in the process of doing the single audit portion. So like I say, I'll be back in a month after we go through all of our single audit testing and report back to you. And we can certainly go through any other line items that you would want to discuss in more detail if you have further questions, just because I know you guys are traveling today. And I'm happy to entertain any questions. Any questions? I know, that's a lot. Perfect.

Are there any issues that we have perpetually, year after year?

I think you're always going to have the report prep finding, and most of our audit clients have that, because iBailey prepares your financial statements. And so that's a common one that you have every year, and that's probably across the entire state of Nevada. And we've always had journal entries that were part of the year-end close process that We report. But I think all of the others, you usually correct those or put things in. You put controls in place to where I don't see the same other type of findings. You're probably always going to have a journal entry here and there. That's just going to happen. But the other ones, yeah, I think they all get corrected each year. I don't have any that have continued to come back year after year after year that I can think of. Can you think of any? Yeah. Okay. Thanks. So great. I mean, everybody, they do a great job. There's a lot of time and effort. This is a 1,000-hour audit. And the comptroller's office and Amanda's office, a lot of time and effort goes into that. And putting it all together, and nobody's perfect. There's always going to be little things that happen.

Any other questions?

I'll move that we approve the financial report.

Second. I have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Any public comment on this item? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. I vote aye. Motion carries. Thanks, Terri. Safe travels. Thank you. Move on to F2, Pursuant to Notice Number 202629, Discussion and Consideration to Adopt Resolution Number 2616 through Resolution 2621. to approve the augmentation of the following funds for fiscal year 2026 year-end adjustments. Elko County general funding in the amount of $1,867,000. Unincorporated Town of Jackpot general funding in the amount of $300,000. Elko County Fire Protection District in the amount of $1,160,562. Local Emergency Planning Committee in the amount of $75,738. County ambulance funding the amount of two hundred and eighty thousand and Elko County grants funding the amount of seven hundred thirty six thousand one hundred and twenty four and Just for everybody's information. There was one of these in the original resolutions where the the amounts was Incorrect that has been updated the resolution so everything on the resolution references all these amounts that are on the agenda Mary

So these are several year-end adjustments to bring our budget in line with the actual expenditures. Most of them, I know the fire districts, the local emergency planning committee, and the grants fund are all grant-related. We got more revenue, so we had more expenses we had to budget for. The town of Jackpot, that's mostly capital outlay at the airport that wasn't originally budgeted for. And the general fund, that was a lot of that had to do about a million of it with the grant funding for the internet with CC Com. So we got more revenue in to cover the expenses, but we still have to augment the budget so that we're not over on expenditures. Do you have any other questions for me regarding any of that?

I have a motion to approve. Second. And a second. And these are definitely good things. You always want to end up with a little bit more money than you anticipated. So appreciate that. Any other discussion? Any public comment on this item?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. resolution number 2026 22 authorizing an inter fund loan to the Elko County ambulance service from from the Elko general fund up to 600,000 the proposed inter fund loan is Intended to provide short-term financial support and will be administered in accordance with applicable NRS So this is what Terry was just talking about a little bit ago, but Mary go ahead

Yes, correct. So this fund is currently showing a negative cash balance, meaning it is actually already borrowing from the general fund to pay bills. Currently, this is most of it is tied up in receivables. We're waiting for the revenue to come in for billed charges in order to pay this. This short-term loan, as soon as that revenue comes in, the general fund will be paid back. And it will occur within the next year. Go ahead.

Yeah, so I've got a question about these. So they're related to accounts receivable. These are bills that have been sent out to people who have ridden in an ambulance.

Yes, so they ride in the ambulance. Then we have the third party billers that bill it out. They get collected and then send us the money. So it's just a timing issue of getting all of that in to cover all the bills. And because we're waiting on that, it's caused the cash to go into a negative balance.

What percentage of our total accounts receivable for the ambulance does this $600,000 represent?

That's about most of the receivable.

Can we actually anticipate all of that money coming back in? I mean, is this a loan or is this a just fill up the, just spackle over it? Because it's my understanding that a lot of those bills don't actually... get paid?

The ones that will be run through insurance, we will get the insurance payments, definitely. It's usually when they have to be written off or written down, because the insurance won't pay that much, or we have to wait longer for an individual to pay. And I'm sure Chris can explain it better than I can.

I might be able to help with that a little bit. Chris McCann, EMS chief. So we have around 1,000 claims that are outstanding right now. average receivable is around $630, I think is where we're at right now. And so we should be able to pay that back as those come in.

Chris, are we still awaiting the GMT payment as well?

We are still awaiting the GMT money. And that last year's, I believe, was around $450, if I remember right. We haven't gotten a solid number yet on this year. So as that payment comes in, that will also help our fund balance substantially.

So this isn't, we recognize that that's what, This is what's actually happening. We're not just asking for a loan that later we'll have to paper over.

I would just point back to what Terry said. So first of all, it's an audit finding. So this is to make sure that we have an accurate and reflective paper trail about what happened. So this has happened in the past because of the nature of the billing, right? So it's very common. So you're seeing these now because... Hey, we found out it was an audit finding and we just need to make sure that that is covered. So, I mean, anytime you, and governments can do inter-fund loans are very common, but they have to be paid back in a year. So that's essentially what's happened. Give him a loan, gives him time to get his resources back and he has to pay him back within a year. If you don't pay him all the way back, then there's probably an additional report that would have to come back to the commission. Okay. Does that sound about right, Mary? Yes. Okay.

Then I move to approve these augmentations as listed. Resolution number 2026, that's 2-2. Is that what we did?

Yeah, there we are 16 through 21 We just did that we're on 26 22 20 26 22 okay, I move to approve resolution 20 26 22 Okay have a motion in a second Any public comment on this one all those in favor signify by saying aye aye and aye vote aye also motion carries.

Thanks I And I think this is another one, right? It is. Discussion, consideration, resolution 2026-23, authorizing an inter-fund loan to the District Court to Rural Drug Court Grant Fund and the County General Fund up to $220,000.

Mary. So this fund, the Rural Drug Court Fund, is mostly grant funded. And there are several reimbursements that we haven't received yet. The county hasn't received from the state or federal government to cover expenditures that have been paid. So we expect to get those in shortly after year end to repay this loan. Questions, comments, concerns?

I move to approve the loan in 2026-23. Thank you. I'll second.

I'll second. Any other discussion? Any public comment on this item? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Vote aye also. Motion carries. G, appointments. G1, discussion and consideration to approve appointment or reappointment of three representatives to serve on the Enhanced 911 Board with terms expiring June 30, 2028. Two current members, West Wendover Chief of Police Brad Hillacre and Elko County Ambulance Service Director Chris McMahon have expressed interest in reappointment. Both serve as required entity representatives in accordance with Elko County Code titled 11, Chapter 6, Section 3. In addition, we have a member-at-large that was held by Lee Kabnis, and we have two applications. One is for Andrew Meek, and the other applicant is Larry Robb. Lee, anything else? I know you provided the commission with a recommendation. I don't know if you want to... Go over that or give us any additional information.

But I thought you were going to be a permanent fixture on that board.

I'm just kidding you a little bit, all right?

I thought we were. I have been on the board since it was initiated in 2016, so 10 years doing that. I spoke with Amanda. I would like to transition to a staff support role so I'd still do all the things. I just wouldn't be one of the voting members. And I think the at-large position, as I I think. Give it to Amanda. Give it to the board. Andrew Meek was our prior GIS technician with the county. He has a substantial background in technology and all that kind of stuff. And that's really the meat and potatoes of a lot of what E911 is doing at this point. The public safety folks are well represented. And I think having an at-large person that has a technology and mapping and all that kind of stuff background as a voting member is probably the right move right now. And then I would provide staff support

Okay, any questions from the commission or motion or an appointment?

The only thing I would question is if you look farther down our agenda is support with the TV district on a radio communications technicians, port vehicle, whatever. Should we be looking at a TV board member for this position? We're starting to work more together and this is truly a question. I am not making an endorsement to do that. It truly is a question.

Yeah, so I think what I would say is that let those two boards work together through some sort of interactivity there. The TV board's elected. Ours is appointed. I'm not sure if we can have overlap on those.

You're going to have to ask the DA's office.

Yeah, so it's a question, but the E911 board is supposed to be representative of all the public safety folks and then have one at-large position.

So that's just a question for the whole board to ponder and maybe this is not the time but in the future how we're kind of starting to work with a TV district which is becoming the Elko communication district. But no, I'm okay with this and I didn't remember if we made a motion or not but I'd make a motion to approve that. And that was Meek and Hillaker.

It would include Chief Hilliker and Ambulance Service Chris McCann for reappointment and then the new appointment of the at-large member.

Andrew Meek. Correct.

Okay, that's your motion?

That was the motion I made.

Okay. I'll second that.

And a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Any public comment on this item? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

I vote aye also. Motion carries. Item H, Enhanced 911, H1 Presentation Report, an update on projects, impact funding, and future planning of the Enhanced 911 Board. This is a non-action item. Lee.

So I just have a report, uh, Just to, I'll try and get through it. Tell me if I just need to stop or delay. But Elko County operates one of the largest by size and complex emergency response environments in the United States. Reliable, redundant, and interoperable emergency communication is critical to life safety, incident response, and cooperation between public safety agencies. The Enhanced 911 Advisory Board is responsible for maintaining a current five-year master plan, which is attached to the agenda. And Matt can speak on if you want to hear anything on it. The plan continues to prioritize system reliability and redundancy. interoperability, operational efficiency, modernization, support for growth and demand, and continuity of operations during system failures or disasters. Since 2016, the board's major projects have moved Elko County from a basic 911 system, where 911 was essentially an alias for a normal 10-digit phone number delivered to dispatch centers, to a true next-generation 911 system. Elko County was the first in Nevada to implement next-generation 911, and to date, the only in Nevada to implement next-generation 911. This provides improved caller location, carrier information, and subscriber information to the dispatch centers. The most recent upgrades earlier this year improved the operating environment for both dispatchers and callers. This past year, we've had the statewide E911 coordinator, representatives from Carson City, the Nevada Office of Emergency Management, and the Governor's Homeland Security Advisor all come to the Elko Dispatch Center to see the leaps that we have taken forward. Today, our system includes redundant tools to identify caller location, deliver emergency calls to the correct center, allow dispatchers to manage those calls, and notify emergency responders. Past projects have included upgrades to the 911 call handling system, computer-aided dispatch software, responder notification and information systems, interoperable radio equipment, redundant connectivity, emergency dispatching capabilities, and data integration between the county and Nevada Department of Public Safety. These improvements have supported both the Elko and West Wendover dispatch centers. Current projects include upgrading radio consoles used by the dispatchers in the center, improving mobile responder platforms for better field data sharing, replacing workstations in the Elko center, and adding public alert and warning capabilities that Elko County has not previously had. The E901 board is also working with West Wendover as the other public safety answering point in the county with Chief Brad Hilliker fully engaged and serving as the vice chair of the advisory board. The board is working with and has developed a collaborative relationship with the Elko County TV District to share the burden and continue to improve the emergency communications infrastructure. These relationships are important as we continue to look for practical, local, cost-effective, and sustainable ways to strengthen emergency communications across the county. Future plans include successful software and program improvements from Elko to West Wendover, moving from a Nevada Department of Public Safety hosted server to a local server to improve local control, continuing to improve network redundancy, improve interoperable communications, and ensure that we continue to provide the best service to the citizens and visitors of Elko County. From a financial standpoint, the Enhanced 901 Fund accrues approximately $700,000 per year in surcharge revenue. The advisory board intends to manage those funds so that the annual operational costs, including ongoing subscriptions, maintenance agreements, and other recurring expenses, do not exceed approximately 45% of the annual surcharge revenue. The intent is to preserve most of the fund, 55% to 60% of annual revenue for capital projects and one-time investments. This approach is important because many 911, radio, dispatch, system improvement, and emergency communications projects are significant one-time costs. These projects often require funds to be planned and obligated in advance so that the county can move forward when equipment vendors purchasing process and then implement. implementation timelines are ready. The advisory board's goal is to avoid building a system that is overly dependent on recurring costs while still making strategic capital investments that improve reliability, interoperability, and long-term local control. For our citizens, the goal is simple. When they call 911, they enter into a high-quality, high-reliability system. The calls are answered promptly and professionally, and the right infrastructure is in place to support them. Through enhanced 911 funding, dispatchers are better able to receive the call, process information, deliver it to the correct response agency, and track the incident through to completion. We now receive more information than ever before from carriers, equipment providers, and from our own system integrations, and that information directly contributes to effective emergency response. For our response agencies, the goal is that they are promptly notified of incidents, receive better and more complete information through mobile data systems, They can see call information updates throughout the incident, benefit from record management integration. They can communicate clearly with the centers and continue to see real movement towards fully interoperable field communications. There are still gaps. We remain reliant on legacy landline carriers for some non-emergency communications and continued modernization and problem solving remain important. So looking forward, the Enhanced 911 Board and staff have positioned Elko County so that 911 call handling, emergency dispatch functions, and later this summer radio communications can occur from anywhere with an internet connection. This is consistent with the board's goals of improving reliability, protecting continuity of operation, and reducing dependence on legacy systems. So that is the update for e911.

Wow, that was great.

That was awesome. I appreciate the extra effort that you went into it besides just the master plan update. That was really wonderful. And the whole time I was reflecting on two things. One is you said 10 years ago. That's hard to believe. But we've come light years in 10 years.

We've gone from being one of the final basic 911 systems in Nevada to being the only next generation system in Nevada.

That's really surprising to me. We're the only one.

I cannot believe it. I've had the Governor's Homeland Security Advisor, the Carson City Emergency Manager, The statewide 911 coordinator, we are the only next-gen system.

See, there was a benefit for us to delay that whole implementation. Yeah, yeah. We skipped enhanced, actually, is what we did. The other thing I was reflecting on, Lee, is you remember how supported this was in the community, right? It was hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I wish that somehow we could communicate. Just take your report there and mail it to the, I'm sure we have a list of people that, that made those donations and just say, hey, we wanted to give you an update as far as your initial investment went. I mean, because you hit on all the great things on there. I love the annual revenue pieces and the recognition. I mean, I think it's a great story that we need to share. I mean, this is a methodology to share, but I personally like to see you send out that letter to those people that made We don't have a newspaper anymore. I was thinking that, too. Yeah, but I mean, I think that would be great. And I don't, you know, I mean, that's not on this board for signature. But, you know, if you want to put that on the agenda where we can all participate, I think it's a great story. And I think we need to recognize those pioneers in believing in us and funding that with that donation that they did. So congratulations.

Ten years. It seems like yesterday. It seems like yesterday.

It actually does. This is a non-action item, but is there any other questions from the commission or comments on this? No. Okay. Thank you for doing that, Lee. I really appreciate it. H2, discussion consideration approval, a purchase, a Motorola computer-aided dispatch server, and authorized use of enhanced 911 fund for the project. The E911 board recommends proceeding with a one-year cost of up to $500,000 in ongoing costs for two to four years of $100,000. Lee, this item is for possible action.

All right. So since the beginning of ENR1, we've had our CAD, our computer-aided dispatch. It's the functionality that the dispatchers use for literally everything all the time. We switched to Motorola a few years ago under the state's contract. So our server, the server that provides it is the Department of Public Safety server. Late last year that went offline for a period of time. So we were offline whereas if we were on our own we would not have been. Also, it amounts to significant local control. Basically, we are tied to the parameters the Department of Public Safety builds, not the parameters that we would build. And our partner agencies, our user agencies, have basically said that they would like to have the parameters that we would like to build as opposed to what the state does. There's already about $100,000 that we pay out each year to Spelman or to Motorola for this purpose. So this would be up to $500,000 in year one, and then an additional $100,000 per year going forward.

So we already spent $100,000, and so if this goes through, not this year because $500,000, but next year we'd be paying two?

So basically the sheriff's office, the dispatch center, and the... Police Department already paid that $100,000 out of their own budgets. We would have $100,000 in maintenance. But what we get from that is we actually get geographic information systems.

So the question is, it'll be two?

It will be two. Only 100 of it will be paid out of the E9-1 fund.

Okay.

Yeah.

That is correct. Any other questions? Yeah, I've got a question. So is that... That seems like a lot of money, half a million bucks for the first year. That's for servers and such?

So we buy the servers. We do the data. We basically have to pay to do the data transition. It's all the year one costs all rolled up into one. And our first year of managed services so that we have people on. Basically, we have people on call for us now as opposed to having one person at the state that we can call for something.

And what happens on year six? Do we get to pay $500 again?

I doubt that would be the case, but the contract terms are for five years. So if servers needed replaced, if we had to replace hardware or something like that, there would probably be a cost in the future.

Do we have the facility, the cooling and all that for this? Yes. And is there...

Is there enough benefit?

I mean last last year we lost service from the state once Yeah, it's more about local control of the data than it is that that's just an example of when you're tied into the state You know we've said it before I think from the e9 on one board There's not a single thing that we've gotten from the state that we're really proud of But at the end of the day it's about having local control if you Just the way that the system works is the way that Nevada Department of Public Safety, the way Highway Patrol wants it to work. It's not the way the Sheriff's Office wants it to work, or the police department, or any of the fire departments. So it is basically to buy back that local control.

So of your top needs, this $500,000 is best used here. Is that what you're saying?

Right now, yes.

I didn't make the motion to approve. I didn't understand what you said, John.

So if, sorry, if we have $500,000 to spend and there's five things we have to fix, this is number one on your list to fix. And you just said yes.

Apparently it is.

Then I'll make that motion to approve the H2.

I have a motion.

Second.

I have a second. Any other discussion? Any public comment on this item?

If you don't mind, I do have a question for Lee. I'm assuming that this is just approval for the funding. That contract will come back for approval.

That contract will come back for approval. I have a copy of it, but the dates and stuff are wrong on it. Okay.

Just making sure.

Thank you.

Okay. Thanks, Amanda. I appreciate it. Did you have a comment? Go ahead. Come on up. State's name for the record, please.

Yes, sir. INTERMECA FORMALLY THE GIS TECHNICIAN FOR ELKO COUNTY I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF MAYBE ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE BECAUSE FOR THE E911 BOARD'S PURPOSES THE OTHER BENEFIT OF HAVING LOCAL CONTROL IS FOR THE GIS SIDE OF THINGS SO ADDRESS POINTS ROADS WE GET NEW ADDRESS POINTS THAT COULD BE UPDATED A LOT QUICKER THAN TWICE A YEAR SO PARTICULARLY WITH THE SUBDIVISIONS COMING IN FOR THE CITY OF ELKO developments out in Elko County. This would be very beneficial to have that local control because there's been issues in the past when I was the GIS technician for emergency services as far as addressing in particular. That would be a great benefit, I think, to have that local control because we could make changes to zones, make changes to roads, addresses, so on and so forth. That was all I had to say.

Good point. Thanks.

So along those lines, would this avoid the issue we had a couple years ago, a year and a half ago, where the little girl died in Clover Valley because we couldn't get to her?

So not a very complex issue to try and provide a simple response for it. What we are able to do is provide data into the system at a much more rapid pace than what we were before. So if that had been updated, if that address point existed, and all of the things, with this process, we would be able to update that more often into all the data sets than we are right now, which is currently twice per year. We have a narrow window to update stuff twice per year.

Any other questions? Any public comment on this item?

Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye. Vote aye also. Motion carries. H3 Discussion Consideration of Approval to Purchase and Equip a Radio Communications Technician Support Vehicle for the Elko TV District under Cooperative Service Utilizing Enhanced E911 Funds. Matt.

Matt Peterson, Elko County Fire District, and a representative of the E911 Board. So this is, we entered into that MOU of the County Fire District and the TV District earlier this year? Last year? Recently. Okay. And this is the county's contribution towards, they're gonna hire a radio technician and communications technician at the beginning of the fiscal year. This is part of the county's contribution towards that and enables them in the end-to-end user. So if we don't have someone that's available like we don't right now, we have contractors that go work on it, but they're not always available when we need them. This provides them a vehicle to go and maintain all of our radio sites, our communication sites, help us with vehicles, help us with installations, and additional stuff.

I appreciate that explanation. I made a note of why are we buying their vehicle when they have their own tax funds.

And I think this is our contribution from the E911 to help support the public safety side end-to-end user. I lost my train of thought. Going somewhere with it.

I'll make a motion to approve. I like we're finally working together and we have a purpose of the TV district. Okay, have a motion?

Second. And a second. Any other discussion? I'm still glad. I'm still.

They have their own million dollars of tax funds. I'd rather the 9-1-1 funds go to what Lee's been doing.

So this would remain a piece of county capital. This would remain a county vehicle. We're not buying it and just giving it to them. It stays with us. So if we separate from that agreement or we need it for something else, we've already had communications with them of what it would look like. They pay for the operational cost. It would remain with us if we ever decide to part ways. So it's not, we're just giving them something to give it to them.

And correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Peterson, answer your question, Rex. A lot of the towers and stuff, the TV district are now converting more towers for us to bounce our signals off radio communication. So the joke of the old rabbit ears is finally about done, but they are having their towers equipment. and the money they're spending is we're using as well. So is the city. So is the other ones. Verizon, all of them are putting stuff on those towers, and that's becoming more of a communication district.

And they recently, in the last two years, they passed a vote that, they're waiving all of public safety fees for putting our equipment on their sites. And so we're actually, we're actively working with them and exploring moving all of our radio equipment as much as we possibly can off of what the state charges us, which is ungodly amount of number for the service that we get. And so we're gonna save money on them. And this is just that MOU, it's also good faith of, hey, we wanna work in this partnership through the MOU to make this happen.

All right.

Thank you, guys.

Thanks. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Any public comment on this item? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. I vote aye. Also, motion carries. We'll go on to H4, discussion consideration of approval to purchase the total response software platform for emergency call-taking solution to replace flip cards at the Westwind Dispatch Center utilizing enhanced 911 funds.

Lee. So Elko Dispatch already uses this. The centers use the same CAD, use the same training modules and things like that. So this would be to get both centers using the same system. So this is when you call 911, the dispatcher starts by saying, what is the address of your emergency? And then goes, what's going on? And if you're having chest pain, for example, it gives them all of the prompts on what questions to ask, what information to provide to responders. And when to dispatch essentially if there's critical things they can pause and dispatch units West Wendover is currently using flip cards Which are exactly what you would think they are a set of cards on a deck that they have to manually flip In order to get to said information Whereas this is integrated into the terminal for the dispatcher. We already use it in Elko We weren't able to add to them total response would not allow us to add them to our current contract So this is just a separate contract for West Wendover to utilize. So it has one-time cost, and then starting in year two, there's just a maintenance cost.

You know, it makes sense to me, but I was wondering if you would mention the fact that they're another PSAP within our...

So they are the only other public safety answering point within the county currently. Thanks.

I talked with West Windover today, and they're all in favor of this. So I move to approve as presented. There's no dollar amount there.

So it is $598 in year one, and then a total of $9,475.85 in the following years for maintenance costs. Pocket change. It is a very worthwhile spend on these dollars.

Okay, I have a motion. I do not have a second yet. Second. Got a couple seconds. You guys play Rochambeau. We'll see who gets that. All right, any other discussion, comment, concern? Any public comment on this item? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Vote aye also. Motion carries. L. Local Emergency Planning Committee, otherwise known as LEPSI. Discussion consideration to authorize the LEPSI Committee to submit any remaining fiscal year 2026 and fiscal year 2027 grant applications for the State Emergency Response Commission, which is CERC, Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness, United We Stand, Mid-Cycle Grants, and Emergency Management Performance Grants. These are grants we've received in the past. Lee, go ahead.

So everything from CERC, so this is just a permission slip. Basically, the timeline on applying for these is sometimes short. They'll post that they're available with a closing that may be before the next meeting, especially on mid-cycle. So we just want LEVC to have permission to apply for the grants. We would still bring everything back for the normal process, but we just want kind of blanket approval for Anything that remains, any remaining FY26 dollars and anything in FY27, just so that we can move forward, apply for those grants.

Questions, comments?

I move to approve I-1.

I have a motion.

Second, though.

And a second. Any other discussion? Any public comment on this item? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

I vote aye. All motion carries. We're going on to I-2, discussion consideration of approval of the bylaws and member group of organizations that make up the LEPC committee in Elko County. Item for possible action. Lee, you've been here all afternoon. All afternoon. You look great.

Lee Kamnes, LEPC chair. So in this, during our, so our information is submitted annually. During this year's annual submission, the review on it said that it had not been reapproved by the LEPC or the county commissioners. It is the same bylaws and the same membership that we approved in 2023. I just need to stamp a new date on it, and therefore, I need your approval. I'll move to that motion.

I have a motion. Second. And a second. Any other discussion? Any public comment on this item? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. And I vote aye. Also, motion carries. Jay, Elko County. Thanks, Lee. Elko County Assessor Discussion Consideration to Approve Fiscal Year 2027 Annual Report and Expenditure Plan for the Assessor's Technology Fund. This item is for possible action. I'm not seeing anybody here from the Assessor's Office. Do we have anybody?

I do not see anyone online either.

They're waiting for us in the wilds. Are they? You know, obviously, I love. Oh, is he coming over?

They are now.

Okay. We see representatives walking over. Everyone stand and cheer when he comes. Give him a couple of minutes. I don't know how we're going to be in Wells by 2 o'clock.

We're not.

I let him know. Okay. I think I mentioned him.

Didn't you? I think you did.

Hi. You're up. Yeah. It's good to see you.

Hi, everyone.

Hi, Janet. Good morning, board. How are you? We really smoked through those last items.

I know you did, really. Janet Airborne for the record. I guess we're here today for the Assessor's Technology Fund, the projected technology expenditures for the fiscal year 26-27. Do you have a time to look through that information or...

Did you have any questions? I had a couple of them. I mean, I do see that million dollar expenditure. But I know we've got a lot of, you know, GIS component there's the light archive there's all that stuff it all costs a ton of money And I know that and that's kind of why that the tech funds there You know that's the whole kind of the whole purpose of it, and it's kind of expensive so the only thing that I am not because this is an opportunity I think for You know us to see this. I think that's why the NRS requires this report so the only thing that I'm not seeing in the report is is And I don't know if we have this somewhere, the current balance of the fund. know what's coming in I mean I see what you're proposing to expand next year but I don't see what we have what we anticipate you know what I'm saying I would love to to see that maybe I don't know if it's necessary this time but certainly in the future I guess I won't be part of that discussion but I think it would be good to have I agree you know we've tried to have that and I have never really gotten a solid number on the tech fund to be honest it's actually part of the general fund

You know, we've had the tech fund has fluctuated quite greatly. Ten years ago, the assessor got quite a bit of funding. Currently, last year, we didn't get very much. I mean, our net proceeds were a little bit lower and About half of the funds come from net proceeds. So that really brought it down for us on that. But I have never gotten a balance for that. And I would like to, and with Mary on that, On the team now, maybe we can get that pinned down. I do have the numbers from the state, but they don't publish them until after July. The Net Proceeds of Minerals Bulletin will be published at the end of July, and that's where I'm getting my numbers for previous years. They don't have this year's numbers out. So perhaps after July 1, I can get with Mary, and we can have that information to you guys.

And as I recall, this tech fund's been out there a long time, you know, again, because there's a lot of expenditure to run this department, a lot of technology that's used to run the department. So I think it's a good opportunity to kind of mention again where those revenues come from. So you said net proceeds of mine. What I recall is, like, 2% of the county's portion of net proceeds of mine, is that correct?

It's 2% of the 5% reserved for the county. Okay. And then there are some funds from the unsecured rule, the personal property taxes, and we get a quarter of the 8% commission reserved.

Okay.

And so, you know, there are those two, it's kind of two-fold.

Maybe you have it right there, too. Oh, yeah, it's right there. Yep, there it is right there. Sorry.

I think you guys asked that question last year, and you were in Carlin, and I was on the phone, so it was a little bit broken up, so this year I thought I'd have some of those questions answered for you that you had last year, and then next year I'll go forward and bring you the trial balance for the assessor's tech fund. Okay. Yeah, maybe we'll have a project ready to go for that for Elko County.

Thanks, Janet.

Okay.

Any other questions anybody else has?

Yeah, I've got a question. So you spend a million dollars for aerial imagery.

Actually, you know these are earmarked numbers if we wanted to do a complete flight Of the county would actually cost more than a million, but just to do a general flight We could probably squeeze something in for a million, so that's my earmarked money I just need to show you guys that I'm I'm saving this money that I'm not using that I roll over I would like to use that towards these projects here that are on this list and We currently are spending about $100,000 a year out of the technology fund. And it's for the aerial imagery. So we're spending about $80,000 to $100,000 a year in aerial imagery. And that's coming out of the tech fund.

So that's from actual airplanes?

Yes. And we only do little spots of the county. We don't fly the entire county. We only fly the areas that we're going to be re-evaluating So each year the county's broken to five parts. And so every year we kind of fly those parts just

Little sections at a time, so we're not getting in a complete fight if I were to do a complete flight It would cost over a million dollars okay, and I would just say just see it is a super great tool not only for the assessor's office, but there are tons of people that use everything from real estate to surveying engineer it's The title companies, there is a lot. Attorneys use that. It is a great tool.

So do we make that aerial imagery public? Yeah.

We do. We have the ortho, which is the overhead view, public. The oblique imagery, which is all around the sides, we actually have access to. You would have access. We have plenty of seats for county employees to use for your, so the building departments and all the road departments. And you guys, if you want a seat, have that opportunity to have the oblique imagery, which is so you can see the sides of the building and roll around, not just from the top. And to mention, I just got an email a few minutes ago from the aerial company, and they do want to come in on the end of July and do a little workshop, and they'll provide lunch. So I'll probably be setting something up. You're welcome to come join us for that.

So my question is, Is that same imagery available now through satellites? I mean, I've seen a lot of movies where they can zoom right in and they can see everything.

Is that real? Probably with the right provider.

I mean, I know what Google Earth does, and that's not very up to date. So that's not available yet.

Not where I'm at. No, you probably could pay for a service. Yeah, that's what I'm questioning. We could probably do that.

If we could use that annual money, I wonder if we could get access to current satellite imagery because we could use it for fires also if we had that in the county.

Right. I'm just going to say probably a little expensive, but I could look into it. or the Eagle View Connect is what we use now, Pictometry. It was purchased by Eagle View. If there is an emergency or we have a... A fire we can they will be fly our area and so we will have a before and after I think that FEMA gets involved and they have a few boxes They have to check before we can invoke that service, but just so you know that is part of our contract So if it were to happen today, we could do that

So I think the other thing, and I think it's a great question. I mean, maybe that's something you can look into, but certainly maybe not something we're prepared for right now because pictometry, which you mentioned, is directly dovetailed with our GIS data. You can click on any parcel, and I don't even remember how many parcels we have in Elko County. It's like 40,000 parcels.

Yeah, about 46,000.

46,000 parcels. You can click on any one of those parcels, and it gives you a huge list of, ownership. Like I said, it's an amazing tool that many, many industries utilize. And it works in concert with pictometry. Yes.

So what we're paying for is not just the images or the flyover, but it's comparing past images with the current to see if new improvements were added.

Well, we haven't been able to afford that feature, but we actually have images that We have, our staff does that. We can look at last year's photo versus this year's photo side by side, but they actually have a program that I wrote in here that they have a flyover program where they can take the structures in one image and compare it to the structures in another image and find them for you, but it's costly.

So in our case, we still have staff that reviews the images?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, any other questions or comments? I think just the only one I just wanted to make sure I had clarified. So you said you used the word earmark. So you're not necessarily going to expend these funds. These are projects you're planning when you have enough money built up in the fund. Maybe you do have enough, maybe you don't, but that's when you plan on doing it. Did I understand that correctly?

That is perfect, yes.

Okay, okay.

Yes, someday we hope to have that. If we keep rolling over the $100,000 or $200,000 a year, That'll accumulate, and that's how we paid for GSA, and then we expended those funds, and now we're trying to build them back up.

Bill them back up, okay. Okay. All right, thank you.

Domal, I think to answer your question, the current balance of the tech fund is $674,000 and some change. What hasn't been expended so far in fiscal year 26 is almost $98,000.

So again, they're going to need a couple more years before they have the revenue available I mean, depending upon what Net Proceeds of Mines does this year, I guess. Yeah. They may or may not have it.

We're expecting that to come in a bit higher this year, but yes.

Okay.

Right. Okay. Are there any other questions, concerns, comments? I guess I'm going to need a motion. Yep. I'll move to approve the assessor's report. I have a motion and a second. Any other discussion?

Any public comment? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. I vote aye also. Thanks for coming over. Appreciate it. You know we we are gonna recess and I know we have an ending Comments by the general public. I know we have a couple of people here. It looks like from the public I don't necessarily have that but before we leave This facility. I just wanted to say is there any public comment before we research recess and go to wells any public comment I Are you coming up here? Yeah. Nope, we're adjourned.

Logistically planning. We were going to stop at a couple at the Rendon Fire Station and the Deeth one. If we don't have time for that, we can bypass those and we could do that another day.

Let's plan another day.

Yeah, we're an hour late, so yeah. All right. Then no other public comment? We are recessed and we'll reconvene in Wells in about an hour.