Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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'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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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...

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?

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

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

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 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 mad

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.

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

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

So this is a question. So this is something we're going to have to do. Either we do it with Granicus or we do it with some other caption. Captionator right I move that we approve. Oh one.

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

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.

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

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

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

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