Regular Meeting

The Redevelopment Advisory Council (RAC) was dissolved by the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) at their August 22, 2023 meeting. RAC minutes finalized as they stand.  CITY OF ELKO REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 4:00 PM, THURSDAY, JULY 27, 2023 ELKO CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1751 COLLEGE AVENUE, ELKO, NV 89801 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Jon Karr, Chairman of the City of Elko Redevelopment Advisory Council (RAC), at 4:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Jon Karr, DBA Catherine Wines, ACAB (via GoTo) Lina Blohm, RAC Member Giovanni Puccinelli, Councilman Jeff Dalling, Planning Commissioner Absent: Ex-Officio - Non Voting Member Corey Rice, Elko County Ex-Officio - Non Voting Member Annette Kerr, ECVA Ex-Officio - Non Voting Member Joyce Helens, GBC Ex-Officio - Non Voting Member Steven Smith, Elko County School District City Staff Present: Scott Wilkinson, Assistant City Manager Cathy Laughlin, City Planner Bob Thibault, Civil Engineer Rachel Randall, Planning Technician III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC Catherine Wines asked if Item C, under New Business, could be heard first, she might not be able to stay for the whole meeting. Chairman Jon Karr responded it could be moved up. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 27, 2023 - Regular Meeting - FOR POSSIBLE ACTION July 27, 2023 Redevelopment Advisory Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 7  ** A motion was made by Secretary Blohm, seconded by Council Member Puccinelli to approve the minutes as presented. * Motion passed unanimously. (5-0) VI. NEW BUSINESS C. Review, consideration and possible recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency regarding the dissolution of the Redevelopment Advisory Council, and matters related thereto. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION This item has been placed on the agenda at the request of the chairperson, Mr. Jon Karr. Chairman Karr gave his reasons for having this item on the agenda: the city had a very qualified council and manager that were receptive to the public's needs; past board dysfunction, about ten years ago, with plans that never came to fruition; support for the existing plan; feeling as though the group had done what it needed to. He did not feel it needed to continue. Ms. Wines disagreed with the chairman, stating: the board could be a lot more effective if more items were on the agendas; the purpose of an advisory board was to dig deeper into matters the council didn't have time or manpower for; in almost 15 years, the task of making downtown clean and safe had not been completed; and there was a lot of work left to do. She was very strongly against dissolving the board. Cathy Laughlin, City Planner, commented on Ms. Wine's concerns with the agendas: agenda items were limited by the bylaws; supporting documentation for revisions, ideas, solutions or recommendations was never provided by the board for items that had been requested to be placed on agendas, siting New Business items A & B, on today's agenda, as examples; and limited funding. Lina Blohm concurred with Ms. Wines, stating: the board could sift through the minutia the council/RDA didn't have time for, like today's agenda item to revisit the design guidelines that were never incorporated years ago; and they were closer to the issues in the downtown. Regarding agendas, she stated she did not know when agendas were being worked on, nor what was going to be on them. She felt it was incumbent on all of the board to be more active in developing more meaningful and workable agendas. Geovanni Puccinelli stated he was the newest member of the board. When he first started, he read through the bylaws, where it stated it was an advisory-only board. Advice could be provided to the council through public comment without the need for the board. He felt the board was redundant for staff. He was not against dissolving it. Jeff Dalling stated he had been on the board for quite a while. He recalled around ten years ago the direction of the board being out of control, with ideas to put in Ferris wheels, BMX things, a stadium, etc. Since that time, priorities had been straightened out - block ends and corridor parking were completed and sidewalks have been slated as the next project. Sometimes members of the RAC would go to RDA meetings too, which was redundant. He felt the meetings were sometimes July 27, 2023 Redevelopment Advisory Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7  a waste of time and energy because they had no authority. Decisions could be overturned by the RDA. He felt like they had made the downtown better and safer, which he was proud of, but was okay with disbanding it. ** A motion was made by Member Dalling, seconded by Council Member Puccinelli to forward a recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency to dissolve the Redevelopment Advisory Council. Before the vote, Chairman Karr asked for final discussion. Ms. Blohm asked if the item would go before the RDA before the board was dissolved. Chairman Karr confirmed. Ms. Blohm reiterated there was a lot more to do in the downtown regarding cleanliness, safety and vacant buildings. She would like to see enforceable code and enquired about the city's enforcement officer and the motel on Idaho Street (Elko Inn). Ms. Laughlin reported updates were given by the code enforcement officer at every City Council. The latest report on Tuesday informed council that an investigation to file a public nuisance on that property was under way. The code enforcement officer was full time now. Ms. Blohm concluded with a comment about weed abatement being needed in the redevelopment area as part of her stance for not dissolving the board. Mr. Puccinelli state the RDA plan was already laid out. Limited funds would determine how long it would take to be completed. He felt the board had done a great job, but it was redundant. *Motion passed. (3-2) Ms. Blohm and Ms. Wines voted against. A. Review, consideration, and possible recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency regarding amendments to the Storefront Improvement Grant Program, and matters related thereto. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION At the RAC meeting April 27, 2023, it was requested to consider amendments to the Storefront Improvement Grant Program for future grant applications. Ms. Laughlin stated this item was brought up at the last RAC meeting. It was also brought up by Ms. Wines at the last RDA meeting during discussions for revisions to the program related to a new option for applicants that had lost their grant after deobligation of funding. The program had been revised a few times, once for tax purposes and another time to adjust construction timelines. She recalled at the last RAC meeting, board members wanted to discuss changing the program guidelines to better define eligible improvements because some of this year's applications felt like maintenance. July 27, 2023 Redevelopment Advisory Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7  Ms. Wines stated she had a few things she would like to see revised, particularly some things taken out of what was eligible. But in light of the action taken on the previous agenda item, she would rather take it straight to the RDA rather than present it tonight. ** A motion was made by Member Dalling, seconded by Council Member Puccinelli to take no action. *Motion passed. (3-1) Ms. Blohm voted against and Ms. Wines abstained. B. Review, consideration and possible recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency on amendments to the Urban Design Overlay that was developed in 2016 and never adopted by the Agency, and matters related thereto. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION The RDA took action at their February 24, 2016 meeting to not adopt the Urban Design Overlay as written. At the RAC meeting April 27, 2023 it was requested to look at the UDO once again and make possible amendments. Ms. Laughlin stated this item was added to the agenda at the request of Ms. Blohm, during discussions at the last meeting about fencing in the downtown. The agenda packet included the Urban Design Overlay (UDO) and the February 25, 2016 meeting minutes. She was looking for revisions the board wanted to make, for consideration by the Agency. Ms. Blohm explained she asked for this agenda item because of the wire fencing that had recently been erected in the downtown area, which she felt did not give the downtown a very pleasant look. The UDO was not incorporated into the bylaws because of construction related restrictions, but there were some good design elements, like fencing. This was an area of concern that could be addressed. The Agency had $1.9 million and projects that haven't come to fruition. Whether they go forward with the RAC or not, there were elements in the downtown that have been creeping up and need attention. Ms. Wines suggested, if the RAC was going to be dissolved, forming committees of interested parties for specific items, as they came up. The committee could then make recommendations to the Agency. She thought fencing was a good example and would be willing and happy to serve. Chairman Karr summarized possible actions: recommend revisions to the UDO, recommend a subcommittee, or take no action. Mr. Dalling preferred presenting items directly to the Agency. He was not in favor of recommending a subcommittee. He agreed with Ms. Blohm about wanting better fencing. ** A motion was made by Member Dalling, seconded by Council Member Puccinelli to take no action. Ms. Blohm did not prefer to bring items directly to the RDA, which she had done before, with little response. There were a few people willing to work on these projects and liked the idea of recommending a subcommittee. July 27, 2023 Redevelopment Advisory Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7  Mr. Puccinelli asked if it could be sent to the RDA if no action was taken. Ms. Laughlin stated it could be put on their agenda, but usually if there was no action, it was dead in the water at that point. Mr. Puccinelli liked the motion because they did not have any changes to make currently. Scott Wilkinson, Assistant City Manager, recommended the ones interested in taking a look at the document take the time to do so and propose changes to Ms. Laughlin. She would then present those changes to the Agency. Alternatively, the public could come to the meeting and bring up issues in the public comment period, for consideration as an agenda item at the following meeting. Ms. Wines expressed frustration that staff never reached out to ask for recommendations for agenda items. Ms. Laughlin responded that at the April 27th meeting, this agenda item, and the previous one, had been requested to be placed on the agenda, and for the group to come with their ideas for revisions. She stated the same thing at the RDA meeting during public comment from Ms. Wines. *Motion passed. (4-1) Ms. Blohm voted against. Ms. Wines left the meeting at 4:43pm, after the vote. VII. REPORTS A. Budget Ms. Laughlin went over the budget report included in the agenda packet, which was through June 30th, the end of the fiscal year. The RDA's anticipated revenue was $375,000, but they received $755,000. The county had very little explanation on why. She recommended caution on spending the extra $400,000. Interest revenues were also up, due to higher interest rates - $3,000 budgeted vs. $27,000 received. After expenditures, there was a balance of $1.9 million. The sidewalk project, the next project, would likely cost a lot more than original estimated, years ago. Ms. Blohm asked if there was an estimated cost. Ms. Laughlin responded it was still under design, so she didn't have a current estimate, but it was originally estimated at $600,000. The scope of the project had expanded to include roadways and stormwater. Ms. Blohm asked if it would have a public-private participation. July 27, 2023 Redevelopment Advisory Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7  Ms. Laughlin responded the RDA directed staff to look into a Special Assessment District, however she couldn't start the process until a full engineer's estimate was available. She needed to know exactly what it would cost each of the property owners. B. Infrastructure Grant Program C. Downtown Idea Exchange VIII. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC There were no public comments made at this time. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. July 27, 2023 Redevelopment Advisory Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7