At the July 16th Carson City Board of Supervisors (BOS) meeting, in discussing the new City Hall project, Supervisor Giomi said “We should have done a better job talking about this over time”. Supervisor Schuette has voiced similar comments at her monthly breakfast gatherings. At the July 16th meeting, she asked residents to review all city BOS meeting videos from 2022 to 2026.
Residents are listening now so please bring them up to speed with a town hall. A town hall has been requested since February 2025. Shifting the burden to the Developer to explain the design of the building at what the Mayor calls “charrettes” but only after the agreement is signed, which could be too late to make any changes on the agreement. Beginning now, all members on the city leadership team should explain this city hall project and correct any and all misconceptions that exist.
Here are but a few examples: Do we need a new city hall? Legislative mandates, based on the city’s population, are the justification used to expand city facilities. But the question is not “a” city hall, but “this” city hall, for a minimum of $30 million construction costs at today’s prices, and with “this” developer, and on “these” terms. Is this equivalent to buying a car without knowing the make, model or the real cost under pressure from the salesman?
There were no financial reports. No background on the Foundation was presented when the BOS was asked to approve the lease terms and be a guarantor for the developer’s construction loan at prime minus 1% now (variable rate over 2 years minimum). Who approves loans with no information on the borrower?
Why don’t we just build it or buy an existing vacant buildings? Why do we not define the “property” which the city will purchase in the future?
Where is the entire agreement with the Foundation? Why is the city seeking piecemeal approvals from the BOS over multiple months, and even years, on different parts of the project. We should not have to guess, it should be explained in plain English at a town, hall prior to any agreement, prior to a justification of a 45,000 square feet building.
The city’s CFO has suggested yearly terms of roughly $2.1 million for 1 or 2 or 3 years (up to 30 years) subject to future Board of Supervisors approval until the city can buy the “property”. The purchase will be done with a revenue bond when interest rates are lower in the future and when existing loans are paid off. The lease is just a deferral method until the existing bonds are paid off to maintain about $3.2 million per year of debt payments plus it has the added advantage of a no-bid developer contract with the Foundation. Of course, you know that debt repayment is the first priority on the use of general funds, funded by property and sales tax revenue before any other expenditures of the city.
Let’s stop here and let the city’s leaders respond and clarify why we are not doing the minimum space needs of the Clerk/Recorder (~10,000 square feet), why the owned court building was not extended for the Clerk/Recorder as previously presented to the BOS, why redevelopment funds can be used, and remedy their remarks as the beginning of this article to do “a better job of talking about this project over time”?
The city’s taxpayers, as the ultimate “owners” of this project, we deserve full disclosure, don’t you think? Residents deserve better.
By Stuart Rankin, Carson City Resident
Interested in having your voice heard? We want to hear from you.
Learn how to submit an Opinion Piece or a Letter to the Editors.
