School board to return to Lompa Ranch item

The Carson City School Board has requested placing the 10-acre Lompa Ranch North Specific Plan Area item for action on a future agenda after the district’s Facilities Master Plan Committee meeting reached initial consensus that the site acquisition was worth pursuing.

Superintendent Andrew Feuling informed the board Tuesday the property near Robinson Street located on the west side of Interstate 580 would be discussed again at the Facilities Master Plan Committee meeting April 14. The committee must make its formal recommendation for Feuling to bring back to the school board.

“While a formal, larger recommendation of the laundry list of capital projects has not been done, this received special attention,” Feuling told the trustees.

Feuling reported in February the district is on a deadline for May 2025 to provide written notice of intent to acquire the Lompa Ranch property, which is 251.31 acres in all, from the developer. This includes the Myers Family Exempt Trust, the Arraiz Family 1993 TR, RD Lompa LLC, Lompa Ranch East Hills LLC and Terrasas & Tripp LLC. Collectively, they are offering the site to Carson City School District for educational purposes and under certain provisions.

The developer is offering the site for a purchase price not to exceed $2 million, with CCSD paying no more than $150,000 out of pocket and required to submit $1,000 per dwelling unit fee it collects per year. CCSD would be protected from fee collection from a phase developer.

CCSD attorney Ryan Russell told the board Tuesday the school district isn’t party to the agreement. Russell said should CCSD provide a notice of intent to acquire at a time when the item is agendized for action, a chain of events begins toward the property purchase, including the opening of escrow, securing a policy of title of insurance in the amount of the purchase price of the school site and the creation of a grant, bargain and sale deed to transfer the property to the school district. After that closes, donation fees are made upon each dwelling fee the developer creates

“If you take action to direct us to issue the notice of intent to acquire, it starts of a chain of events toward acquisition, opening of escrow, to school district. Once it closes, there are donation fees that are made on each dwelling that they create,” Russell said. “They’re to pay the school district $1,000 per dwelling.”

Those funds are placed into escrow initially, and on or before July 1 of each fiscal year, CCSD pays to the developer the total of the donation fees it has received, with no interest to be charged to the developer.

Russell said at the end of 10 years from the school reserve date, the school district pays to the developer any out-of-pocket purchase price left not to exceed $150,000, with any collection of donation fees to be received by CCSD going to the developer until a total of $2 million has been paid, inclusive of the $250,000.

“So the purchase price is set at $2 million,” Russell said.

He added one stipulation in this unique scenario afterward, clarifying the language in the development agreement.

“Legally, whenever the school is going to acquire or sell real property, there has to be a determination of fair market value based on appraisals and everything else,” he said. “Because the out of pocket to the school in this is going to be so low — and because we’re not party to the agreement — it’s built in there that there would be an MAI appraisal done attendant to the issuance of the notice of intent to acquire, and that will define what amount we have to pay. But in no event would it be more than $150,000, which is a fraction of the value.”

Trustee Mike Walker, representing District 5, emphasized his prior statement from the February meeting. He also supported Trustee Joe Cacioppo, representing District 7, a licensed principal civil engineer with Resource Concepts, Inc., working with district students to find potential solutions for traffic relief through U.S. 50 after some had expressed concerns of their own volition once they had heard of possible development in the area.

“I don’t know why we would drag our feet,” he said. “This is a fantastic deal. Let’s get this on an agenda and move forward.”

At the end of the meeting Tuesday, Trustee Richard Varner, representing District 4, requested bringing the item back on a future school board agenda for action.