Commissioners continue debate on NDOT's Title VI policy; action deferred to Nov. 4 amid concerns about rescinded executive orders and grant risk

Storey County commissioners voted to continue consideration of a Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Title VI policy until their Nov. 4 meeting after extended discussion about the policy's language, legal implications and potential effects on grant funding.

County staff and legal advisers summarized a multi-year negotiation with NDOT and the department's contractor to adopt a transit-specific Title VI (civil rights nondiscrimination) policy that NDOT requires for counties receiving federal transportation funds. Lara/Laura Mather, the county's project staff, told the board the county has been "out of compliance" with NDOT's most recent form and that a particular federal grant (the Gold Hill sewer project) is on hold pending the county's completion of NDOT's required documentation.

Deputy District Attorney Bridal Brown and other county lawyers told the board the NDOT template cited several documents and executive orders that have since been rescinded and that the county could annotate the policy to note those changes. Brown said adding a factual footnote noting the rescission would be an appropriate legal response and could be reflected in the cover letter to NDOT. He warned, however, that prolonged noncompliance could jeopardize Story County's standing in some federal grant processes, with potential negative effects on future fund eligibility.

Commissioner Clay Mitchell said he wanted to avoid taking a course that could later be used against the county in grant review and suggested caution. Vice Chairman Mitchell (same commissioner) and others expressed wider political and programmatic concerns about mandating aspects of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policy and references to executive orders that are not current federal policy. Several commissioners questioned the accuracy of demographic data and the appropriateness of binding local policy to NDOT's uneditable template.

Mather and county counsel recommended adding a footnote inside the policy (and a cover-letter clarification to NDOT) stating which cited executive orders have been rescinded and that staff would submit that explanation with the signed policy to preserve compliance while noting the factual status of those orders. Given the county's recent noncompliance and the potential hold on a multi-million-dollar grant, commissioners voted to continue the item to the Nov. 4 meeting to allow staff to seek further clarification from NDOT and prepare the suggested notations.

Ending

The board continued the Title VI/NDOT policy item to Nov. 4. County legal and grants staff will prepare clarified language (including a notation about rescinded executive orders) and report back so the board can decide whether to accept NDOT's template or take another course.