The clear winner of the survey, but not the Minden Town Board's favorite design by a long shot.
So far, the biggest controversy surrounding the construction of a $51 million judicial center is whether the pediment is an impediment.
On Thursday, Douglas County commissioners will be asked their opinion of the three design options and the results of a public survey.
Of the 889 people who responded to an online poll 58.16 percent preferred the first option, while around 21.15 percent selected a third option and 20.7 percent picked the second.
A major difference between the first option and the other two is the “lack of a pediment,” the triangle over the entrance, and the columns.
Neither of the other two courthouses built in the county, including the original in 1863 and the 1916 courthouse, have a pediment, but both have actual columns in front.
Minden Town Board members celebrated their independence on July 3 by voting in favor of the least popular option, with the two dissenting town board members expressing a preference for the second least popular, both of which feature the pediment.
Both those options include the triangular peak and columns with the façade, but there was some concern about the materials proposed for the second option.
Minden native Matt Bernard, who grew up playing on the steps of the Minden Courthouse, said he preferred the neo-classical design.
County Manager and former Minden Town Manager Jenifer Davidson included a word-for-word transcript of the town’s July 3 meeting discussing the design.
The Town Board will get another chance to weigh in on the center when they conduct the design review for the building.
The first part of Thursday’s meeting will be devoted to discussing the background and financing for the new center.
According to the county, work will begin on the $6.7 million first phase of the courthouse next month with the widening of Buckeye Road, site work and construction of the utilities building.
The $50 million second phase will require sale of the bonds approved earlier this year.
The county is also being asked to approve a $6.59 million construction manager at risk contract with CORE Construction for the guaranteed maximum price.
A previous proposal to further expand the judicial center included a proposal to build a parking garage, which would have significantly increased the cost, and disrupted operations.
Of the $51 million in debt proposed to build the courthouse, $37 million will be paid off from 15 percent of annual consolidated tax receipts, which are mostly funded by sales tax generated in the county. The other $14 million will be paid from the county’s capital projects tax rate.
Bonding to build the center can’t result in a property tax rate increase, since the county is already at the state-mandated $3.64 per $100 assessed valuation. Nevada assesses property tax based on value, which means an individual owner’s actual property tax bill can increase if their property increases in value.
