STATE OF NEVADA, ) COUNTY OF ELKO. ) ss. APRIL 20, 2005

Transcription

1 STATE OF NEVADA, ) COUNTY OF ELKO. ) ss. The Board of Elko County Commissioners met in a regular session on April 20, 2005 at 9:00 a.m., in Room 105 of the Elko County Courthouse at 571 Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada. There were present: County Commissioners Charlie Myers, Chair John Ellison Warren Russell Sheri Eklund-Brown Mike Nannini County Manager Robert Stokes Deputy District Attorney Kristin McQueary Deputy County Clerk Marilyn Tipton County Sheriff Neil Harris Undersheriff William Cunningham Road Supervisor Otis Tipton Planning & Zoning Randy Brown The proceedings were as follows: CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Myers called the meeting to order at 9:08 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Myers led the meeting participants in the Pledge of Allegiance. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: Commissioner Eklund stated she wanted to recognize the National Youth Day. She attended the event and reported that there was a great turnout. She thanked Assemblyman John Carpenter for attending and taking time out of his busy schedule at the Legislature. CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS: The Board considered approval of a Certificate of Congratulations to Joe PAGE 1

2 Marvel for his induction into the ProRodeo Hall of Fame. Robert Stokes stated that Michele attempted to contact Mr. Marvel and suggested that they wait until later in the meeting so if he attended later they could present the plaque. MOTION: Commissioner Ellison moved to approve the Certificate of Congratulations to Joe Marvel. Commissioner Nannini seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS: The Board considered approval of Certificate of Congratulations to CC Swafford on the occasion of her 75 th Birthday and for her dedication to Elko County through her civic organization participation. MOTION: Commissioner Ellison moved to approve the Certificate of Congratulations to CC Swafford. Commissioner Eklund-Brown seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. The plaque was accepted by CC Swafford. CERTIFICATE OF CONGRATULATIONS: The Board considered approval of the Certificate of Congratulations to the Western Folklife Center for their 2004 National Award for Museum and Library Services which were awarded based on commitment to public service through innovative programs and community partnerships. MOTION: Commissioner Eklund-Brown moved to approve the Certificate of Congratulations to the Western Folklife Center. Commissioner Ellison seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Chairman Myers called the Jackpot Town Board to order at 9:15 a.m. and reconvened the regular meeting at 9:17 a.m. ELKO SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER: The Board considered approval of funding for repairs to the heating and cooling system of the Senior Citizens= building. Commissioner Ellison stated Cash Minor and Chuck Knight had looked at the numbers. He felt this would have to be considered in the budget. The total request was approximately $19, Commissioner Myers noted that was different from what was discussed. Cash Minor stated that Chuck Knight had PAGE 2

3 health issues and could not be here. Commissioner Myers noted that it was on the agenda as $ with a base bid of $782 and asked why the increase of $ in the project amount. Robert Stokes replied that documentation was the only thing available at the time of the agenda. He stated that the total proposal included more items. Commissioner Ellison noted Chris Johnson (Charles Chester Plumbing & Heating) and Control Tech were the two bidders. He stated that the engineer had requested additional items be included in the project. He stated that Chris Johnson felt this would resolve the problems but the engineer felt there were some extra controls which may be needed. Commissioner Ellison commented that the heating/cooling system was an ongoing problem. Commissioner Russell asked staff to do research to find out exactly what the County=s commitment was on the Elko Senior Center. He questioned if they were responsible for all the maintenance on the building. He felt that the Senior Center was to be an entity that took care of itself. He felt that the County was not responsible for operating, repair and maintenance that comes up in an unusual manner. He asked staff review what the County=s commitment was to that center. Commissioner Myers stated that when you add this up it came to $59, for all their requests. He inquired if this was a priority listing. Cash Minor commented that the penciled numbers to the side were the priority ranking performed by Chuck Knight. He noted item #5 was the big ticket item which they did not think had to be done so it was ranked last on their priority list. Cash Minor pointed out that Control Tech Refrigeration & Electric Co., stated on item #2 (replacing the existing control system) could be corrected within the price range of $6,000 to $8,000 instead of $36,000 as stated in the letter from the Director. Commissioner Russell felt that there should be equity among all the senior center facilities. He noted that if they continue to support one and not take care of the other senior centers then they were not providing equity throughout Elko County. Commissioner Myers felt that Commissioner Eklund-Brown asked a good question. Was any of this covered by warranty? Commissioner Myers received a negative response. Commissioner Ellison commented that the County=s Buildings and Grounds personnel were doing maintenance at the Elko Senior Citizen=s Center. Cash Minor noted that of the three senior centers located in Elko County, Elko County owned the Senior Center located in Elko. He was not sure where the money was at right now. He stated this request came in late yesterday. He stated that with the dollar amount it may be something they should look at through the budget. Cash Minor suggested that they move this request to the budget process. PAGE 3

4 Chairman Myers asked that this request be moved to the budget process. Highway Chairman Russell called the Board of Elko County Highway Commissioners to order at 9:25 a.m., and adjourned the Highway Board at 9:30 a.m. CALIFORNIA TRAIL INTERPRETIVE CENTER: The Board considered approval of a Borrow Material Lease Agreement with Maggie Creek Ranch LP for approximately 5,000 cubic yards of material for the Interpretive Center=s road project. Kristin McQueary stated that the Agreement was complete and in the hands of the Maggie Creek Ranch to sign. She stated that this agreement was for the road base and the County would pay 75 cents per yard for the material. She stated that Chilton Engineering would measure before and after they hauled the material. Krisitn McQueary stated the area would be reseeded when the whole area was reseeded by the BLM project contractor. She recommended approval even though they had not seen it yet. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted they had received a letter from David Jamiel of the BLM wherein they were requesting the BLM handle the revegetation. Kristin McQueary stated that request was included within the Agreement. Chris Wooster of Chilton Engineering stated the road requires a sub base material up to 5,000 yards upon which the aggregate base and pavement would go. He stated that they have incorporated what the BLM wanted so the seed mixture was the same. He stated the Contract with the Ranch includes that they would use that same seed mixture on the overall project. Chris Wooster stated he had spoken to Jon Griggs, the Ranch Manager, who would review the Agreement and sign it. He did not think there would be any problems with it. He believed that Kristin McQueary would have it within the next few days. Commissioner Eklund-Brown asked when it would go to bid. Chris Wooster replied the advertisement was scheduled for the 25 th of April. He stated that the BLM had asked for minimum activity prior to the 27 th of June He believed that the construction would start around the 1 st of July. MOTION: Commissioner Ellison moved to approve the Borrow Material Lease Agreement with the Maggie Creek Ranch LP. Commissioner Nannini seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. ILLEGAL DUMPING ISSUES: Undersheriff Bill Cunningham noted that there was a meeting right now with the committee. He commented that they had lots of news media. PAGE 4

5 Undersheriff Cunningham gave an update on the illegal dumping on Last Chance Road. He stated the parties responsible had cleaned the area. Commissioner Ellison congratulated the Sheriff=s Department on their immediate action on this matter. He stated when the City had their free dumping day a Sheriff=s Deputy would supervise trustees to clean up illegal dumping in designated areas. Commissioner Russell noted the County would participate on the May 21 clean-up day. Commissioner Russell stated the County would provide a loader and work in the Bullion Road and Hamilton Stage road area. He stated Delmo was heading up this activity. INSECT INFESTATION ISSUES: Commissioner Myers suggested that they partner with the cities to reduce their costs. Commissioner Ellison stated he had met with the City of Elko and talked to people from Texas to get a cost estimate. He would try to bring back a number for Elko, Carlin and Wells. He hoped that they would do more larvae control this year. He would meet with the State on Friday to discuss this issue. Commissioner Myers felt they should find out what the State would award toward this project. Commissioner Ellison noted they had received calls from Pilot Valley, and South Fork on the cricket movements. Otis Tipton commented that the State had started their baiting program last week. He stated they were out in Pine Valley distributing that bait. Hopefully, they could bait as soon as the weather clears. Commissioner Ellison hoped that they could use more spray this year because they were traveling in larger swarms. Otis Tipton stated that there were reports that the crickets were already hatching up at the Big E. Commissioner Myers noted the spraying was effective in turning the crickets away from the City. Otis Tipton commented that the State was taking care of the bait and they were establishing a cricket line. He stated Bernie and the other person was already in their County office. Commissioner Myers inquired if the County spent anything on cricket or mosquito control last year. Otis Tipton stated they did not purchase any bait last year and still had bait left from the year before. He noted the State of Nevada took care of the bait last year. Commissioner Myers inquired if they had done anything for the mosquitos last year. Otis Tipton replied no. He stated that they could not do aerial spraying over homes. He felt that the best protection was self protection. Commissioner Ellison commented that was the reason they were looking at killing the larvae. He stated there were three cases and one which had tested positive for West Nile Virus last year. Otis Tipton felt that they would have to start a mosquito abatement district just like the City of Winnemucca. Commissioner Nannini noted that this virus was spreading and it was already over in Reno. Otis Tipton cautioned them it was a costly item and a never-ending thing. Commissioner Ellison felt that Utah and Idaho would be PAGE 5

6 hard hit this year. Commissioner Myers suggested that they leave it on the agenda for further discussion. BARRICK GOLD EXPLORATION INC.: Ruby Hill Mine Expansion - East Archimedes Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: The Board considered submitting comments to the Battle Mountain BLM Office for the proposed expansion of the Ruby Hill Mine Project. The comment deadline was April 25, Commissioner Ellison felt they need to send a letter of recommendation. MOTION: Commissioner Nannini moved to send a letter in support of the Ruby Hill Mine Expansion project. Commissioner Ellison seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION: Emigrant Mine Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement: The Board considered submitted comments to the BLM Elko Field Office for the proposed Emigrant Mine Project located 10 miles West of Carlin in Elko County. The comment deadline was May 24, Thomas Schmidt, the BLM project leader for the Emigrant Mine Project, he reported that the sixty-day comment period would be open until May 24, He stated that there would be a public Open House held on Tuesday, the 26 th of April, at the BLM office from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., wherein they would accept public comment. The draft EIS was available for public review. He stated this project was located within Elko County approximately ten miles south of Carlin. He stated it would disturb approximately 1200 acres of public land and 264 acres of private land. Tom Schmidt stated the EIS examines the impacts to wildlife, potential for acid mine drainage and the impacts from diverting a stream. He encouraged them to submit their comments by the 24 th of May Commissioner Eklund-Brown asked about the allotment lost by the Tomeras. She asked how they would address that. Tom Schmidt stated there was a section in the EIS on grazing and they proposed mitigation measures. After they receive the comments from the Tomeras they would talk mitigation measures with the Tomeras. Tom Schmidt stated they may put in a pipeline and water troughs to get water to the cattle in another location. He stated they were awaiting the comments from the Tomeras so that they may mitigate that situation. MOTION: Commissioner Nannini moved to submit a letter of support to the BLM for the Emigrant Mine Project. Commissioner Ellison seconded the motion. PAGE 6

7 Commissioner Myers stated he had received a call from Michele Gonzalez informing him of that meeting. Commissioner Myers stated he had a conflict because there was a City Council meeting, and the ECVA presentation that same day. He asked if someone from the County could attend that meeting. Robert Stokes noted that PLUAC was also held that evening. Commissioner Ellison would attend the meeting to support the project. He felt this was a positive trend. Robert Stokes noted this project was entirely within the County of Elko. He reported it was within the footprint of the Raine Mine and felt that this Commission was consistently supportive of mining projects whether within this County or not. The motion was passed unanimously. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE: Bull Trout Species Management Plan for the Nevada Portion of the Jarbidge River Drainage Basin: The Board considered submitting comments to the Elko Office of the Nevada Department of Wildlife for the bull trout species management plan. The comment deadline was April 28, Commissioner Myers liked the document but there were a couple of things he did not personally like. However, the entire document was good. He especially liked the preamble of the plan. He reviewed the verbiage wherein the NDOW did not feel that the bull trout should be upon the endangered species list and they would work extremely hard to see that it came off. He noted everything in this plan was geared to get the bull trout off the threatened or endangered species listing. Commissioner Nannini felt it was consistent with their original view on this subject. MOTION: Commissioner Nannini moved to submit comments to the Elko Office of the Nevada Department of Wildlife. Commissioner Ellison seconded the motion. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted this plan was consistent with the conservation measures that have been incorporated into the plan on South Canyon with the Fish and Wildlife. Robert Stokes stated he would put this on the PLUAC agenda next Tuesday and he would like to add their comments too. Commissioner Myers stated that was a good idea. Commissioner Ellison stated that once the letter was drafted they should send copy to their legislative representatives. Commissioner Myers asked that the Advisory Board of Wildlife get a copy of the letter also. The motion was passed unanimously. PAGE 7

8 ELKO COUNTY WATER RESOURCE ISSUES: The Board considered water resource management issues that may impact Elko County and surrounding areas of northeastern Nevada. Commissioner Russell stated they had received correspondence from Senator Dean Rhoads. He stated that it reminded them of some of the statutes that related to water rights and unappropriated water. Commissioner Russell stated the process and the extended time period that had been given by the State Water Engineer was also within the letter. Commissioner Russell stated that there had not been another meeting with the informal coalition since Pahrump. He stated they had held extended phone conversations with John Hutchings in Eureka County and John Eastley from Nye County on these issues. Commissioner Russell stated that they were looking at forming a water authority similar to how they operate the Humboldt River Water Basin Authority. He stated each HRWBA member had an annual assessment and they could use the authority to promote their particular interest affecting the water issues. Commissioner Russell felt that if they had a similar water authority for Northern Nevada then they could contract with a director who could represent those issues for them in the legislature during the next term. He stated the director would be able to represent them in the legislative interim committees as well. He stated this would give them a basis for cooperation. Commissioner Russell stated it would give them a legal status and gave them the opportunity to submit bills into the legislature. He stated that there were drawbacks because it did cost a little for each County to participate. He stated this was one of the options they were discussing. He stated that there would be a meeting held in conjunction with the NACO meeting. He stated that he was working on these issues. Commissioner Ellison noted he had a discussion with several legislators who would make proposals on the water study. He ed Michele with some news releases. Commissioner Russell stated that there were several bills that addressed some of the issues such as bill #434. He stated these bills, instead of an active appropriation of money to move forward for adjudication or a study group, these bills would put together interim committees and support them financially individually and with personnel. Commissioner Russell stated some of the issues were not dead. He felt that there would probably be some resulting legislation. He stated they have not lost hoped because AB 434 went down. Commissioner Russell stated that Assemblywoman Peggy Pierce had another bill but they would have to keep an eye on those bills which dealt with water issues. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted Lew Eklund gave her a copy of the Salt PAGE 8

9 Lake Tribune newspaper which contained an article on the water war in the west. She stated the map submitted showed its sources were much lower than Elko County and more into the Utah counties. She had also submitted an article from the Progressive Rancher written by Jack Boyd. Commissioner Ellison noted that there were some conversations in Washington about easements and rights of way in the corridors. He stated their fear was if this happened then utility easements could include water lines. Commissioner Myers clarified that the fear was they would capitalize upon the use of all the utility easements to include future water expansion. Kristin McQueary noted that previously they had asked for a brief overview of the water law. She submitted a brochure from the Nevada Water Engineer. She reviewed the statutes, ANRS Water belongs to public.@ Kristin McQueary explained if a person has a water right, they do not own the water. It means that person has the right to use a certain amount of the water. Kristin McQueary stated the baseline level of law was that the water was appurtenant or attached to the point of diversion or their right of use. If a person had water rights for that piece of ground, then they would have to go to the State Water Engineer=s to change the point of use, diversion, or the type of water right they have. If water was going to be transferred out of a County under NRS , the State Engineer would have to provide notice to the County Commission. The County Commission would have to set a hearing to be held more than three weeks after it receives notice from the State Engineer=s Office. The County Commission had to advertise a meeting to consider the impacts of the water being transferred outside of the County. The Commission can then make a recommendation to the State Engineer on the impacts of that water being transferred out of the County. She stated that those recommendations were not binding on the State Engineer=s Office. Kristin McQueary stated that the statute Senator Rhoads talked about was if they file for unappropriated water for a municipal or quasi-municipal use the State Engineer=s Office can extend the time of completion of your water works for up to ten years. She noted on a regular water right they have five years to do their proof of beneficial use. She stated under NRS if there was an interbasin transfer of water across County lines the County could impose a $6.00 per acre foot per year tax upon the person who was taking the water. The State Engineer=s Office has to approve of this tax and the money could go into a trust fund for economic development, health care, or education. In the alternative under NRS if the County does not impose the tax, then the County could work with the water right owner to set up a mitigation plan. Kristin McQueary noted that water rights were appurtenant to the property. She stated that if they sell a piece of property with a water right and you don=t expressly PAGE 9

10 reserve your water rights then it automatically transfers with the deed. Kristin McQueary explained that if you wanted to sell your land for one thing and your water right to someone else you would have to make sure that they were separated out in the deed. She stated the deed would have to state that this expressly did not involve the transfer of water rights. Kristin McQueary explained that if they did not say anything then the water right automatically went with the property when you transferred the property. Kristin McQueary stated the State Engineer=s Office put out a more in depth booklet for $15.00 which would inform them of water rights. Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired if there was a legislative bill that would eliminate the taxing abilities of the County. Kristin McQueary stated she had not been following the legislature very closely. She stated there were quite a number of bills that would impact Nevada=s water laws. Commissioner Russell noted that there was a bill sponsored by one water purveyor which would exclude the County from taxing the water that would be transferred to Las Vegas. He stated that was why the Humboldt River Water Basin Authority had proposed a separate legislative bill to change it from a tax to a fee. He noted that a tax was regulated by the State Legislature. He stated a fee would be regulated by the County. Commissioner Russell stated the County could then set the fee which would be a fair market value on the water that was leaving the County. He explained it would become a County issue rather than a State issue. He did not know how well that bill was doing. Commissioner Nannini commented upon the article in the Review Journal dated April 8, 2005, AClash Over Rural Water.@ Commissioner Myers stated regarding the transfers if the State Engineer denies the tax did that preclude the water from leaving. He inquired if the State Engineer could approve the transfer of the water and also deny the tax. Commissioner Russell stated the tax was governed by the State Legislature and the transfer was the State Engineer=s duty. Kristin McQueary stated that NRS stated that: A1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, if an appropriation of ground water pursuant to a permit to appropriate ground water results in the transfer to and beneficial use of water in another county in this state other than the county in which the water is appropriated or in another state, the county of origin may impose a tax of $6 per acre-foot per year on the transfer. 2. A county of origin shall not impose a tax pursuant to subsection 1 without the prior approval of the State Engineer. The county of origin shall notify the State Engineer in writing of its intent to impose the tax. The State Engineer shall review the notice of intent to impose the tax to determine: (a) Whether the appropriation of ground water pursuant to the permit specified in subsection 1 results in a transfer to and beneficial use of water in a county in this state other PAGE 10

11 than the county of origin or in another state; and (b) The amount of water, if any, that is: (1) Subject to the proposed tax because of that transfer and beneficial use; or (2) Not subject to the proposed tax pursuant to subsection Within 30 days after reviewing the notice of intent to impose the tax, the State Engineer shall send a written notice to the county of origin that includes the results of his review. If the State Engineer determines that the appropriation of ground water pursuant to the permit results in a transfer to and beneficial use of water in a county in this state other than the county of origin or in another state, the State Engineer shall include in the notice the amount of water that is subject to the proposed tax. The county may, upon such a determination, impose the tax on the transfer. Kristin McQueary noted the State Engineer would basically determine how much out of the water right would be transferred. She felt that they would decide what the proportionate value would be. Commissioner Russell clarified that the tax was only legal if they qualified it through these technical steps. He noted they would have to meet the criteria to apply this tax. Kristin McQueary noted that the County could not stop any interbasin transfer without this process. She noted that if there was an interbasin transfer the county had either the tax option or the mitigation plan set forth in the next statute down. Commissioner Russell stated he was informed that some entities had been purchasing water rights throughout the state. Commissioner Nannini noted he had previously spoken to Warren about the time process involved with regards to water. He also had a discussion with Helen Hankins of the BLM. He noted they had heard some of the rumors. However, he reiterated this process took a long time. Commissioner Nannini stated this was not something the federal government or the state government could do overnight. Commissioner Nannini stated when the land for the pipeline was approved it would take three to five years to go through that process. He noted Kristin McQueary had informed them that the water rights would have to be approved by the State Water Engineer. He stated the interesting aspect was nobody had mentioned pulling water out of Elko County at this point. Commissioner Nannini noted the best case scenario was if they did it tomorrow it would take them fifteen years to get the water. Commissioner Russell noted it would take a long time to build the pipeline also. Commissioner Nannini felt they needed to stay on top of this on a regular basis. He had heard rumors that the federal government had waived the magic wand and approved this pipeline route to Lincoln County. Commissioner Nannini stated that was not the case, that route may take up to five years just to go to Lincoln County because it was still within the process. He suggested that they take their time and review this matter and take the right steps. PAGE 11

12 Commissioner Nannini felt that Joe Guild was honest with the Commission. At this time, he did not believe there was any effort to move the water out of Elko County. Commissioner Ellison felt that the intent was to go across the whole state and that was why they had to stay on top of it. Commissioner Russell felt that they should build a defense against what they anticipated could happen within fifteen years down the road. Robert Stokes noted that Joe Guild was willing to schedule a meeting with members of the Southern Nevada Water Authority to meet with the Commission. He stated Joe Guild envisioned a meeting with not only the Commission but with the newspapers, the Chamber of Commerce, and the public to give everyone the ability to ask questions. Commissioner Ellison inquired if they had met with Pete Goicoechea. Robert Stokes stated they had met with Assemblyman Carpenter two or three weeks ago. Commissioner Nannini suggested that they take advantage of that offer after the legislative session. He wanted to understand what their intentions were toward the rural. Commissioner Ellison stated they had brought this up in Carson City to try and get everyone at the same table. Commissioner Russell felt that the SNWA would say the same as Joe Guild, that they had no plans at this time to withdraw water from Elko County. He noted in the meantime they were mounting a water campaign in White Pine County. He stated they didn=t have plans for White Pine County previously but they were discussing it now. Commissioner Russell stated that if they look at the water numbers there was no way SNWA could satisfy those with regards to the population growth and with the anticipated instate resources without accessing Elko County water. Robert Stokes noted that he had mentioned to Joe Guild the issues in White Pine and Lincoln County had caused concern here in Elko County. He informed Joe that the Commissioners had also become concerned with the information that Clark County would have to reduce their reliance on the Colorado River water distribution. Commissioner Myers stated that if they had read some of the documentation the water coming from the Colorado River would be reduced to an percent distribution. He noted the water from White Pine County would only account for forty percent of the eighty percent that they needed. Commissioner Myers noted they would have to find forty percent more water somewhere else. Commissioner Russell stated there was only Elko County or Eureka County. Commissioner Myers felt they need to speak to the Southern Nevada Water Authority. He asked that they keep this item on the agenda. Chairman Myers called the Jarbidge Town Board to order at 10:15 a.m. and adjourned the meeting at 10:21 a.m. PAGE 12

13 ELKO COUNTY WATER PLANNING COMMISSION: The Board considered the request to place Dave M. Evetts as an alternate (non voting) member of the Elko County Water Planning Commission. Randy Brown stated Dave Evetts had asked to be placed upon this board. He stated the Board felt that he would be a great asset to them because he was a hydrologist with the USGS. Randy Brown stated that Commissioner Russell scheduled a meeting with the USGS staff and the County=s planning staff. MOTION: Commissioner Ellison moved to place Dave M. Evetts as a non voting alternate on the Elko County Water Planning Commission. Commissioner Nannini seconded the motion. Commissioner Eklund-Brown felt that Dave would be a terrific asset but she inquired of Kristin if this had to be published for any other interested parties to be considered. Randy Brown noted that they had several open positions and this was just one position. Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired why Dave was not put into one of those open agencies= positions. Randy Brown replied Dave worked for a federal agency and they don=t believe the USGS should have a vested voting interest. Randy Brown stated Dave would be there for technical value. Kristin McQueary stated that the best practice was to advertise an opening. However, the Water Commission was an advisory commission and any action they take would come back before this Board for final approval. She noted that Dave had offered his technical knowledge. She questioned whether they would get the same level of expertise if they advertise for technical help. Commissioner Eklund-Brown felt that he should be an adviser and inquired about the alternate positions. Randy Brown explained that the Water Commission had seven voting members and they had seven alternates for each of those positions. In addition to that they had four non voting positions, and four alternate non voting positions. Randy Brown stated the only positions that were open were from the City of Carlin, City of Wells and the City of West Wendover which were voting positions. He noted this non voting alternate position would allow Dave to sit on the board to provide technical information to the Water Commission and to the staff. Commissioner Russell noted Dave, as a non voting member, would have a more collegial relationship with the Water Commission regarding their discussions and deliberations. The motion was passed unanimously. Chairman Myers called a recess at 10:25 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:40 a.m. Commissioner Eklund-Brown was not present in the meeting room at this PAGE 13

14 time. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: Gary Klug thanked them on behalf of the Igloo for their contributions to the project. He showed them a picture of the Wall of Fame listing Elko County as a Gold Level Sponsor. Gary Klug noted more than 400 kids participated within activities in the facility. He stated those activities included in-line hockey, indoor soccer, batting cages, adult indoor soccer league, and headstrong boxing. Commissioner Eklund-Brown returned to the meeting room. Gary Klug stated they have raised more than $100,000 and they had $15,000 in the bank. He stated that their operating costs and their user fees for this year would balance out. He stated that the essential capital improvements they need to make were fire code items, rest rooms indoors, parking lot, etc. Gary Klug stated he would come back to the County and make a formal request for some future funding for those matters. Gary Klug felt they had been very successful with this project NEVADA LEGISLATIVE SESSION: The Board discussed legislative issues from the 2005 Legislative Session which may affect Elko County. Status Updates on Previously Discussed Bill: Commissioner Myers noted that they had received updates upon these bills but asked if there were specific bills they wanted to discuss. 1. SB Motorcycle Protective Gear: 2. SB Rural Economic Development Fund: 3. AB Hunting Tag Changes: 4. SB Infrastructure Funds for Projects: 5. SB Additional Sales & Use Taxes for Smaller Counties: 6. AB Net Proceeds of Minerals: 7. AB Property Tax - Assessed Value Cap: 8. AB Changes Concerning Regulation of Property Tax Assessment by Nevada Tax Commission: 9. SB Weed Control Coordinator: 10. AB 413 -Appropriation for Weed Control: AB Nevada Commission on Homeland Security: Commissioner Myers stated this bill was not clear to him. He noted that the Commission chose not to support this bill. He saw where the bill was pending but it was not on the agenda. He inquired if that bill had died. AB Distribution of proceeds of tax on net proceeds of minerals: PAGE 14

15 Commissioner Ellison stated he had sat in upon the bill regarding the net proceeds. However, the legislature was going fast and they were running out of time. Commissioner Myers asked for an update as to when the bills were defeated or approved. Cash Minor stated they were looking to see what survived. 12. SB Rural Transit Operations: Commissioner Russell stated he testified upon this bill. He stated no one opposed the bill as long as the money came out of General Fund. He noted the County=s lobbyist felt there would be some kind of appropriation for the rural transit. He did not know if they would eliminate the requirement for the County to make a contribution. Commissioner Ellison noted that Lee Hoffman=s wife had contacted him and expressed her appreciation for Commissioner Russell=s representation. 13. SB Certificates of Operation for Off-Road Vehicles: 14. SB Distribution of Federal Money from leases of federal lands: 15. AB 491- Provisions Governing Term of Imprisonment: 16. AB Provisions Governing Jury Trials in Justice Courts: AB Appropriation for Weed Control: Commissioner Eklund-Brown stated she received an from the Spring Creek Cooperative Weed Management District on this bill with a list of the legislators. She had ed a letter of personal support. She noted that the County Commission had submitted a letter of support. She had received a couple of back thanking her for her input. Commissioner Eklund-Brown stated she had received an from Steve Thaler stating they would be given additional staff to increase their ratios at China Spring. She had responded to his because in their original meeting if the staff level increased but the State percentage was not increased with regards to funding, then they would not ask for the staff increase. Commissioner Eklund-Brown explained it would cause an increased allocation from the counties to support the staff increase. She stated from what she was seeing they would get the increase in the staff but not additional State allocation. Commissioner Eklund-Brown reported that she had not heard back from Steve Thaler with regards to her . She felt they were overpaying for the County utilization of that facility. AB 466 Provisions governing jury trials in Justices= Courts: Commissioner Myers noted that upon their review it stated there would not be an effect upon the local government. He believed that there would be an PAGE 15

16 effect and Commissioner Ellison agreed. Cash Minor inquired if the bill was exempt for the unfunded mandates. Commissioner Myers commented that there were Fiscal Notes stated there was no fiscal effect on local or state governments. He noted in their review it was listed as AB 466 but in discussion it was a BDR on April 6, Commissioner Myers felt that they should show opposition without knowing what the costs would be. The staffing would be affected. Commissioner Ellison inquired about the impact upon the Justice Court system. Kristin McQueary stated she was not familiar with the bill and he would defer to Mr. Woodbury on the criminal staffing needs. She stated that anything that would take more time in the Justice Court would have a trickle down impact to all the offices involved inclusive of the District Attorney=s Office and the Public Defender=s office. Commissioner Myers felt they should have a letter drafted that they believed there were impacts to local government and it would slow down the justice process in our understaffed courts. Commissioner Russell felt they should include rough projections from the Justice Court as to the cost and the material affects. Undersheriff Bill Cunningham noted that jury trials affect numerous departments in the County. He stated it affected the Sheriff=s Department because they had to have two personnel assigned to a jury trial. Commissioner Ellison disclosed that his wife worked in Elko Justice Court and his wife=s sister, Pat, was the Justice of the Peace in Wells. Commissioner Ellison asked Kristin if he should abstain from this. Kristin McQueary asked if there would be a monetary increase to his wife or sister-in-law and received a negative answer. She advised that he discloses his relationship to those Courts but felt he could vote upon the matter. She noted that she was not familiar with this bill but believed it would affect all Justice Courts. MOTION: Commissioner Russell moved that they send a letter against the provisions in AB 466 with corroborating information that reflects an increase in staffing levels for several departments and increase of costs. Commissioner Nannini seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously COMMISSION MEETING CALENDAR: May 4&5, :30 p.m. - Elko - Courthouse. May 18, :00 a.m. - Elko - Courthouse. June 1&2, :30 p.m. - Elko - Courthouse. June 15, :00 a.m. - Elko - Courthouse. MOTION: Commissioner Nannini moved to approve the PAGE 16

17 commission meeting calendar. Commissioner Ellison seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. CORRESPONDENCE, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND NOTICES: The Board did not discuss the correspondence and notices received by the Commission. CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of Preceding Minutes: March 16, 2005: 1. Board of County Commissioners. 2. Board of County Highway Commissioners. 3. Jackpot Town Board. Presentation and review of claims for approval. Review and approval of travel requests that may be pending. Commissioner Myers inquired where the claims were. Robert Stokes asked that they approve the claims subject to review. MOTION: Commissioner Eklund-Brown moved to approve the Consent Agenda with changes submitted by herself and anybody else on the March 16 th meeting minutes and contingent upon review of the claims and travel requests. Commissioner Ellison seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Commissioner Myers requested that there be a discussion put on the agenda with regards to fuel costs. Commissioner Eklund-Brown stated she had discussed with Cash about adjusting this amount at the State levels. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND COUNTY STAFF COMMENTS: Kristin McQueary stated she would be at the Civil Deputies Conference and Gary Woodbury would be attending their May 4th and May 5 th meetings. Commissioner Russell stated that they have 15 year-old vehicle at the motor pool that no one uses. He would use that vehicle to travel back and forth to the meetings instead of taking travel expenses. He stated this was just a public notice. He believed it would save the County on those expenses. Commissioner Russell stated it would also enable him as Highway Chairman to review the roads around the County. Commissioner Eklund-Brown asked that Robert Stokes set up the North Fork field trip. Robert Stokes stated Commissioner Russell had scheduled it in the middle of June. Commissioner Russell stated it was scheduled for June 7, 2005 at North Fork and they would leave at 8:15 a.m. that morning. Robert PAGE 17

18 Stokes asked if there would be more than two Commissioners because they should agenda if more than two plan on attending that field trip. Commissioner Myers asked that be put upon the next agenda. Commissioner Myers noted he received a call that someone had plowed Harrison Pass. He had informed that person that the County may have plowed the backside of Harrison Pass but the County did not plow the paved portion of Harrison Pass. He stated they may want to find out who did that plowing. Commissioner Myers stated he had spoken to Ralph McMullen this morning and he would be retiring as the ECVA Director effective June 30, Commissioner Ellison noted he and Robert Stokes met with people from Wendover on a trail guide service. He stated this may come back on the agenda for discussion. Commissioner Eklund-Brown stated she would be attending a class tomorrow on Nevada Law on easement rights, rights of way and encumbrances. ELKO COUNTY PLANNING, ZONING, BUILDING AND SAFETY: Alternate Compliance Request - James D. Currivan: The Board considered an Alternate Compliance for James D. Currivan for a parcel map denial by the Elko County Planning and Zoning Division regarding a private roadway located at NE1/4 Section 10, T36N, R60E, MDB&M, in Starr Valley. Commissioner Nannini commented that he would abstain from any type of discussion or voting on this issue. He stated that he felt he had a conflict of interest. Kristin McQueary stated that because of the request for more specificity requirements on disclosing, she asked that he explain his disclosure. Commissioner Nannini explained that they were in a real estate situation and they had a potential buyer. He stated they had been working with the Currivans for the past six or eight months on the sale. Commissioner Nannini stated the company was interested in purchasing the entire property. Commissioner Russell stated that as this project moved forward he tried to investigate a few facts surrounding it. He had asked some questions and wanted to acknowledge that he had gathered a few facts prior to this meeting today. Randy Brown read the Staff Report into the record. Randy Brown explained that under 4, B) the exhibit was just an exhibit and did not represent the Parcel Map as it was shown today. He understood that the appeal also covered the PP1 (map overlay prepared by Mike Gerber) roads. He stated the attorneys could speak to those situations as they come up. Commissioner Eklund-Brown stated on item 7 D) This appeal hearing is to PAGE 18

19 Agrant or he (Randy Brown) had explained what would happen if they granted the appeal. However, what would happen if the Board denied it? Randy Brown stated that they would not be able to proceed with the parcel map procedure. Commissioner Eklund-Brown asked if there would be a 30-day public notification period. Randy Brown replied no. Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired about the current status on the lawsuit and if it had an effect on this. Kristin McQueary stated that the attorneys in the litigation could address this. She stated there were a number of issues regarding the location of various road and trail easements and the extent of use available to the people so affected by the roads and trails. She noted this neighborhood had been in litigation for about ten years and it was up on appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. Kristin McQueary understood that the parties just recently or were finishing up their briefing process. She stated once all the briefs were submitted to the Supreme Court then they would begin the process of reviewing it and making a decision. She did not know if there would be a call for oral arguments or not. She stated there was no guarantee on how long it would take the Nevada Supreme Court to reach a decision in this matter. Commissioner Eklund-Brown stated on June 4 th you noted that the surface water ditches had been previously surveyed. She asked if the easements, trails and existing roads had been surveyed. Randy Brown replied no they had not to his knowledge. Commissioner Myers stated they would begin the process with those who favored this item. Kristin McQueary suggested they begin with appellants which would be the Currivans and then the folks that were in opposition to their position. Commissioner Eklund-Brown disclosed that Randy Brown was her husband who was the Director of Planning and Zoning. She stated there was no pecuniary interest to either of them in this matter. She felt that she was able to go forward with an objective opinion either way it went. David Stanton stated he represented Jim Currivan in this matter. He concurred with the staff report. He noted there were some clarifications that he would like to make. He agreed with Kristin in terms of the background of this matter. David Stanton stated they were seeking to sell three parcels of land and have a parcel map approved for that purpose. He stated that the litigation history went back a long time. He noted it was ten years of litigation and it was still in litigation. David Stanton commented that when parties were in litigation for ten years there were a lot of bad feelings. He stated that was unfortunate but it was reality. He was concerned about bad feelings getting to be a part of these proceedings, they should not. David Stanton stated there were some very PAGE 19

20 objective criteria for this board to consider. He did not know what would be said. He would try to keep it as objective as he could. He stated that with the history, there may be a lot of issues that would be brought up. He hoped those would not detract from today=s hearing. David Stanton noted there were three specific matters in the Staff Report that were identified as items that this council was to decide upon. The first issue being whether or not the access road should be dedicated for public use. The second issue identified concerned street grades of greater than 8%. The third issue had to do with a particular point in the road where the centerline radius was less than 150 feet, which was the County Code Standard. He stated that this was somewhat type of a tighter turn than that. He stated that these were the three issues that were originally being sought as items that they would seek waivers on. However, one of those issues, he had been informed, was not even an issue anymore. David Stanton stated that was the issue concerning street grades greater than 8%. David Stanton stated that there were previously proposed access routes that were in old versions of the map presented to the Planning Commission which had grades higher than 8%. David Stanton stated that upon the current parcel map which was being presented to this Commission today, there were not grades greater than 8% and there would be no waivers sought for that item. He noted that left two issues. The one issue being whether or not to dedicate an access road for public use and the other issue being whether or not to allow a centerline radius less than 150 feet. David Stanton commented that in terms of public use, they have already heard that there was no opposition to restricting access to private use. David Stanton noted that nobody was advocating that this road be dedicated to public use. He was aware that there were other locations within the County, in the Lamoille area, and other areas wherein similar waivers had been granted. He knew of no reason why it should not be granted in this case as well. David Stanton stated in terms of the centerline radius being less than 150 feet. He understood that waivers of that nature had been granted as well and if necessary the Board could hear testimony from individuals who have brought some very large vehicles, horse trailers, and cattle trailers in and out through this area, through the curve and have not experienced any problems. So, as a practical matter, there was really not an access issue with the one area where the road had a centerline radius of less than 150 feet. David Stanton stated that these were County requirements obviously but they could be waived. He stated that was really the issue that was presented today. He stated that there were meetings which have taken place and there was some history here in which some of the Currivan=s neighbors who were involved in litigation, and the case had been described, were concerned that this parcel map did not show the locations of roads and trails in accordance with the District Court=s decision. PAGE 20