STATE OF NEVADA, ) COUNTY OF ELKO. ) ss. APRIL 16, 2003

Transcription

1 STATE OF NEVADA, ) COUNTY OF ELKO. ) ss. The Board of Elko County Commissioners meet in regular session on April 16, 2003, at 1:30 p.m., in Room 105 of the Elko County Courthouse at 571 Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada. There were present: County Commissioners John Ellison, Chair Mike Nannini Warren Russell Sheri Eklund-Brown Charlie Myers County Manager Robert Stokes District Attorney Gary Woodbury County Clerk Win Smith Deputy County Clerk Marilyn Tipton Chief Financial Officer Cash Minor Road Supervisor Otis Tipton Public Works Lynn Forsberg Planning and Zoning Randy Brown The following proceedings were held: Chairman Ellison called the regular meeting to order 1:30 p.m. Commissioner Ellison noted for the record that all Commissioners were present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Russell led the meeting participants in the Pledge of Allegiance COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: No public comments were submitted. CORRESPONDENCE, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND NOTICES: Commissioner Ellison discussed correspondence received by the Commission regarding Representative Sam Graves, a Missouri congressman, who was trying to stop the federal government from acquiring more land until it did a better job of maintaining the millions of acres it already had. (Representative Graves was sponsoring a bill to place a moratorium on purchases through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was paid for by taxes on offshore oil and gas drilling. The fund helps four agencies: the Forest Service, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management to buy property for conservation and recreation.) The representative stated there was a 15 billion backlog on maintenance and improvements on federal lands. He stated that the bill was also sponsored by Representative Jim Gibbons. CONGRESSMAN JIM GIBBONS OFFICE: PAGE 1

2 Christina Tueller, rural representative, reported on the current activities of Congressman Jim Gibbons Office. She stated that their offices were located in Ely, Eureka, Wendover, Battle Mountain, Winnemucca and on 471 Fourth Street, in Elko. She stated that there were also offices in Reno, Las Vegas and Washington, D.C. She encouraged them to contact her if they had any questions. Christina Tueller noted Congressman Gibbons support of the troops and passed out buttons with the Support Our mail.house.gov address upon them. She noted the amount of troops that resided within Nevada. She stated that this mail would be forwarded onto the troops and cautioned them what should not be contained within the mail as to their location, etc. She encouraged the Commission members to visit the Elko office. FREEDOM FLAME: The Board considered approval to allow the Freedom Flame to remain on the Courthouse lawn until the end of the hostile action in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the Candlelight Vigil in Support of our Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, a 131/2 foot tall Freedom Flame candle was placed on the Courthouse lawn and lite with an eternal flame. If approved, the Freedom Flame would remain on the Courthouse lawn until the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were completed. Commissioner Myers requested that a letter be sent to Joe at the Elko Blacksmith Shop. Commissioner Ellison noted that certificates had been drafted. MOTION: Commissioner Myers moved to allow the Freedom Flame to remain on the Courthouse lawn until the end of the hostile action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Commissioner Russell seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Commissioner Eklund-Brown thanked Commissioner Myers for helping to organize that gathering. Commissioner Myers noted that Gil Hernandez and Frank Gonzales was also present at the meeting. Commissioner Myers noted the media coverage for that event. ELKO CONVENTION & VISITORS AUTHORITY (ECVA): The Board considered approval of Proclamation 2003-H entitled, A PROCLAMATION BY THE ELKO COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF MAY 10, 2003 AS NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK. Ralph McMullen made a presentation of the new marketing video entitled Elko As A Destination. He noted that Gill Hernandez and Charlie Myers were representatives upon the ECVA board. Commissioner Myers read the proclamation into the record. MOTION: Commissioner Nannini moved to approve Proclamation 2003-H entitled, A PROCLAMATION BY THE ELKO COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF MAY 10, 2003 AS NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK. Commissioner Eklund-Brown seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted that Ralph McMullen represented the County PAGE 2

3 well. Chairman Ellison called the Jackpot Town Board to order at 1:50 p.m. and reconvened the regular meeting to order at 2:07 p.m. ELKO COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ECEDA): Nancy Sheffield, Executive Director of ECEDA, gave an annual report regarding ECEDA activities including a request for Elko County s continued membership and financial support. Nancy Sheffield provided the board members an informational packet. She noted that Commissioner Eklund-Brown served upon the ECEDA Board as the County representative with Commissioner Russell as the alternate representative. She reviewed formation of the organization in She stated that at the time there was a lot of concern with the economy and ECEDA was to be the informational network, and the Countywide marketing coordinator. ECEDA was to coordinate the leads through the State, process applications, coordinate joint marketing efforts, and help establish economic development strategies. She noted that over the past three years it evolved into a different organization. She stated ECEDA advertised in two national publications that bring in leads. They maintain the ECEDA website which supplied information to the site selection consultants. She stated they work with the Sierra Pacific s webmaster which updated the information monthly. Nancy Sheffield stated they published various marketing documents, and performed an active role in responding to leads on behalf of the county. She stated that last year they responded to 150 leads. The leads came over the website, from the Chamber of Commerce and the Sierra Pacific Power economic development division. She noted that they inventoried the community as to what they could sell. She stated they developed working relationships within the community and promoted a strong voice in rural Nevada. Nancy Sheffield stated they participated on the site visit to the tire recycling facility in Canada, which a similar facility was being considered for the Wells Industrial Park. She stated that ECEDA served on the steering committee and the executive committee of the Rural Development Council. She stated ECEDA was a leader in the effort to change the measurements used by The Commission on Economic Development to assess rural developments authorities access. She noted that in the past they had been compared to Las Vegas regarding the creation of primary jobs. Now, the rural economic development was evaluated upon a different formula. She noted the change in criteria for rural development authorities, community capacity building, entrepreneur development, and small business development. She stated that she could provide a copy of last year s budget and the proposed budget for this coming year. She reported upon the March site selector presentation given by Mark McGowan of McGowan and Sweeney. She stated approximately 80 people attended the workshop. Nancy Sheffield stated the basic idea was they needed to take a regional approach for marketing the area. She had met with three site selectors last week in Reno. She informed them that they could draw from a population of 90 to 100,000 people for their work force. She noted that people would drive more than two hours to work. She noted the 50,000 population figure for Elko was not a PAGE 3

4 beneficial amount to a site selector. Nancy Sheffield noted that in the last fiscal year the County contributed $20, in cash and $8,000 in-kind to the ECEDA organization. She stated this amount was figured upon per capita basis of $1.18 per person within the County. She noted it was used as a match to the State. She had figured the per capita s basis for this fiscal year based upon the new census data and the amount would be $25, She stated that $8,000 of that amount would be in-kind for payroll services, and other services provided by the County. Nancy Sheffield stated $17, would be the County cash contribution for this fiscal year, which was a little less than last year. She reported that they had one full time and one part-time person whom developed web sites; provided funds for entities to make site visits; performed educational events like a rural summit and workshops on how to do business with the government; provided a scholarship at Great Basin College for a research student; provided funding to the various entities for publication; provided information to the local businesses, Realtors, and investors working within the area. Nancy Sheffield stated they participated in the site selector visits. She stated ECEDA supported the local businesses and entities. She asked for the continued County support for FY and felt that economic development helped everyone. Nancy Sheffield stated they had lots of plans for next year. Commissioner Myers noted that Nancy Sheffield had planned to give more briefings to the City Councils and the Commission. Nancy Sheffield suggested those be quarterly meeting presentations. Commissioner Myers noted they received a monthly update from Commissioner Eklund-Brown. He encouraged the Board to support ECEDA. Nancy Sheffield understood the tough budget times but would like to continue with their programs. Frank Gonzales, Chairman of ECEDA, noted they had changed their focus this last year. He stated that some of the Commission members had sat upon the NENDA or the ECEDA board. He stated they had contacted site selectors to make the people aware of this community. He noted that Sierra Pacific had their own rural representative that dealt strictly with the rurals. He stated that ECEDA would work with site selectors to notify them of the Elko region. He stated they had action or control items at each of their meetings and there were planning sessions scheduled. He noted the members upon the board were made up from the public and private. He noted the ECEDA cooperation with the city and county representatives. He complimented Nancy Sheffield upon her efforts. Commissioner Ellison noted that Elko County was in a severe financial condition and suggested that they lower that contribution amount for ECEDA. He inquired of Cash Minor about funding availability. Cash Minor noted last year, the County contribution was $20, inclusive of the $8,000 of in-kind for a total of $28, Commissioner Ellison inquired if it was based upon population. Cash Minor stated that was his understanding and the State Demographer sent population figures in February. Commissioner Eklund-Brown felt $20,000 was a small investment for economic development in the area. She noted that Nancy Sheffield was very busy and felt the contact with the site selectors was very beneficial. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted ECEDA was focusing upon local expansion, accessory businesses to the existing businesses, and developing the local entrepreneur potential. She reviewed the business PAGE 4

5 incubator grant application for a feasibility study. She was very impressed with the ECEDA board members, and felt that the Commission should support ECEDA. Commissioner Ellison inquired if they would receive the State grant funding. Frank Gonzales stated that Nancy Sheffield had contacted the State and they had sent back an response. He noted that NENDA had previously worked with the State and felt that the State funding would remain available. Commissioner Ellison inquired of Cash Minor if ECEDA was in the tentative budget. Cash Minor stated they had budgeted for ECEDA. Nancy Sheffield stated that based upon the new census figures, the County s cash contribution would be $17, together with the $8,000 in-kind. MOTION: Commissioner Myers moved that the County fund ECEDA in the total amount of $25, with $17, in cash and $8,000 inkind. Commissioner Eklund-Brown seconded the motion. Commissioner Eklund-Brown complimented Nancy Sheffield upon her representation and her efforts. Commissioner Ellison noted that he had spoken with Frank Gonzales about ECEDA and commented upon Frank s enthusiasm. The motion was passed unanimously. Commissioner Myers inquired when Frank Gonzales would be promoted. Frank Gonzales stated he would become brigadier general status in the reserve but it was not confirmed. The Board congratulated him upon his pending commission. SUMMIT RACEWAY ASSOCIATION: The Board considered approval of the renewal of the agreement with Summit Raceway Association to use the BLM Recreational Patent lands near the Elko Summit. Summit Raceway Association had renewed this annual agreement with the County for several years. In order to add stabilization and the ability to receive more sponsor funding, the association was seeking a multi year term for the new agreement. Commissioner Ellison inquired if the District Attorney had read the agreement. Robert Stokes noted that Kristin McQueary had drafted the agreement. He stated the proposal was to renew it for one year and they would check with legalities upon their nonprofit designation. He stated Kristin McQueary suggested the Board renew the agreement for one year and they may come back later with a multiple year agreement for their approval. MOTION: Commissioner Nannini moved to renew the agreement with Summit Raceway Association to use the BLM Recreational Patent lands near the Elko Summit. Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted several homeowners in that area had contacted her and stated they did not want to see this going to a ten-year lease without them voicing their comments. Commissioner Ellison noted they had originally proposed a two or three year lease. Robert Stokes noted that they originally asked for a three-year lease but after speaking with the sponsors, some of the sponsors would be willing to sponsor more money for that facility if there was more than a one year agreement. Commissioner Ellison noted that the association had worked very hard there. He stated they had put in a lot of time and PAGE 5

6 money toward those races. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted that she had spoken to the BLM and they stated the Association had done a remarkable job cleaning up the area and had complied with the lease. Commissioner Russell felt that if sponsors were coming forward, he would like to see letters from those sponsors. Robert Stokes stated they would proceed with the one year agreement and bring back the multi year agreement later for board approval. Commissioner Nannini noted he was the closest neighbor and felt they did a great job. The motion was passed unanimously. ELKO COUNTY CLERK S OFFICE: Commissioner Ellison noted that the Chamber of Commerce asked to table their request for On Call marriage license clerk services until the first meeting in May. MOTION: Commissioner Myers moved to table the request for On Call marriage license clerk services until the first meeting in May. Commissioner Nannini seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: Elko County Planning Commission: Alan D. Rowe - Appeal Hearing Request: Pursuant to County Code (A), Alan Rowe appealed the March 20, 2003, action of the Elko County Planning Commission relating to the zoning denial associated with parcel In accordance with County Code (C) the Board of County Commissioners should set an appeal hearing date, and at the conclusion of the appeal hearing render a decision, pursuant to County code (E). Staff suggested a hearing be scheduled on May 7, 2003 at 3:00 p.m. Randy Brown recommended the appeal hearing date on May 7, 2003, be approved. MOTION: Commissioner Nannini moved to schedule the appeal hearing for Alan D. Rowe on May 7, 2003, at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously. Anthony and Claudia Zunino Parcel Map Waiver Request: The Board considered a waiver for a parcel map requirement under Agricultural Exemption NRS for a 20 acre parcel located at NW1/4NW1/4, SW1/4 NW1/4 Section 11, T29N, R56E. Randy Brown noted this request fell under the Nevada Revised Statutes but did not fall under the agriculture exemption. He stated the applicants had lost their home to a fire, and to acquire financing to rebuilt they have to divide a parcel away from the remainder of the ranch. This waiver would allow a 20 acre lot to be parceled from the ranch in order to finance to rebuilt their home. He stated that the 20 acre parcel would be a non-conforming open space parcel and would have a primary access by a County road. Therefore, he felt the parcel map waiver should be granted. MOTION: Commissioner Nannini moved to approve a waiver for a parcel PAGE 6

7 map requirement under Agricultural Exemption NRS for a 20 acre parcel located at NW1/4NW1/4, SW1/4 NW1/4 Section 11, T29N, R56E. Commissioner Russell seconded the motion. Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired why it was nonconforming. Randy Brown replied it would be a 20 acre parcel rather than a 40 acre parcel. The motion was passed unanimously. Chairman Myers called the Highway Commissioners to order at 2:37 p.m. Chairman Ellison reconvened the regular meeting to order at 2:43 p.m. NEVADA JUDGES ASSOCIATION - BARBARA NETHERY - JUDGE OF THE YEAR: Robert Stokes requested that they delay this item until Judge Nethery was present. The Board considered approval of Proclamation 2003-I entitled: A PROCLAMATION HONORING BARBARA J. NETHERY, CARLIN JUSTICE COURT JUDGE, AS THE NEVADA JUDGES ASSOCIATION JUDGE OF THE YEAR. Chairman Ellison called a recess at 2:44 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 2:57 p.m. NEVADA JUDGES ASSOCIATION - BARBARA NETHERY - JUDGE OF THE YEAR: The Board considered approval of Proclamation 2003-I entitled: A PROCLAMATION HONORING BARBARA J. NETHERY, CARLIN JUSTICE COURT JUDGE, AS THE NEVADA JUDGES ASSOCIATION JUDGE OF THE YEAR. Each year the Nevada Judges Association (NJA), whose membership included all Justices of the Peace and Municipal Court Judges in the State of Nevada, honors one Judge as the Judge of the Year. Elko County congratulates Barbara J. Nethery, Carlin Justice Court Judge, for her selection as the NJA Judge of the Year. Commissioner Eklund-Brown read the Proclamation into the Record. Judge Nethery received a round of applause and a standing ovation from the meeting participants. MOTION: Commissioner Myers moved to approve Proclamation 2003-I, entitled: A PROCLAMATION HONORING BARBARA J. NETHERY, CARLIN JUSTICE COURT JUDGE, AS THE NEVADA JUDGES ASSOCIATION JUDGE OF THE YEAR. Commissioner Eklund- Brown seconded the motion. Commissioner Ellison complimented Barbara Nethery upon her efforts. Judge Barbara Nethery thanked them for the award. The motion was passed unanimously. THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS (TPL) - SOUTHERN NEVADA PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT (SNPLMA) ROUND 4 NOMINATION - CLOVER VALLEY AREA: The Board considered the TPL Round 4 SNPLMA nomination applications entitled: PAGE 7

8 Clover Valley One and Clover Valley Two. Colleen Hemingway-Bacon of TPL, submitted a presentation upon two Round 4 SNPLMA nominations in the Clover Valley area comprising of 5,320 acres with an estimated value of $3,302, These nominations were not approved in the initial portion of Round 4 review process. It was possible, and approval could still occur as part of Round 4 or during a subsequent nomination Round. She felt that the local ranchers should speak upon this nomination to give local input. She stated the purpose of the SNPLMA was to promote public enjoyment and biological diversity upon lands. It was to enhance recreation opportunities and provide public access. She stated it was to provide more efficient management of public lands through consolidation of federal ownership. She reviewed the Clover Valley area map and the Forest Service boundary created more than 100 years ago. She noted that property had 16 water tributaries coming off of the mountain and serving the valley ranches. She stated that the red sections were available and they were negotiating a potential acquisition with that willing seller to the federal agency. She stated that was a goal of the SNPLMA to create and achieve more effective management of public lands through consolidation of federal lands. She noted that the two northern sections may be acquired by the Bureau of Land Management because a scenic highway went through those two sections. She stated those two sections had been identified in a retention and consolidation management plan by the Bureau of Land Management. Colleen Hemingway-Bacon showed them the development map for the area. If they do not acquire that land, the ranchers could be looking at forty acre parcels between the ranchers and the Forest Service. She noted that there would be an access issue to the Forest Service lands. She believed the ranching life in Clover Valley would probably suffer. She stated the goal in the area was to preserve the ranching in that area. Brad Dalton, Clover Valley Rancher and Chairman of the Soil Conservation District stated this was a great recreational area. It had pristine lakes, abundant wildlife, and it was a great scenic area. He noted that recreation was one of the drawing points for Elko County. Mr. Dalton stated the development situation would threaten the downstream water quality. He believed the water wells that would be needed for such a development would dry up the springs. He felt that the development would scare the landscape with power lines and roads. He stated that recreation opportunities would be lost to this area. He believed that the police and fire protection would be a problem in that area. Brad Dalton noted that the ground was originally given to the railroad by the government. He stated that the SNPLMA would help preserve this area. Commissioner Ellison inquired if the ranchers had considered the purchase of the ground. Brad Dalton stated the ranchers would love to purchase the property but he noted the increase of appraisal price upon that property. Commissioner Ellison questioned why a piece of ground that appraised between $495, and the maximum of $722, was set at 3.3 million dollars. Brad Dalton did not believe that was the final appraisal. Commissioner Ellison noted that he called several appraisers to find out what the land was being listed for, and received replies that grazing land was going between $ to $ per acre. He stressed this was 3.3 million dollars for 5320 acres. He felt that they were pulling the land away from them. He PAGE 8

9 noted that he grew up in this area and was familiar with Wells. He believed that if the Forest Service tied up more ground then development in the City of Wells would become worse. Commissioner Ellison felt that they had priced the land too high for the ranchers to purchase the land. Brad Dalton stated it was not viable for agricultural operations to purchase this land. He noted that this project would take the conservation easement off of the top and possibly make it affordable to be able to purchase it to make it affordable to run the cattle upon it. He agreed that the purchase price of the property was inflated. Commissioner Ellison noted that he received paperwork depicting the continuous reduction of the AUM s. He stated that after every fire they reduced the AUM s further. He stated that they were dealing with an agency and not with another rancher. Brad Dalton stated that they realized that. He guessed that whoever held the adjacent allotments on the Forest Service would acquire the one that was purchased by the Forest Service. Commissioner Russell requested that he define the nature of the police and fire problems that would be created by the development of this land other than what it was everywhere else within Elko County. Brad Dalton stated it was no worse than anywhere else but noted that fire protection in Clover Valley was marginal at best. Commissioner Russell noted then his argument would be there should be no development in other rural areas because of the fire problems. Brad Dalton noted this would be another development and there were already other developed areas in Wells which were not filled. He felt they should fill those areas first. Commissioner Nannini noted that the County was not servicing the rural areas and inquired why they would want to add to that problem. He noted that Montello and Lamoille had new developments and the County was not servicing those areas either. Commissioner Russell questioned why they took that perspective. He felt that would encourage a moratorium on development in Elko County because they could not provide adequate police and fire protection. Commissioner Nannini noted they would have to change the law and noted they were discussing forty acre parcels. Commissioner Ellison stated that the City of Wells had just developed some new water wells and tanks and inquired about the location of the development of the new wells to save their community. Commissioner Nannini replied it was one mile up on the Angel Lake road up towards the top of the hill. Commissioner Ellison noted that was a large investment for the City of Wells to take. Commissioner Nannini noted that gravity would aid with the flow of water. He stated that the project did not have anything to do with this matter. Commissioner Eklund- Brown noted that she had gone a tour of the area with several representatives from the BLM, the Forest Service and Colleen Hemingway-Bacon. She stated that the well was in Section 29 and that provided well head protection. David Mathewson stated he was a former manager of exploration for Newmont and was currently a consulting geologist. He stated there was a recent land poll conducted in the community. He noted there was a preliminary compilation of that poll s results and that it was performed under the supervision of the Elko Free Press. He presented the preliminary results on the 12 land poll questions upon the survey. 1. What percentage of Nevada land should government own? He noted that 73% of the people responding preferred that less than 20% of the land in the State be under government control. He stated that currently 90% of the land within the State of Nevada PAGE 9

10 was controlled by the government. He commented that only 4% were in favor of keeping that percentage in the State of Nevada. 2. Should the government be buying or selling land in Nevada? He reported that 91% responding to the survey wanted the government to sell land in Nevada. 3. What percentage of Nevada land should private citizens own? David Mathewson stated 77% of the responders said 80% should be privately owned in the State of Nevada. 4. What percentage of Russian land should government own? He stated that 90% responded 20% or less should be governmentally owned. He noted that there was a great deal consistency of what people thought should be going on in Russia which was 100% governmental owned and what should happen here in Nevada. 6. What percentage of Russian land should private citizens own? He stated that 65% responded that 80% or more should be privately owned. 7. What percentage of Iowa land should government own? He noted that approximately 2% of Iowa was government owned. He reported that 91% of the responders felt government should own 20% or less. 8. Should government be buying or selling land in Iowa? He stated 91% responded that federal government should sell the land. 9. What percentage of Iowa land should private citizens own? David Mathewson stated 84% of the responders felt 80% should be privately owned. David Mathewson felt the last three questions summarized the poll and noted there were more results being submitted. 10. Do you want to own land? He stated 96% said yes. 11. Do you want your children and grandchildren to own land? He reported that 97% wanted their children and grandchildren to own land. 12. Should local government support or oppose federal government in purchasing more land in Nevada? He stated that 88% responded that they opposed federal government purchasing land in Nevada. David Mathewson noted 98 of the 100 responders were residents of Elko and basically they were prospective voters. Commissioner Nannini felt by and large most of them agreed with them. He noted that the most important issue the Commission was dealing with was, this was private ground. He felt that there should be a question on the survey: Should a person that owns private ground be able to sell his or her private property? He noted the question was not whether this law was right or wrong. He stated that question would be settled at the federal level. Commissioner Nannini stated they may be able to go back and address this issue because it was not working the way it was supposed to work. He felt there should be a question on that poll whether a person should be able to sell his or her private land to an able buyer. Dave Mathewson felt the SNPLMA was sneaked by without public notification. He stated that if he had heard of that Act, then he would have been down there voicing his opinion. He felt the assumption was, it was a Southern Nevada issue. He believed that should be brought back because it was a Southern Nevada issue. He felt they should not be able to purchase, withdraw, preserve, protect, or prevent access to the land when any PAGE 10

11 federal government takes over these lands. David Mathewson believed that would happen. He noted that when federal government assumed the land, he did not see evidence other than that would happen. Commissioner Nannini stated that until that Act was changed through the legislature or federal legislature that person still had the right to sell his/her private property to whomever. He asked if that person had the right to sell his/her property? Dave Mathewson noted he supported the rights of private property ownership and disposition of that property according to what that person wishes. However, he felt that people were short sited upon the future. He believed that in the future these lands would be out of commission with respect to any future use. He noted there was talk about benefit to the public, accesses and such but it was not happening presently. He felt it was unlikely that would happen. He could not argue against a person wanting to sell his property. However, as a community they should be watchful of what would happen to some of those lands on a long term basis, and how it would hurt their children and grandchildren in the future. Commissioner Nannini stated that he did not want to put Mr. Mathewson on the spot and understood what he was saying. He stated that in order to curtail some of the problems on the IL ranch they placed seven stipulations in their motion with regards to the grazing, water, access, etc. He stated their only avenue was to support private ownership. Commissioner Ellison stated he believed in private property rights and believed strongly in the ranching life but when government inflates the property so badly that the ranchers could not buy it, then there was something wrong with this idea. Commissioner Nannini inquired how much it would be per acre. Colleen Hemingway-Bacon stated they were guessing at the price and there was no appraisal. She noted that landowner based the figure upon the developmental value of the land. She stated they would get an appraiser upon that land and would know the appraisal price. Commissioner Ellison noted that there was a bill that was introduced in Washington. He stated the Forest Service, BLM and the US. Fish and Wildlife were collecting money from offshore drilling to purchase property similar to the SNPLMA. He stressed that this money was being used to purchase private property for the federal government and it was affecting private enterprise. Colleen Hemingway-Bacon stated that was the Land and Water Conservation fund. She stated that had been in place for years. Commissioner Ellison stated they were now trying to stop that procedure. Commissioner Nannini inquired if it had been offered to the ranchers at $ or $ per acre. Colleen Hemingway-Bacon noted that rather than just this 350 acres, the group they were speaking to owned approximately 14,000 acres. She stated that the big picture plan was to acquire the remaining 8300 acres of development rights on that property. She stated that if they purchase the development rights off of that property then it would become affordable to the ranchers. Colleen Hemingway-Bacon noted that was not available through the SNPLMA. Commissioner Ellison inquired why they could not make that land affordable for the ranchers now. Colleen Hemingway-Bacon stated she did not have the funding source yet. She noted that Question 1 would provide the funding for the conservation easements on the remaining property. She stated she had been attempting to work with the landowner who was entertaining the development concept up there to slow PAGE 11

12 him down so that the ranchers could achieve their goal of maintaining working ranches in that area. Commissioner Nannini noted there was a development located across the highway. Steve Safford felt that the federal government would not be involved in this process if they were not looking for a way to maintain the situation environmentally and economically. He stated that strip of ground had watershed after watershed. He noted they had made offers to the railroad as individual ranchers for years but could not get a response from the railroad. He stated that the railroad wanted to sell the large parcel to an entity rather than sell the land in smaller portions. He stated there was no economical way they could purchase the land from the railroad. He reported that after Nevada Ranch purchased it at a higher price it really put the price out of their reach to run cattle upon it. He noted that if they could get the red section of land taken care of, then it would eliminate the economic strain upon the developer and hopefully empower them to obtain the sensitive land above them. He stated they did not have the source of financing to purchase those lands they sought. Commissioner Ellison inquired where his property was located. Steve Safford pointed out the location of his property on the north end of Clover Valley. He noted the proposed development within the area was contiguous to the ranchers within that valley. Commissioner Ellison inquired if the adjacent land was offered to him at $3.00 per acre, would he purchase that. Steve Safford stated he would prefer to purchase it at that price but it was basically sage brush ground, unimproved hillside, and creek bottom. He noted they were all located downstream. He stated that if that property was developed they were concerned with the septic systems located upstream. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted she had known Steve Safford for a long time. She inquired what Steve had offered per acre to the railroad for that land. Steve Safford replied they had offered as much as $ per acre. Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired how much they had offered per acre to the Nevada Land Resource. Steve Safford stated the person that owned the land before him, Dave Anderson, had made many offers to the railroad and never received any response from the railroad. He did not believe that the railroad wanted to break that land up and sell it into smaller acres. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted that the Marriott Corporation came in three years ago and purchased the land at $ per acre. Steve Safford believed that Nevada Ranch bought most of the acreage from the railroad throughout the state. Then, the Marriot brought the 14,000 located above them from Nevada Ranch. Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired how the development above them would impact there irrigation for their hay fields. Steve Safford replied there was a moratorium upon drilling irrigation wells so this was their main source of water. He stated the development would be allowed to drill domestic wells and felt that it would affect their water if they drilled numerous water wells above them. He noted there was a potential of 350 domestic wells above them together with the serious septic problems. Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired about his reliance upon the upstream tributaries. Steve Safford replied 70% of his water came from Angel Creek and came from the mountain. Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired if the ground waters come from that same source. Steve Safford believed it came from that same source and stated the PAGE 12

13 brewery was upon the same ground. Commissioner Russell inquired about the depth of his water wells. Steve Safford replied the pumping wells were about 100 feet. He believed that the water was in channels and there was not a large aquifer. He stated they had three or four water wells on his property. Commissioner Russell noted most of the water was used for agriculture. He inquired if there were different stipulations upon water quality. Steve Safford stated the domestic wells were not tested but the commercial wells were tested. He noted there was good quality on their well water. Commissioner Russell inquired about the distance of the strip. Steve Safford replied approximately thirteen miles and each square was a mile. Commissioner Nannini noted that he and Steve Safford had lived under that hill for years and inquired if Steve could draw him a picture as to the view of the landscape if it was developed into 350 lots. Steve Safford stated it would be an Osino development between the ranchers and the Forest Service. He felt there would be little control over the development. He noted the drainage in the area would make it difficult to develop. He believed the roads would cause an erosion problem. He stated they would prefer to have it in private hands but if they don t do something soon, and it was developed into forty acres, it would be terrible. Commissioner Ellison inquired about the odds of selling all the 350 forty-acre parcels. Steve Safford pointed out that the owner was a developer and that was his business. He felt that placement of roads and utilities would be an adverse environmental impact to everyone located downstream. Commissioner Ellison noted the expense to run power to that region. Commissioner Nannini noted the cost to install the power would be the buyer s responsibility. The developer would not be responsible other than for access and the survey to divide the property into forty acre parcels. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted that the developer had control over the CC&R s. Grant Gerber stated over the years he had listened to many environmental organizations and federal agencies explain why a particular piece of property would be better to be owned and managed by the federal government. He stated that there was not one piece of ground on earth that the environmental organizations could not give a wonderful presentation why there should be federal acquisition. He noted that the same two Senators Reid and Bryan which supported the Black Rock Desert also helped get the SNPLMA bill started with the support of the same environmental groups. Grant Gerber noted the State had approximately 88% federal land and locally there was approximately 90% federally owned. He stated that the money raised so far was approximately 400 million dollars and the next rounds were beginning. He stated they were selling the Southern land between $85, to $100, per acre. He cautioned that they would come up north to purchase more and more land. He stated that if this Board started supporting the federal government in these purchases it would be extremely difficult to oppose the next purchases. He noted there was an attitude that they should never object to anyone selling their land, and felt everyone would agree with that. However, he felt they should consider the other side of the equation, who was the buyer. Grant Gerber believed the federal government should be stopped from buying private land. He stated the best way to do that was for this Board to announce they did not want the federal government to buy any more land within the County. He believed the best way was to vote upon that. PAGE 13

14 He stated that if they continue to support it, there would be more money to purchase more land. Grant Gerber noted that the rurals had voted against the 150 million dollar fund for the State acquisition but the urban neighborhoods supported it. He noted that the purchase of the land would drive the value of the land up higher. He proposed that there be a public hearing upon this nomination. He believed the hearing would come in similar to the poll results. He noted only 10% to 15% supported the purchase by the federal government. He believed people of this County did not want the federal government to purchase more land. Commissioner Nannini stated he believed in private property rights. He noted that Steve Safford and the ranchers had looked at every way possible to save that area. He noted that it would be developed if not sold through the SNPLMA funding. Grant Gerber noted that Ms. Bacon had explained the same theory that these lands had to be taken from private ownership because the federal government could only protect people from themselves. Grant Gerber believed that the private property interest was the best. He reviewed complaints about Spring Creek and noted that Spring Creek absorbed the bulk of the population growth so all development was not all bad. He noted that the environmentalists always succeed in making development seem to be bad. He believed that the Board had the ability to solve the problems just like when Spring Creek was developed. He noted that this Board had the ability to control the development. Commissioner Nannini noted that this individual had tied up more than one million dollars in that property. He believed that individual would try to get his money from that land. Grant Gerber noted that land speculators sometimes fail. He reviewed the proposed development out of West Wendover wherein the developer was able to get land close to the town at $25.00 per acre. He cautioned them that they need to watch the federal agencies and the land speculators because more private land would come off of the market. Commissioner Nannini inquired if he believed the developer would develop that property. Grant Gerber stated he may only be able to develop only a portion and sell the remainder to the ranchers. Grant Gerber noted that this Board had the ability to make development standards. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted the ranchers had made the initial contact with Colleen Hemingway-Bacon. Grant Gerber stated he had been consistent for the last 25 years in his belief that private property should be king. Grant Gerber stated that when the federal government had the ability to come in with billions of dollars and drive up the property price so that the land speculators could sell their land for excess amounts, it would hurt everyone. He stated that the opportunities would be gone. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted that there was no appraisal on this land but they speculated it would be inflated development value. Grant Gerber noted that he respected her position that she preferred the federal government should own that. Grant Gerber stated he did not believe that federal government should purchase the land. He favored the selling of the federal land but the money should go toward the national debt and not increasing the national debt. He stated that more land meant more employees to manage it. He cautioned them that they would reduce the AUMs. Grant Gerber stated he was one of the directors of the Blue Ribbon Coalition and they had discussed these issues. He noted that originally the off-road organizations liked the idea of federal owned land but now PAGE 14

15 they had seen what happened when the federal government started shutting it down. He noted that once land went off the market it began to hurt not only the locals but everyone economically. Preston Wright, Nevada Cattlemen s Association, noted he had previously stated their concerns with the SNPLMA. He felt they had the opportunity to change the Act. He noted he had followed this matter from the beginning and the Trust for Public Lands was never in the picture from the beginning. He stated that the people of Clover Valley were trying to expand and enhance their lands. He stated the proposal was to get somebody to buy the development rights on this land to make it cheap enough for the ranchers to purchase it. He felt that SNPLMA funds should do that but that Act was unwilling to do that so far. He believed that this project represented the better intention of that Act. He felt there were other issues such as the mule deer habitat issues involved and there were people that could speak to that. Preston Wright noted there was plenty of land to put houses upon without this development. He commented that he was opposed to government ownership and anti development. He believed they were entitled to open land for the production of food, fiber, etc. He did not think he had the right to make it into a parking lot. He stated they had zoning laws to govern the use of land. He noted the money from this land was being generated by the disposal of governmental land. He felt whatever the society was in the future, when they decided they wanted the land for some other use no matter who owned it, they would take it. Preston Wright stated that they had a society now that had established a value that generated money for this process. He stated it did not satisfy everyone in this room. He noted that this was happening because there was a public perception that there was a need. He agreed that perception came from far from here. He stated it was not a corporation asking for the Board s support but it was a group of family ranchers that were living next to that land and asking the Board s support to stabilize their property values and livelihood. Commissioner Ellison inquired if Preston Wright was aware there were more than 50 requests to be bought in of ranches to be bought around the State. Preston Wright stated he heard that and was not surprised. He felt there were better ways to do it. He believed there was a need to generate stability in funding and income for these people so they can afford to buy it. Commissioner Ellison noted that was not their intent. He stated when they can buy hundreds of thousands of acres of ranch land in the name of public and the public does not have a say, then, that was a different story. He stated they were destroying the American ranchers. Preston Wright noted that Assemblyman John Carpenter had told them more than ten years ago that the SNPLMA would generate enough money to buy out all of the private land in Northern Nevada. He agreed with that comment and felt this was a very destabilizing force out there. He noted the Land and Water Conservation fund has always wanted more funding per a year. He stated there was enough money here to generate the funding that the Land and Water Conservation wanted to spend. Commissioner Ellison noted that in round 5 a couple more billion dollars would be generated to buy more ranches. Preston Wright noted they had the opportunity to amend the Act. He stated that everyone he spoke to in Washington wanted to amend that Act because they want to utilize that money for other uses. However, in the meantime these people were looking for help PAGE 15

16 from the only source available. Kenneth Johns stated he had ranched in the area for 50 years. He stated this proposal to develop the land would really hurt him and the other users. He stated that this development would harm the environment, create erosion, and he felt that other things could be built on this land other than a home. He stated almost every ranch utilized the water for domestic use. He stated if there were numerous septic tanks put on those hills and as water seeped through the rocks it would seep down to the creek and contaminate it. He stated this would become a problem for the water users. He noted that each of them had a vested water right on that mountain and that snow pack supplied the ranchers with water. He voiced concern with the threat of fire due to growth of fuel if this land was not developed or cared for. Kenneth Johns stated if development occurred they would constantly threaten the use of the water. Bob Britton, Clover Valley Rancher, noted the creeks and springs feed water to their houses as well as to their ranch. He stated that water was tested and it was pure water. He stated the spring was used to irrigate with. He noted that their water rights were patented. He encouraged the Board to support them on this stretch of land. He stated he was not for federal owned property and had tried to acquire a portion of the land. He noted that most of the land was only one mile wide between the wilderness and the ranchers. He stated it was good country and the deer used that land to migrate on. He stated it would be a tragedy if this land was developed. Mr. Britton noted that they had a ranch between Reno and Carson City in 1997 and they were forced to subdivide and move. He begged the Board for the good of that range to support the nomination. He noted that there would be lawsuits filed because they would hinder their water rights. He stressed they would have to put in culverts for these sixteen creeks and the development would trash the creeks. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted there was a bill in the legislature with regards to ditch protection. Commissioner Ellison noted that bill was amended this morning. Scott Ballard stated his family came into Clover Valley in 1948 and they would like to see less government land but they needed to protect the private land that was there. He felt that if they allowed this little strip to go to the government it would save more land from becoming government owned in that area. Scott Ballard requested their help to support their way of life and preserve the pristine open space land. He stated that they would have to take this step to continue on to save what they have now. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted that having gone through this process did he have more sympathy for what the Board had done in weighing this and the IL Ranch matter. She noted this was a tough decision. Scott Ballard understood it was a tough balancing act and he could see the arguments for both sides. He stated they would have liked to buy that land but even $50.00 per acre was too much for them to buy that land. He stated they were not driving new trucks or tractors. He stated at $ per acre they would subsidize the rest of their ranch. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted that there were opportunities from a lot of other sources to buy their ranch. She believed that the last thing a rancher wants to do was to sell their ranch. Commissioner Ellison noted that if a rancher had to make a payment and depend upon a 500 pair head, they could not make that land PAGE 16