Elko County Nevada Real Estate - DOC

Document Sample
Elko County Nevada Real Estate - DOC Powered By Docstoc
COUNTY OF ELKO. ) ss.                                         MARCH 2, 2006

The Board of Elko County Commissioners met on March 2, 2006, at 1:30 a.m., in
Room 105 of the Elko County Courthouse at 571 Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada.

There were present:    County Commissioners        Warren Russell, Chair
                                                   John Ellison
                                                   Mike Nannini
                                                   Charlie Myers
                                                   Sheri Eklund-Brown

                       County Manager              Robert Stokes
                       CFO/Asst. Co. Mgr.          Cash Minor
                       Deputy District Attorney    Kristin McQueary
                       Deputy County Clerk         Marilyn Tipton
                       Sheriff                     Neil Harris
                       Road Supervisor             Otis Tipton
                       Deputy Comptroller          Debbie Armuth
      The proceedings were as follows:

    Chairman Russell called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m.

      Commissioner Nannini led the meeting participants in the Pledge of

     Roche Bush inquired if he could comment on the SnoBowl and
Commissioner Myers Cash Minor pointed out that item was under the Road
Department portion of the meeting.

      Jennifer Tanner of Lockwood-Greene gave a presentation on the completed
Elko County Target Industrial Analysis. Ms. Tanner would be making a two hour
presentation to the general public at the Convention Center from 2:00 p.m. – 4:00
      Commissioner Ellison left the meeting room at 1:36 p.m. due to a conflict of
                                                             ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                    REGULAR SESSION
                                                                       MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                             PAGE   1
       Elaine Barkdull introduced Jennifer Tanner of Lockwood-Greene. She
stated reports were distributed to the communities and results of that report were
being utilized already within the various communities.
       Jennifer Tanner thanked the Board for hosting them to perform this
evaluation and analysis. She stated they were a global engineering, construction
firm and her department did the economic development and site selection,
consulting specifically. Jennifer Tanner stated they did a modified approach to the
target industry analysis in Elko because ECEDA wanted to get a high level of
strength and weaknesses assessment.             Jennifer Tanner stated they had
requested information from each of the cities and also information on the railport.
She reported they evaluated the industrial parks as sites, and ran a target industry
model taken from input from the county, the state, and the United States. Jennifer
Tanner reviewed the strengths of several industrial parks with available land and a
skilled technical workforce. She stated there were also utilities that could be
brought in readily. Jennifer Tanner stated that there were economic development
assets such as the railport and market access to California. She noted the cultural
and outdoor recreational amenities were an asset. Jennifer Tanner stated there
were growing housing and retail opportunities. She noted the State’s economy
was good and the regulatory environment was favorable.
       Jennifer Tanner reviewed the risks associated with the strengths: She
stated they need to prepare and invest in their industrial parks. She noted there
was a skilled work force but it was limited to a small work force. Jennifer Tanner
noted that mines provide higher wages so it could be seen as competition from
other manufacturing facilities so they need to be selective of what type of industry
they invite into the region. Jennifer Tanner recommended they invite small to
medium sized manufacturing facilities due to the size of the workforce. She stated
they recommended ECEDA and other stake holders of this county build up their
retail segments because it was considered a quality of life.
       Jennifer Tanner stated they recommend four basic clusters: 1) chemical
and materials cluster, 2) general machinery, equipment and components, 3)
energy and resource cluster (wind , and solar) 4) sale and retail cluster.
       Commissioner Eklund-Brown commented there was the suggestion to
develop the industrial parks and she felt they had already started that process by
obtaining grants for development of those parks. She asked what the County’s
major disadvantages were besides the small work force. Jennifer Tanner replied
the remote location. She stated when a company considers relocation they think
about market access, transportation, and availability of utilities or quality of life.
Jennifer Tanner noted the County knew they were somewhat isolated but they
have assets such as good air shed. She commented that more companies were
using rail for longer shipping and then trucks for delivery to the markets.

MARCH 2, 2006
        Commissioner Russell noted that they had reviewed all the industrial sites
in Elko County and asked her to rate those sites in terms of readiness. Jennifer
Tanner stated they did not do an in-depth competitive economic assessment. She
noted that Wells was in good shape with regards to infrastructure because there
was fire safety in place, utilities in place, and their park looked like an industrial
park. She stated the other parks and the railport, still needed to be made
development ready. Jennifer Tanner felt there should be a plan in place, a
schedule, a cost estimate and how they would pay for that development. She
suggested they have land options in place.
        Commissioner Myers inquired what level of development in the park she
would suggest. Jennifer Tanner suggested they take the infrastructure up to the
park. She stated the roads were not necessary but they may have to make the
utility lines a little bigger.
        Commissioner Nannini inquired if Jennifer would be giving a more in-depth
presentation this afternoon. Jennifer Tanner stated she would give some
education to the community upon development. She would try to educate the
stakeholders what the best practices were across the country. Jennifer Tanner
stated that she did not see a vision from them of what they want to see in Elko.
Commissioner Myers inquired if Jennifer Tanner had identified visions for
communities. Jennifer Tanner replied in the affirmative and noted this was a
young community.
        Jeff Williams stated with regards to the railport the Osino residents were
very concerned about the increase in traffic; security situations and noise
especially if chemicals or petroleum products were involved. Jennifer Tanner
stated the report was not that in-depth on particular industries. She stated they
need to go through the strategic planning process. Jennifer Tanner stated the
public officials need to know what the communities want and noted that there were
some clean industries that would help with their tax base. Jennifer Tanner noted
they would have to find some balance between industrial and residential. She
stated they need to recognize that was important because it became a quality of
life issue. Commissioner Myers felt Osino and Ryndon communities were
stakeholders in this community.
        Robert Palmer, an Elko resident, stated he had been involved in getting a lot
of the mining companies to move into this County. He noted that one of the
biggest problems was electronic communications. Jennifer Tanner stated they did
not do that in-depth of an analysis. She stated fiber optics was an issue for the
whole County and it was very useful for the community. Robert Palmer felt they
should look at the infrastructure and believed there was a lack of electronic
communications which held up the growth of this community. Robert Palmer
noted there was fiber optics along the highway but no one had the foresight to
hook up to it. He stated several businesses would like to move in but they need
                                                                ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                       REGULAR SESSION
                                                                          MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                                PAGE   3
the high fiber optics access. Commissioner Russell noted that this Commission in
the past had supported the ability to connect to the fiber optics within the County.
        Commissioner Russell noted when speaking about qualify of life, there were
two sides. The natural environment and the social environment was one side, and
the other side was how big of a burden a retail, commercial, industrial taxpayer
could contribute to structures within the community. He stated there was an
interest in children’s activities and residents pay a marginal amount in supporting
that life quality. He believed that one-half of their taxes pay for the school system.
        Commissioner Ellison returned to the meeting room at 2:02 p.m.
        Vernon Dalton, Manager of the Metropolis Irrigation District, demonstrated
on a map the location of the proposed Bishop Creek Dam, the distance of
approximately four miles from Highway 93. He pointed out the drainage areas
that would flow into the dam and the diversion ditches. Vernon Dalton stated that
they could not find accurate records of what the average drainage had been
through the years. He stated that by the studies that had been made it would
probably come in at 14,000 acre feet. Vernon Dalton stated the water storage and
the water conservation would be beneficial to the State of Nevada because there
was a shortage of water all the time. He stated they would be storing water
instead of it going to the Humboldt or the Carson sink. Vernon Dalton stated it
had the ability to provide recreation, boating or becoming a fishery. He stated it
may possibly provide hydroelectric generation. He stated the water would
ultimately go to the Humboldt River. He stated there were other tributaries such
as Trout Creek, Tabor Creek, etc., which flow down past where the dam would be.
Vernon Dalton noted the dam would only store water from Bishop Creek. He
stated AB 198 would provide funding but there was a 15% grant match.
Commissioner Myers inquired what amount they could store behind the dam.
Vernon Dalton replied approximately 1,400 acre feet.
        Commissioner Nannini suggested he explain the grant through NDOT.
Vernon Dalton stated NDOT had funds available to cities under a population of
5,000 to build roads into their projects. He noted the City of Wells had applied for
that funding and Jolene Supp should have an answer by the 15 th of the month if
that grant had been approved. Commissioner Nannini commented those funds
could be used as matching funds for this project.
        Commissioner Ellison inquired if the excess water would fill the reservoir and
asked if the downstream users would be affected. Vernon Dalton noted that the
water rights for the Metropolis Irrigation District allowed them to store water from
15th of August until the 15 th of April. Vernon Dalton stated until that time they have
to let as much water flow out of the dam as flows into the dam. He stated those
were the rules of the State Water Division and they had been in effect since the
original construction of the dam.
MARCH 2, 2006
      Commissioner Ellison inquired if there was any standing water now. Vernon
Dalton felt there might be some water but the gate was stuck open and it usually
held approximately thirty feet of water. Commissioner Ellison inquired if the head
gates were open and Vernon Dalton replied it was half open.
      Commissioner Eklund-Brown would like to have a field trip up to the area.
Vernon Dalton volunteered to take them on a tour. Commissioner Russell
suggested a field trip in conjunction with one of their summer meeting trips.
      Charles Chester suggested they think big and catch as much water as they
could because the amount of water flowing from this County was phenomenal.
      Jill Jensen, Archeological Division of the Carlin Trend Mining Services,
asked if this involved federal funding. She noted that if federal funding was
involved they would have to assess any potential damage to the cultural
resources. Commissioner Nannini stated they were working with the BLM
because it crossed a portion of the California Trail. He commented that the area
had been previously covered with water since 1910 when the original dam was put
in. Jill Jensen expressed concern that if the water fluctuated significantly there
would be more damage to the prehistoric sites than if they were submerged
consistently. She stated that might mean a lot of money to mitigate those sites.
      Jeff Williams from Osino stated he had spent many hours in Metropolis and
he was happy to see the dam go back in. He noted in 1912 or 1913 the people in
Lovelock filed a lawsuit to stop this reservoir from being filled. He inquired what
was different for them now to be able to rebuild and store that water. Vernon
Dalton stated they do have the right to store water from August to April and to
store any flood waters. Jeff Williams noted last week there was a presentation at
the Museum regarding the dam. He cautioned them that if they invest the 15
million dollars to reconstruct the dam then they should make sure they can fill the
dam. Vernon Dalton stated the water studies had been done by creditable people.
      Commissioner Russell noted that Elko County did a lot for its residents
throughout the County. He would like to see some plaque or sign showing the
partners who established the recreation area when it was completed. He noted
that not only did Elko County participate but also NDOT, the State and the Federal
Government. Vernon Dalton felt a plaque could be installed in that area.
      Highway Chairman Myers called the Board of Elko County Highway
Commissioners to order at 2:22 p.m. and adjourned at 3:34 p.m.
      Chairman Russell resumed control of meeting at 3:35 p.m. and called a
recess of the regular meeting until 3:43 p.m.

     Commissioner Nannini reported that he had met with Pat Plaster and
discussed the Juvenile Probation Department issues. He stated they could not

                                                              ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                     REGULAR SESSION
                                                                        MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                              PAGE   5
attend today’s meeting but had submitted written copies of the Juvenile Detention
and Juvenile Probation Monthly Report.

      Jay Paxson, UNR, submitted a written report of ongoing issues and activities
of the UNR Agricultural Extension Service. He and Commissioner Ellison met in
Fallon with a group of mosquito experts regarding mosquito control. He reported
that Scott Monson, Director of Washoe County Vector Control, Dr. David Thain,
Nevada State Veterinarian, Nancy Upham, Director of Churchill County Mosquito
and Weed Abatement District and Sandy David, Vector Control Supervisor, City
of Fernley, was also present. Jay Paxson was identifying all the pools because it
was recommended they look at larvacidal control rather than adulticide control.
Nancy Upham had offered to supply Elko County with mosquito-fish stock to
distribute in the most critical sites. Commissioner Myers inquired if there was a
chance of these fish being listed as an Endangered Species and rece ived a
negative response. Jay Paxson stated they would put together a public radio
announcement in the next couple of weeks to inform the public of the problem.
Commissioner Ellison suggested they set up a joint meeting between the County
Commission and the City of Elko prior to budget pertaining to the West Nile Virus.
Commissioner Myers asked what the cost would be for the fish stock. Jay
Paxson replied the fish would be given to them for free. He explained this was
integrated pest management and was focused upon mosquitoes and black flies.
Commissioner Ellison noted these experts would help them identify the area they
may have problems. He suggested budgeting for the control of the larvae stage.
Commissioner Myers suggested they put this on the City agenda to explain this
process to them. Commissioner Ellison felt that the cities of Wells, Carlin,
Wendover, Jackpot and Spring Creek should be contacted. Commissioner
Russell asked that Jay Paxson bring them back reports on their progress. Jay
Paxson stated they were shooting for the first of April for the larvicides.

    There was no report submitted on incidents coming before the Committee.

      Operational Report:
      Sheriff Harris did not have any statistics at this time but there were 115 in
custody as of today. He suggested that they talk about the completion of Phase II
of the jail expansion project. He reported that there were 22 females in custody
now. Commissioner Russell suggested there be an internal discussion with Cash
Minor and the Sheriff on the use of the jail. Cash Minor inquired if the answer was

MARCH 2, 2006
to expand the jail. Sheriff Harris replied they had the infrastructure in place; they
only have to put in the three extra pods under Phase II.
      Radio Communication:
      Sheriff Harris stated Wells Rural Electric was interested in participation with
the County on the radio/radio repeater system plans and improvements.
Commissioner Nannini stated Wells Rural Electric had invested one-half (½)
million to upgrade and expand their facilities and felt this was a great opportunity
to do a partnership arrangement. He reported upon the areas that Wells Rural
Electric serviced currently. Commissioner Nannini stated most of the WRE
mountain top sites were in good condition and they had crews to maintain them.
Commissioner Russell noted they did not have a formal subcommittee on this
issue. Sheriff Harris stated Commissioner Nannini had been their liaison in the
past on communications. Commissioner Russell asked that Commissioner
Nannini report back to the Commission and if he needed another partner he
should ask for help on the communication issue. Commissioner Nannini stated
the Commission may have to sit in on a Wells Rural Electric Board meeting so
they could thoroughly discuss the issues. He stated the County currently contract
people to maintain their facilities but they were not doing the job properly. He
suggested that they partner with the Wells Rural Electric.
      Sheriff Harris introduced Bernie Curtis as the new Undersheriff. He noted
that Bernie had been a past Commissioner and was familiar with the area.

      Chairman Russell noted that staff was not present to discuss the next two
items on the agenda.
      The discussion of possible “pass thru” grant opportunities available to the
Public Guardian’s Office.
      Operational Report:
      Kathy Jones to report on issues and activities related to the services and
operation of the Public Guardian’s Office.
      Kristin McQueary reported that the District Attorney’s Office was preparing
for the hearing related to the Jarbidge South Canyon legal case in April. She
stated they were in contact with the Attorney General’s office to make the
presentation of evidence as smooth as possible.

    The Board discussed the Spring Creek Volunteer Fire Department in light of
NRS 474.470 which stated, in part, that the Board of County Commissioners
                                                               ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                      REGULAR SESSION
                                                                         MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                               PAGE   7
sitting as the Board of Fire Commissioners shall, “Organize, regulate, establish
and disband fire companies, departments or volunteer fire departments…”
       Commissioner Myers requested this to be continued until the 15th of March.
He asked them to review the documentation from Kristin to be better informed at
their next meeting. He had spoken to Danny Gonzales at the Great Basin College
who was the assistant to the President and he would come to the meeting on the
15th of March to submit comments and possibly some recommendations.
Commissioner Myers stated the Spring Creek Fire Station not only had a Fire
Chief, and an Assistant Fire Chief; they also had a President, Vice President and
an administrative board. After reading both sets of By-Laws, he believed that the
Fire Chief was in charge right now and hoped that the Fire Chief and the President
could come to some resolution before March 15, 2006. Commissioner Russell
stated it was their intention to make sure safety in Spring Creek was maintained at
a high level.
       Rhonda Powrie, President of the Spring Creek Fire Department, stated there
was a meeting scheduled Monday with Danny Gonzales. She stated that their
first concern was to stay as ready for the community of Spring Creek as possible.

       Debbie Armuth reviewed the FY 2004/2005 actual and overview of
2005/2006 year-to-date information. She stated they were trying to send
everything electronically to all the departments. Debbie Armuth had met with six
of the departments but noted the County had 29 departments. She reviewed the
general fund 2004/05 actual and the 2005/06 estimates. She noted that the
consolidated tax and building permits had come in higher so those were included
in their estimate for the 2005/06. Debbie Armuth stated the services and supplies
came in higher by $133,000. She explained that the Capital Outlay was related to
the apparatus vehicles for the Elko County Fire Protection District. She believed
they would have to do a Beginning Fund balance adjustment to account for that.
Debbie Armuth stated their fund balance was higher than what they had
anticipated. She reviewed the 05-06 actual budget numbers which represented
67% of the fiscal year. Commissioner Myers inquired how far in arrears they were
to realizing the tax benefit. Debbie Armuth stated these were only advalorem
taxes but they have the final payment due on Monday. Cash Minor noted
generally by June 30th they collect 99% of their taxes during the growth years.
Debbie Armuth noted charges for services were down. She reviewed the
transfers out. Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired about the transfer for the
contingency. Debbie Armuth stated they need to do a Resolution to transfer the
contingency out. Cash Minor stated they had used a small amount of contingency
and they had used $50,000 for the Jarbidge case. Cash Minor noted they only do
that Resolution once a year to do the transfers out. Commissioner Nannini
MARCH 2, 2006
inquired about the reimbursement for the materials. Commissioner Myers noted
the County used part of their settlement funds for the materials for those bridges.
       Commissioner Ellison inquired if they were still using the PILT funds from
the past year. Debbie Armuth clarified that they use last year’s PILT funding.
Cash Minor commented that they had backed up PILT payments from October 1st
to June, they actually hold two years of PILT funding for different lengths of time.
He stated it would be 2007-08 year if there was a reduction in PILT payments
through the President’s budget. Commissioner Myers inquired about the charges
for services. Debbie Armuth stated those fees included marriage licenses,
Assessor’s fees, and the Recorder’s fees. She believed that those fees may be
down due to the Assessor’s commissions which they receive later in the year.
She noted that Joe Aguirre would be receiving a portion of those commissions for
his technology fund. Commissioner Myers noted fines and forfeitures were down.
Cash Minor stated since 2000 the backlog of fines and forfeitures had been
reduced so they had continually seen those fees drop off. Commissioner Nannini
felt the Judges’ philosophy had changed and they try to work out a payment plan
with the people to get the money. Cash Minor commented that the only court they
can pinpoint for increases and decreases was the Wells Justice Court. He stated
there was a direct cause and effect when the NHP transfers people out of Wells.
Debbie Armuth stated the ending fund balance had dropped back. She stated
these were only preliminary estimates. She noted there were changes to the
advalorem taxes under the AB 489 and the SB 501. Cash Minor stated the
preliminary estimates did not account for the rebates. Debbie Armuth stated State
was presently asking the Treasurers to do trial runs on what the taxes would be
without any increases in the taxes in order to know what those assessed values
were without any tax changes. Debbie Armuth stated they were looking to
Counties and cities with regards to those tax rates to see if they should consider
adjusting for those abatements. Debbie Armuth stated the 2006-07 advalorem
taxes could potentially go up only 3% so she figured that amount in. Cash Minor
explained that residential would probably go up 3% but only 20% of the buildings
in Elko County were residential. He clarified that they would have to calculate the
taxes on the new buildings and new construction. However, until those
components were broken down they would not know what those abatements
would be. Debbie Armuth stated they could run a projection internally. Cash
Minor stated if anyone changed the tax rate it would make it more critical this year.
Debbie Armuth stated the recapture tax was also instituted.
       Debbie Armuth noted that under consolidated tax she had increased it 3%
but based on history; she felt it would come in higher than estimated. She had
gone with a flat budget as the base budget. She reported that there were some
contractual increases. Debbie Armuth stated the contingency had remained the

                                                               ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                      REGULAR SESSION
                                                                         MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                               PAGE   9
same as last year. She reported that they had a surplus deficit of $323,000 if they
had an 8.3% ending fund balance.
       Debbie Armuth submitted spread sheets for the indigent fund, agriculture
extension, library, juvenile, and the operating funds.
       Commissioner Nannini inquired about the health insurance. Cash Minor
stated per person the amount was set at $9,000.00. Commissioner Nannini
inquired about the retirees. Cash Minor noted per person they were looking at
$192,000 to be picked up by the County. Cash Minor stated that if they had a 20
year old retiree the County would pick up about 60% of their retirement on the
State Retirement Plan. Cash Minor noted that the amount of reimbursement
depended upon the employees’ number of years with PERS. He stated there was
a cost of living adjustment on those subsidies. Debbie Armuth noted in the 2004-
05 there was some savings which helped reduce department budgets to help plan
for future years. Cash Minor stated this was a major topic in the legislature about
capping that because of the unfunded liability. Debbie Armuth stated there may
be larger than expected fund balances in the departments. She reminded them
advalorem taxes would be apportioned based on the requirements of the fund.
Debbie Armuth noted once they have determined what a cent of tax rate would be
they could do a better job of appropriating that out.
       Debbie Armuth submitted charts on the operating revenues.
       Commissioner Ellison noted they would have upcoming capital expenditures
for the District Attorney’s office, etc. Cash Minor commented that the Board would
have to make some interesting decisions because the Sheriff wanted Phase II of
the jail expansion; they have a building project, and a railport. He stated they
would not be able to fund all of those projects at a full level. Commissioner Ellison
noted they paid $125,000 for the land for the District Attorney’s Office. Cash
Minor stated that was paid for last year. Commissioner Nannini commented they
were going into this debt free. Debbie Armuth believed the fire academy debt
service was paid off this year.
       Debbie Armuth reviewed the operating expenditures inclusive of the salaries
and benefits. Commissioner Russell inquired if the salaries and benefits changed
in percentages. Cash Minor noted those stayed about the same percentage
within the budget. Debbie Armuth noted the retirement and insurance benefits
had increased. She reviewed the expenditures by function with public safety
being the largest percentage, then judicial and general governmental function.
       Commissioner Russell noted they had eliminated some judicial positions and
asked when they would see those savings. Cash Minor stated that there would
not be savings until January 2007. Debbie Armuth stated the judicial operating
expenses had already gone away.
       Commissioner Myers noted the road department’s budget was not included,
and asked to see something on a disk for roads. Debbie Armuth felt they could
MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -10
electronically feed it on spreadsheets. Commissioner Myers inquired what public
works covered in this budget. Debbie Armuth replied Community Development
was covered in the operating funds.
       Debbie Armuth reviewed the graph upon the beginning fund balances from
FY 2000 to FY 2005. She gave an overview on the consolidated taxes from FY
1999/2000 to FY 2005-06. She had estimated it at 3% but then put in 5% at the
bottom of the spreadsheet. Commissioner Myers suggested she leave her
projects at 3%. Debbie Armuth stated they would have to plan if those came in
higher. Commissioner Myers noted they had capital projects at the Road
       Debbie Armuth reviewed the tentative revenue projections from the
Department of Taxation for FY 2006/07. She stated last year they wanted to get
into the situation wherein these net proceeds would go back into capital projects
and they would not rely on that for operations. Debbie Armuth gave a comparison
of assessed value excluding the net proceeds. Commissioner Ellison noted they
were only receiving a small amount of the net proceeds because most of them
were going to another County. Cash Minor noted that the price of gold was going
up but so was the construction costs of new projects. Cash Minor stated the
mines could deduct the costs of new projects against the net proceeds. He noted
that 80% of the economic impact on their sales tax came from the mine or mining
related industries.
       Debbie Armuth noted the County had increased by 1,000 people.
Commissioner Myers noted during last budget they talked about some money
going to non profit organizations such as the Snobowl, the museum, the Igloo, and
the gun range. Commissioner Myers felt they should put in a specific amount in
that fund and when the funding was gone there would be no more disbursements.
Commissioner Ellison inquired about the recreation fund. Debbie Armuth noted
that the Lamoille Grove was being booked and there was revenue coming in. She
would do a spread sheet on that.
       Commissioner Ellison inquired about the debt service on the new building
because that would be a major part of their budget. Debbie Armuth noted the debt
service payment for that facility was planned to be paid from the hospital proceeds
money, the interest proceeds. Commissioner Ellison noted they were using that
so that would have to come from the General Fund. Cash Minor noted from a
debt service prospective they were looking at ten million for the building, eight
million for the railport and five to six million for the jail expansion project. He
believed they would have to prioritize those projects.
       Commissioner Nannini suggested they do the budget on every other
Wednesday in the mornings or in the afternoon when they do their regular
meetings. He recommended they do a couple of hours on the budget each
meeting. Cash Minor stated as soon as the departmental requests come in they
                                                              ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                     REGULAR SESSION
                                                                        MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                             PAGE   11
intended on meeting with Commissioner Russell and Commissioner Myers to go
through their recommendation process. Cash Minor stated they would then come
back to the full board. He felt two full hours would be sufficient for a budget
meeting once they get to that point until they review specific things such as capital
projects. Commissioner Myers suggested the Board be given information before
the meeting on the disk. He suggested at their next meeting they should review
all the departmental requests and the capital projects. Commissioner Myers
requested that there be estimated costs for those projects, the total payment that it
would cost for the bonding, and options based upon their budget. Commissioner
Russell acknowledged those would be rough estimations on those facilities. Cash
Minor stated that would be difficult on the railport because he did not know the
rate of speed they would be going and how far they would go at any one set time.
Commissioner Russell stated he, Commissioner Myers and Cash Minor could
meet and discuss that. Commissioner Ellison noted that the Sheriff had come
back with two different proposals on the radio communication. He stated that had
not been discussed as a capital project. Cash Minor asked that Commissioner
Nannini as the board representative on communications sit down with him and
discuss these issues.

   March 15, 2006 – 9:00 a.m. – Elko – Courthouse
   April 5 & 6, 2006 – 1:30 p.m. – Elko – Courthouse
   April 19, 2006 – 9:00 a.m. – Elko – Courthouse
   May 3 & 4, 2006 – 1:30 p.m. – Elko - Courthouse
   MOTION: Commissioner Ellison moved to approve the Commission
                Meeting Calendar. Commissioner Myers seconded the
                motion. The motion was passed unanimously.

    The Board did not discuss the correspondence and notices received by the

    A.  Approval of Preceding Minutes:
             January 18, 2006: 1. Board of County Commissioners,
                                2. Board of County Highway Commissioners,
                                3. Jackpot Town Board.
    B.  Presentation and review of claims for approval
    C.  Review and approval of travel requests that may be pending.
    MOTION: Commissioner Ellison moved to approve the Consent
             Agenda with the corrections submitted by Commissioner
MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -12
                 Eklund-Brown. Commissioner Eklund-Brown seconded the
                 motion. The motion was passed unanimously.

       Commissioner Russell expressed his appreciation to the cooperative board
members and the responsive staff.
       Commissioner Eklund-Brown had spoken with Neil Kornze and there was
verification that Federal Highways would release the funds to the BLM for the
California Interpretive Center. She stated the actual transfer to BLM had not
occurred. She stated they had a lot of support in Washington on this matter.
       Commissioner Eklund-Brown spoke to Paul Flanagan who sent her some
documentation on the Ditch Bill Easements. She stated the Forest Service has a
Ditch Bill Easement Team and Jack Troyer, the Intermountain Regional Forester
from Ogden, was the responsible contact. She stated the contact number in Idaho
was another member of the ditch bill team. Commissioner Eklund-Brown stated
Paul Flanagan did not know why they were advertising it in Reno but agreed that it
should be advertised in Elko. She had told Paul the County Commission’s motion
and he agreed that if there was no interest then it should be withdrawn.
Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted Paul Flanagan had informed her that there
were several easements outstanding and was looking at bringing in someone on
the 15th of March who was an expert on these easements to explain them to the
Commission. Kristin McQueary stated if they bring in the Forest Service to speak
on their ditch easements; she suggested they bring in Michael Buschelman as a
valuable counterpoint.
       Commissioner Eklund-Brown stated on the 15 th of March she had asked
Kevin Kirkeby to explain the White Pine County Land Bill. She stated Neil Kornze
from Senator Reid’s Office encouraged them to look at that White Pine County
Land Bill before they say no. She noted they could have a field trip, research it
and have a few public hearings if they would like.
       Commissioner Myers asked if they would have power for the computers at
the Spring Creek meeting because the plan was on disk. Kristin McQueary stated
she had one copy of the Spring Creek/Lamoille Master Plan in print.
       Commissioner Myers noted there had been a child support conference held
in Laughlin which was well attended by Elko County personnel. Kristin McQueary
explained that the child support conferences were held alternating between North
and South. She noted Elko County had held the child support conference two
years ago.


                                                             ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                    REGULAR SESSION
                                                                       MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                            PAGE   13

       Chairman Russell called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
       Chairman Russell reviewed the meeting protocol with the meeting

      Pursuant to Notice No. 12-2006, the Elko County Board of Commissioners
PLAN 2005 REVIEW to consider comments on the proposed Spring Creek &
Lamoille Master Plan. Randy Brown reviewed the history of the Master Plan since
1996 which provided the basis for regulating development within the plan
boundaries. He reported that within the planning process in 1995 through 1996
there was a series of public workshops and public hearings held in the Spring
Creek and Lamoille area. Randy Brown stated in the 2005 review of the plan they
considered traffic flow patterns, alternate access routes, water use allocation and
consumption, sanitary sewer, commercial and industrial development impacts,
agriculture, recreation, and current and projected population densities.
      Randy Brown reported that the Board of County Commissioners approved,
adopted and implemented the Master Plan at a public hearing held February 5,
1997. The Planning Commission approved and adopted the revised Master Plan
at a public hearing held January 19, 2006. Randy Brown explained the d efinition
of “Designation” and “Zone” with regards to land planning. He stated under the
application process the owner of the land would submit an application to the
Planning and Zoning Division. Under Elko County Code 4-9-4, there was a
requirement that the applicant has to contact the homeowners association if that
homeowners’ association was on file with Elko County. The County must have
approval from that homeowners association before the application was filed with
the County.
      Commissioner Russell noted that there were at least three members of the
Elko County Planning Commission present and at least five attorneys in the room.
      1.     Changes to Master Plan Boundaries: Phase I, Phase II, Phase III &
             Phase IV.
      Randy Brown explained they had made a few changes to the boundaries as
follows: Phase I and Phase III common boundary; Phase II boundary was
changed to include all of Dysart and Sustacha subdivisions; Phase IV boundary
reflected the City of Elko annexation, Phase IV addition of City of Elko boundary of

MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -14
influence; and Phase 1 common boundary with South Fork Master Plan area
along SR 228.
       Commissioner Eklund-Brown disclosed that Randy Brown was her husband
and they had no pecuniary interest on this matter. Commissioner Eklund-Brown
felt that she could make an objective decision with regards to the Master Plan.
       Chairman Russell asked if there was any public comment on changes
to the boundaries of the Master Plan.
       No public comments were received by the Board.
       MOTION: Commissioner Myers moved that they approve the Master
                   Plan boundary changes to Phases I II, III, and IV based upon
                   the information they received from the Planning Department
                   inclusive of the Dysart Subdivision. Commissioner Eklund-
                   Brown seconded the motion. The motion was passed

       2.   Implement R-3 Conservation Reserve District overlay on existing
Agricultural-Residential Zoning to limit parcel sizes to 2.5 acre minimum or
existing parcel size as per Elko County Code 4-3-4 on the following
Subdivisions and areas.
            1) Government Tracks Section 30, T.34 N., R.56 E., M.D.B. & M.
            2) Rabbit Creek area
            3) Rolling Hills Subdivision
            4) Valley Vista Estates (2.0 acre special provision)
       Randy Brown stated that there was a recent hydrology study in these areas
and they had compared that with their annual duties for water. They had found in
the Dixie Creek-Ten Mile Basin may be 8,000 acre feet over the limit or yield.
Randy Brown stated they did not want to restrict future development. If a
Conservation Reserve District overlay was applied to an existing Agricultural-
Residential Zoning it would limit the parcel size for more manageable
development. Randy Brown reviewed the number of parcels that could be allowed
in the four areas. They recommended limiting subdivision to 2.5 acres. The
Planning Commission approved this concept after they had given public notice
and noticed the affected property owners.
       Chairman Russell called for public comment from the meeting
       No public comments were submitted on this agenda item.
       Commissioner Ellison asked if by restricting the size of the lots to 2.5 acres
would that increase the cost of development which would go back to the
consumers for the infrastructure. Randy Brown stated they were looking at a
situation that if they go to 1 acre lots the consumer may not have water and the
2.5 acre development costs would be the same as for the 1 acre. He stated there
                                                               ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                      REGULAR SESSION
                                                                         MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                              PAGE   15
was the potential of creating lots without water which would be a major issue.
Randy Brown cautioned that if they went with the higher density it would damage
their chances of getting water to that lot.
       Commissioner Eklund-Brown stated most of these areas have developed 10
acre parcels and did not believe the people living in those areas would want one
acre development. She stated the land development value in these areas was
very high. She stated if they subdivided the real estate then the value would
become less.
       Chairman Russell called for public comment.
       No public comment was submitted by the meeting participants.
       MOTION: Commissioner Myers moved that they approve the
                  placement of R-3 Conservation Reserve District Zoning
                  Overlay on the existing Agriculture-Residential zoning to 2.5
                  acres. The findings were the hydrology test results and the
                  ability to manage parcel size and access. Commissioner
                  Ellison seconded the motion.
       Randy Brown requested that they amend their motion to reflect the Planning
and Zoning recommendation which was to restrict Valley Vista to 2 acre parcels.
                  Commissioner Myers amended his motion to include
                  restriction of 2 acres in Valley Vista. Commissioner Ellison
                  seconded the amendment.            The motion was passed

      3.     Develop AR-CRD I Conservation Reserve District 2.5 - 5.0 acre
             minimum zoning ordinance.
      Randy Brown stated in 1996 they designated certain property as limited
property size. He stated there was agricultural zoning which could go down to one
acre and special lands zoning which were ten acres. He noted the AR-CRD I
would provide minimum zoning of 2.5 to 5 acres which would fill the gap between
agricultural and special lands.
      Chairman Russell inquired if there was public comment.
      Robert Wines stated by saying they want to develop an ordinance basically
they want to develop a plan within the Master Plan. He stated to develop an
Ordinance they would have to take public input. Randy Brown stated they would
implement these two new zones into the Master Plan.
      MOTION: Commissioner Nannini moved to approve the development
                  of AR-CRD I Conservation Reserve District 2.5 – 5.0 acre
                  minimum zoning ordinance.              Commissioner Myers
                  seconded the motion.             The motion was passed

MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -16
     4.      Develop AR-CRD II Conservation Reserve District 5.0 - 10.0 acre
             minimum zoning ordinance.
      Randy Brown commented that this was the same situation just larger parcel
sized. He pointed out the proposed AR-CRD II zones on the maps. He stated this
did incorporate some of the Special Lands into this planning ordinance.
Commissioner Ellison asked that he define Special Lands. Randy Brown replied
Special Lands were 10 acre parcels somewhere between open space and
residential use. He reported that Special Lands allows for a hobby farm situation.
Commissioner Ellison inquired if still can do that on a five acre. Randy Brown
stated they could because they could lease land next to them and operate a
complete ranch. Commissioner Ellison felt they could not operate a ranch on five
acres. Randy Brown stated these were 5 to10 acres on the original Master Plan.
He explained they wished to restrict those to that amount of acreage to keep the
density down because the water situation would not support these parcels going
to more density. He stated these designations were adopted by Mr. Sustacha and
Mr. Buzzetti.
      Chairman Russell called for public comments.
      Ed Sarman noted if they changed the designation from Agricultural to
Residential it would spread the amount of development over a large amount of
acreage. He recommended that they should try to concentrate that housing. Ed
Sarman stated all over the State they were going from ten to five acres and for the
roads and fire, etc., it would be a tremendous amount of infrastructure to keep up.
Ed Sarman felt that they need to put the houses closer together due to the fire
issues and the weed problems.
      Randy Brown commented that they encouraged clustered housing in
specific areas. He informed them that there was a “clustered housing” provision in
the Master Plan. Chairman Russell noted there were opportunities for a proposal
of a ranch on 400 acres with clustered housing for 30 families. Therefore, the
ranch land would not be as encumbered with housing.
      No further public comment was given.
      MOTION: Commissioner Eklund-Brown moved to approve the
                  development of AR-CRD II Conservation Reserve District 5.0
                  – 10.0 acre minimum zoning ordinance. Commissioner
                  Nannini seconded the motion.           Commissioner Ellison
                  opposed motion. The motion passed with a majority vote.
      5.     Approve, adopt and implement AR-CRD I and AR-CRD II
             Conservation Reserve District overlays as shown on the Spring
             Creek / Lamoille Master Plan Map.
      Randy Brown explained that they wished to implement AR-CRD I and AR-
CRD II into the Master Plan. Robert Wines asked for a map showing the entire
Master Plan. Randy Brown displayed the proposed zoning areas.
                                                              ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                     REGULAR SESSION
                                                                        MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                             PAGE   17
      Chairman Russell asked for public comment.
      No public comments were submitted.
      MOTION: Commissioner Myers moved that they approve, adopt and
                 implement AR-CRD I and AR-CRD II Conservation Reserve
                 District overlays as shown on the Spring Creek/Lamoille
                 Master Plan Map. Commissioner Ellison seconded the
                 motion. The motion was passed by unanimous vote.

      6.     Review, develop and implement a “Scenic Corridor” along SR 227
             and SR 228 within the Master Plan boundaries from the Elko City
             Limits to the Town of Lamoille.
       Randy Brown stated this proposed corridor was discussed in 1996 along the
State Routes 227 and 228. He stated in 1996 staff and legal council found several
things that may become issues such as: a “takings” issue, public opposition to the
creation of the corridor, and existing zoning excluded creation of a scenic corridor.
Randy Brown stated the staff recommended denial because if they restricted the
property or impose requirements for the scenic corridor they would have to
purchase the land. Randy Brown stated that the Planning Commission approved
the abandonment of the scenic corridor. Commissioner Russell clarified that a
vote to affirm the Planning Commission’s decision was to abandon the concept of
a scenic corridor along those highways.
       Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired if this scenic corridor concept was
originally included in the Master Plan and abandoned later? Randy Brown stated
in 1996 and 1997 they reviewed the Master Plan and looked at trying to move that
concept into the Master Plan. However, there were some issues with the concept
and the Planning Commission elected not to try and implement it at that time but
to review it again during the next review of the Master Plan. He stated it was
reviewed again in 2005 and the Planning Commission asked that it be taken out of
Master Plan and abandoned completely. Randy Brown explained that they would
take it completely out if they supported the Planning Commission’s decision.
       Jan Boyer asked what a scenic corridor was and what the objections were.
Randy Brown explained that the proposal was a scenic corridor along the
highways SR 227 and SR 228 which was mainly a beautification corridor.
However, this corridor would restrict the types of uses along that corridor. Randy
Brown stated legal counsel had informed them that if they restricted the use of the
property, they would have to purchase the property. The people could sue the
County for the value of the land.
       Jan Boyer asked clarification that the County would have to own a quarter of
a mile on each side of the highway. Randy Brown noted there were already
existing uses along those highways such as residential, commercial and industrial.

MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -18
Randy Brown stated to create the corridor they would have to change the uses
and the value of the land would change.
       Dennis Smith felt that if they designate the scenic corridor then it would be
easier to invest some of these areas into commercial, and some of the Spring
Creek residents would object to that. He felt the businesses would not maintain a
scenic corridor and he would rather see the lamas and sheep along the road other
than more business. Randy Brown stated that there was never a corridor created
because it was abandoned in the first review. He stated they found the same type
of issues today if they attempted to create a corridor.
       Chairman Russell inquired if it would be possible to have a scenic corridor
with limits upon it such as 100 feet or 200 feet and avoid the existing developed
properties. He asked if the “takings” issues would still come forward. Randy
Brown stated it would create the same situation because of the existing uses
which was primarily an industrial area. He stated that any time a government
entity goes back and makes changes or imposes regulations it could create a
“takings” issue. Commissioner Russell noted that there were some restrictions
within the Spring Creek Association already. Randy Brown did not think that
portion of the highway would be a problem. However, the remainder of the land
along the highways was zoned industrial, multiple uses, and agricultural.
       Chairman Russell inquired if there was any further public comment.
       Robert Wines stated he was at the earlier master plan in 1997. He
remembered that there was a lot of opposition to the scenic corridor. Robert
Wines stated the opposition was not from the undeveloped properties but the
properties that were already developed strongly opposed the corridor. He stated
along the corridor they had a shop and a nursery located next to Landmark Lane
while on the other side there were residences in Spring Creek with a shelter for
their horses. He questioned if that fit into their definition of a scenic corridor. If the
County decided it did not fit into the scenic corridor; then the County would have to
purchase whatever the reduction in value to that property was. Robert Wines
stated the biggest problem with designating such a corridor was because the
property was developed. Robert Wines inquired if there was some overlay or
designation put on the roadway from SR 227 up to Lamoille Canyon to limit
development. He noted that none of that land was developed and there were no
buildings already in place. Randy Brown commented that those restrictions along
the Lamoille Highway were self imposed restrictions by the landowners.
       Kenna Utter commented that they had gone this long without a scenic
corridor and she did not see why they should purchase one now. She voiced
opposition of this. Randy Brown clarified that the County staff requested they
abandon the concept and there would be no cost to the residents.
       Commissioner Eklund-Brown felt a lot of them lived in the Spring Creek area
for the beauty of this area and felt it was already a scenic corridor on the Lamoille
                                                                   ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                          REGULAR SESSION
                                                                             MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                                  PAGE   19
Highway. Commissioner Eklund-Brown stated that there were funds available to
do ascetic grants through NDOT if they wished to beautify the highway. She
noted the scenic corridor itself did not sound like a good idea but they may do
     MOTION: Commissioner Myers moved to uphold the Planning
                 Commission’s decision to abandon the scenic corridor
                 along SR 227 and SR 228 within the Master Plan boundaries
                 from the Elko City Limits to the Town of Lamoille.
                 Commissioner Eklund-Brown seconded the motion. The
                 motion was passed unanimously.

      7.     Proposal for “Special Lands” Designation:
                   A) Request for Special Land Designation on portions of Sections
                   19, 29, 30, 31 & 32 T. 34 N., R. 56 E., M.D.B. & M. Also known
                   as KRL Division of Land into Large Parcels.
      Randy Brown pointed out the property on the maps depicting the property
adjacent to Spring Creek Association. He stated the property was originally zoned
agricultural-residential which could be divided into one acre parcels. He stated
they found a provision within that zone change that there was no tentative
subdivision map filed. Therefore, a portion of that property was converted back to
open space. Randy Brown stated that KRL re-subdivided this acreage and they
were asking for a designation of Special Lands of 10 acres. He stated this zoning
was common all around that area such as in the Elko Summit Estates and on all
areas west were zoned ten acres. Randy Brown stated the Planning Commission
approved the request.
      Chairman Russell asked for public comments.
      Christina Naungayan, of SCA Tract 201, stated some of their land abuts to
this property. They did not oppose the ten acre lots but would oppose the one
acre lots because they would be using Spring Creek roads and they may be within
the water system. Christina Naungayan stated the current water system was not
servicing the Spring Creek customers properly and she would oppose it ever
going to one acre parcels.
      Commissioner Ellison asked if there was a problem with topography in that
region. Randy Brown noted that there were two accesses planned for the
subdivision.     However, access would mainly be upon the Spring Creek
Association until such time as an alternate access was developed. KRL had met
with the SCA and the new property owners were to pay to the SCA until the other
access was created. He noted at the top of the mountain there were larger
parcels of 40 acres within the tree areas. Commissioner Russell noted that the
developer was working with the County in terms of emergency access over the
Lamoille Summit through their property.
MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -20
       Dena Hartley requested clarification upon the access. She was not aware of
any agreement with the Spring Creek Association. Randy Brown stated there was
an agreement with the Spring Creek Association and KRL that KRL home owners
would pay for access until access was developed. He stated the emergency
proposed access was over the summit to Spruce Road.
       Dena Hartley inquired if they were required to have access off of the
Lamoille Highway. Randy Brown stated at some point in time they would have to
acquire access because it was a subdivision requirement. He stated that access
would alleviate any access coming into Spring Creek. Randy Brown stated once
they started cutting the parcels down to ten acres then that access would have to
be created for their own subdivision. Randy Brown stated the access off of the top
of the hill would be in conjunction with some other subdivision.
       Chairman Russell asked if there were any more public comments.
       Milt Grisham, member of the Elko Planning Commission, noted there were
863 acres in this particular property and questioned if there was water available in
the Ten Mile-Dixie Creek area. He did not believe there would be sufficient water
if they changed the zoning from Open Space which was 40 acre parcels to Special
Lands which would be 10 acres. Commissioner Russell noted if they subdivided
down to 10 acres the maximum amount of lots was 86.3 to be placed upon that
property. Randy Brown noted that they were looking at restricting parcels in the
Ten Mile-Dixie Creek Basin from 2.5 acres up to 10 acre parcels. He stated KRL
was requesting 10 acre parcels. Randy Brown stated they were currently working
on the water studies and were looking at the density in that area.
       Commissioner Ellison did not believe in restricting development but he was
aware there was a low density of water in this area. Randy Brown felt on the Elko
Summit side, and the Elko segment the water depth was an issue. He noted there
was insufficient data available for that area and commented that he did not like to
restrict property rights either.
       Richard Canady, SCA Board of Directors, stated he was not aware of any
agreement by the SCA Directors with KRL subdivision to pay a certain amount to
use Spring Creek Association roads for access until such time as prescribed. He
asked that the approval of this agenda item be contingent upon something official
occurring with the Spring Creek Association.
       Commissioner Russell inquired if that was in the nature of an Agreement by
KRL and if there were two parties in the Agreement. Randy Brown replied that
they would have to have something in writing. He stated the developer
approached him with the concept. He stated they advised him to go back to talk
with Spring Creek. Randy Brown had been in contact with Spring Creek and they
had stated they had an agreement with KRL. He understood that KRL would pay
for every single lot for access to the SCA until the secondary access was created.
Randy Brown stated KRL was in the situation now that they want to get that
                                                              ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                     REGULAR SESSION
                                                                        MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                             PAGE   21
secondary access created. Randy Brown asked that the Board give him
instruction to make sure there was an Agreement before the bond was released
on these roads.
       Dena Hartley, SCA board member and resident, was not aware of any
agreement with KRL and had spoken to several board members in the audience
who didn’t remember signing any agreement. Dena Hartley inquired who signed
the document for SCA, and who they had spoken with at the Association. She, as
a SCA board member, requested that any motion to approve this be tabled or
denied until there was further research on this matter.
       Chris Carr, Spring Creek resident, stated it was a one party agreement and
the KRL developer came into the Spring Creek Association office. He stated as a
peace token the developer offered a Deed Restriction voluntarily placing
restrictions on his property. Chris Carr stated that Deed Restriction was recorded
in the County Recorder’s Office. Chris Carr noted that agreement said that if the
developer wanted to develop anything they would have to go to the Spring Creek
Association to ask for permission to use the road and pay their proportionate
share. Chris Carr stated the Spring Creek Association would dictate what amount
that share would be. Commissioner Ellison voiced concerned that the SCA board
members had not reached an agreement.
       Randy Brown stated this was approved by the Planning Commission for the
division of parcels. He stated that the roads were currently being developed and
the Deed Restriction was in place. He explained that if someone built in that area
they would have to go to the Spring Creek Association and the SCA would assess
them a certain amount of money just as if they were any person in the SCA
subdivision. He stated that within the future development, the road comes down
from the main road. Randy Brown stated when they start subdividing into ten acre
parcels, the road had to be built eliminating access to Spring Creek.
Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired about the tower road. She asked if the
developer could take that Deed Restriction off the property that he did own.
Randy Brown replied he could not because he would not release the bond.
Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted the bond didn’t have anything to do with what
was recorded in the Recorder’s Office. Randy Brown clarified that he would not
release the bond until there was a written agreement from the Association.
       Commissioner Russell stated the County did not want to do something that
would violate the best interests of Spring Creek. He asked Richard Canady, a
SCA member, if it would be satisfactory to them if the County proposed a motion
with the contingency that there would be a written agreement with the Spring
Creek Association. Richard Canady believed a contingency amendment would be
       Kristin McQueary clarified that if they amended the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, it would go back to the Planning Commission. She stated
MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -22
the Planning Commission would have to give a report on the Commission’s
proposed report within 40 days. Therefore, it would go back before the Planning
Commission for another hearing. Commissioner Ellison inquired what would
happen if no action was taken. He felt that Randy Brown could get the agreement
with the Spring Creek Association and then come back to the Commission.
Commissioner Russell inquired if the Board could modify the Decision of the
Planning Commission. Kristin McQueary stated they could modify but NRS 278
stated any changes to their recommendation would go back to the Planning
Commission on the basis they may want to consider the matter more fully.
       John Rice, Chairman of the Elko County Planning Commission, noted that
the Planning Commission’s decision was contingent upon provisions that the
developer was to pay the Spring Creek Association for the use of that access until
such time as the access off the main was created.
       Dena Hartley, SCA board member, did not understand how they could place
a Deed Restriction on this property without first coming to the Spring Creek
Association and having an agreement on what those fees should be. She did not
believe it should be approved without first coming before the SCA.
       Randy Brown noted that there were already sixteen parcels created prior to
the situation which now existed. He stated the original division of parcels provided
three accesses from Spring Creek. He stated those accesses were approved
prior to the Spring Creek Association. Randy Brown explained those original
parcels were zoned Agricultural-Residential for one acre parcels. He noted that
even though those were considered Spring Creek Association roads they were
public access. He stated in looking at those 16 parcels there was a potential of 86
parcels. Randy Brown noted when they start subdividing, this road had to be
developed to SR 227 per agreement, and many people would not want to go back
through Spring Creek.
       Christina Naungayan, of Tract 201, stated in 1984 that subdivision and that
change of zoning were denied. She noted that the access to the SCA roads was
also denied. She felt a lot of the people do not object to the 10 acre lots. She
believed that if there was an agreement with the Spring Creek residents, the
Board, and KRL that they would pay for the use of those SCA roads, she would
agree. She commented that as a SCA director, she had never signed any
agreement to have those roads used by KRL. Christina Naungayan asked they
deny this request until everything was written.
       Commissioner Eklund-Brown felt that those were public roads that go
through Spring Creek. She stated the County RTC gave money to the Association
to maintain those roads.         Commissioner Eklund-Brown agreed with road
maintenance agreements and one would have to be put into place with this
subdivision. She agreed that those property owners should provide funds if they

                                                              ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                     REGULAR SESSION
                                                                        MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                             PAGE   23
were using access going to the homeowners’ association and agreed it should be
with the SCA Board of Director’s approval and an agreement.
       MOTION: Commissioner Eklund-Brown moved for the approval of the
                Special Lands designation on portions of Sections 19, 29,
                30, 31 & 32, T. 34 N., R. 56 E., M.D.B. & M., also known as
                KRL Division of Land into large parcels, contingent upon a
                road maintenance agreement with the Spring Creek
                Association Board of Directors.         Commissioner Myers
                seconded the motion.

      Chairman Russell called for further public comment.
      There were no further public comments submitted.
                The motion was passed unanimously

     8.     Review current inventories and potential density increases.
     Randy Brown read into record his written report upon the current residential
and agricultural-residential land use inventory.
     Chairman Russell explained that this report was part of the Master Plan
process and it was for informational purposes only.

      9.   Review existing designations and impacts.
      Randy Brown stated there were no significant impacts. The only areas that
there were changes in the Master Plan were the proposed commercial designation
and the proposed subdivision.

      10. Proposal to remove existing Commercial Designations as shown
on the Master Plan Maps. Spring Creek Board of Directors and Spring Creek
Committee of Architecture request for removal of the Commercial Designation on
the following lots located within the Spring Creek Subdivision:
      1) APN 057-001-001 Lot 1, Block 1, Tract 104
      2) APN 053-006-001 Lot 1, Block 6, Tract 103
      3) APN 053-006-001 Lot 21, Block 4, Tract 103
      4) APN 043-002-001 Lot 1, Block 2, Tract 401
      5) APN 043-002-002 Lot 2, Block 2, Tract 401
      Randy Brown gave a brief history wherein the Spring Creek Association had
requested removal of the commercial designation. He stated this matter was
reviewed by the planning staff and it was found to come under Elko County Code
4-9-4. Randy Brown read Elko County Code 4-9-4 into the record: “No
application or petition for a building permit, zoning change, zoning variance,
conditional use permit, or for the modification of a lot boundary line or the size of a
lot, pertaining to any lot or parcel of any subdivision in the County which has an
MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -24
active and duly authorized architectural review committee or the equivalent
established pursuant to recorded declarations, reservations, restrictions,
covenants or conditions, shall be accepted for filing or consideration by the County
unless the applicant or petition shall have first obtained the approval or
authorization, as the case may be, from the architectural review committee
pursuant to its authority.” Randy Brown stated that County staff recommended
removal of the commercial designation pursuant to County Code 4-9-4 and that
this issue be remanded back to the Spring Creek Association Board of Directors.
       Commissioner Russell asked for clarification on parcel number as follows:
3) APN 053-004 or APN 053-006. Randy Brown stated that was why they also
included the lot, block and tract number and those were correct on the agenda.
       Commissioner Ellison felt they could resolve a lot of issues without having a
lot of testimony. He believed that Spring Creek had been an association for many
years and worked through the good and bad. He felt this decision should be the
vote of the people. Commissioner Ellison stated the SCA held elections every two
       MOTION: Commissioner Ellison moved that this decision should be
                   by the vote of the people. The motion died due to lack of a
       Commissioner Russell noted they had representatives present who were
elected to the Spring Creek Association Board who made those decisions. He felt
there were also people present who had came to have the opportunity to voice
their opinion on the issues before them.
       Randy Brown commented that these were the only five acres within the
Spring Creek Association that they did anything with. He stated the rest were left
alone and they had only looked at the exterior of the SCA and not the interior of
the SCA boundaries.
       Larry Fay, resident of SCA Tract 100, stated he moved to Spring Creek
several years ago for the rural atmosphere. He did not move to Spring Creek to
be able to walk to a mini mart or to sit on his deck at night and look at commercial
lighting. Larry Fay stated today was March 2, 2006 and the Board told them they
would abide by the decisions of the Spring Creek Association Board of Directors
and citizens of Spring Creek. He noted on March 2, 2010 when their successors
were in office what was to prevent them from looking at this situation completely
different than what the people intend. Larry Fay stated they want to see
something that locked in with no commercial designation on those properties so in
the future their wishes would be honored. Larry Fay suggested that the Board of
Commissioners review their procedures for screening and reviewing the individual
applications to the Planning Commission. He stated that last month at the
Planning Commission several Commissioners treated the citizens very rudely and
one commissioner stood up and told them to face it; in five years, there would be
                                                              ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                     REGULAR SESSION
                                                                        MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                             PAGE   25
commercial activities on these properties. Larry Fay felt that several of these
Planning Commissioners were just arrogant and rude and believed their ability
and usefulness to continue serving the public should be rescinded.
      Nancy Porter, an attorney residing in Elko, clarified that she represented
several Spring Creek property owners but did not represent the Spring Creek
Association. Nancy Porter stated this Master Plan was not as harmless as some
people would like this Board to believe. She stated that there was a decision by
the Supreme Court that said if there was something on the Master Plan; the
governmental unit had to give great deference, and presumption of credibility.
The Board had to at least comply with the Master Plan. Nancy Porter stated that
decision came about from a case wherein the Reno City Council was sued
because it denied a request for zoning change and the requested zoning change
complied with the Master Plan. She stated it went all the way to the Supreme
Court who stated they have to give deference to the Master Plan. Nancy Porter
noted that by having these designated commercial on the Master Plan, and the
property owners that own these five lots request a change in zoning; the Planning
Commission and this Board have to give deference to this being on the Master
Plan. Nancy Porter noted Randy Brown had spoken earlier about Elko County
Code 4-9-4, however, he had spoken about it in terms of a homeowners
association basically being able to veto the zoning change request. Nancy Porter
stated that was not correct and clarified that the Committee of Architecture had the
authority to deny a zoning request. She stated that if they deny it under that code
then the property owner could not make their request to this Board. Nancy Porter
stated because the Master Plan was to be given deference in interpreting the
zoning change, she could foresee the Spring Creek Association and the County
being sued if this remained on the plan and it happens that the Committee of
Architecture denied it and this Board denied it. She felt they should consider that
in determining what they were going to do here. Nancy Porter noted that it was
also stated in the County Code the zoning must be consistent with the Master
Plan. Nancy Porter displayed photographs of the properties adjacent to these five
lots that were currently on the 1997 Master Plan called “proposed commercial”
and now they want to call it “designated commercial”. Nancy Porter stated she
was not sure where those terms come from because she could not find those
terms in the State Statutes or the Nevada Administrative Code. She commented if
these people who owned these lots were allowed to develop on these properties
commercially, then these homeowners would have businesses in their front yards
and their back yards. Nancy Porter stated that was not what these people
bargained for when they bought these properties. She noted there was a lot of
talk about putting in a mini-mart or a gas station which was possible but on
commercial property other business could go in such as car sales, body shops,
bars, fortune tellers, massage parlors, mortuaries, etc. Nancy Porter stated when
MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -26
these people purchased these properties they wanted to live in a rural area and
the parcels were zoned agricultural-residential. Nancy Porter stated the owners of
the five lots that were designated as commercial on the Master Plan were
purchased before 1997 when that Master Plan was put into place. She stated
those owners knew they were buying Agricultural-residential property when they
bought these lots. Nancy Porter stated the homeowners in Spring Creek would
suffer, their rights would be violated, and their property values would be taken if
this was allowed to proceed. She commented that they were asking them to
consider what this did to all the people in Spring Creek. She noted the zoning
change should not be made for the benefit of five people because it was spot
zoning which was not permissible under the law. Nancy Porter stated they asked
the Board to look at that map and look at the faces of these people who do not
want this zoning on here and consider that when making their decision.
       Terry Schneider, a Spring Creek resident in the Horse Palace section, stated
inside of every one of our subdivisions there were designated commercial areas.
He noted the previous lady stated they had to be scared of bars, strips joints, body
shops, etc., but those commercial designations were located within each and
every one of these subdivisions. Terry Schneider noted there was a gas station
located two miles back off of the highway which rolls a 10,000 gallon tanker
traveling among the kids, past school crossings, etc. He stated this was donated
by their predecessors in 1973 when they demanded McCullough put commercial
back in each one of these subdivisions because Elko did not want competition.
Terry Schneider noted that Spring Creek had grown up and he did not believe
there was anyone in the room that felt they had the services they were entitled to
here. Terry Schneider stated that if they don’t leave it on the map and don’t
consider making it commercial property on the highway, the alternative was inside
each one of these subdivision that everyone wanted to protect. Terry Schneider
believed that commercial needed to be on the highway. He stated that every
commercial area in the State of Nevada was now on the highway and noted that
Spring Creek was no different. He inquired why they would want a high rise hotel
and a shopping center inside by the golf course because that would cause traffic
and hazards. Terry Schneider stated they want services in Spring Creek and it
was up the Commission and the Spring Creek Association to figure out where they
should go. He noted they were wearing this highway out and they had no choice.
Terry Schneider stated they wanted a choice.
       Paul Hett, of Tract 104/324 Lawndale Drive, commented that one of those
pictures represent where he lived which was directly across from the property in
question on the Spring Creek Parkway and the Lamoille Highway. He noted that
previously he lived in Las Vegas up on Sunrise Mountain which was a nice area to
live in when he first moved up there. Paul Hett stated five years later it became
less desirable area because a bar, a small shopping center, a convenience store
                                                              ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                     REGULAR SESSION
                                                                        MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                             PAGE   27
and a gas station moved in close proximity of him. Paul Hett noted he had lived
here three years and he did not want to live under those conditions again. Paul
Hett recommended that these properties not be designated commercial and ask
that they take that into consideration. He asked that they didn’t put a gas station
and a convenience store in his front yard.
       Robert Aslett stated his home was adjacent to one of these five lots. He had
retired from the military and he and his wife had chose this area with the
assurance that these would always be residential lots. Robert Aslett stated he
had heard someone screaming for services. He noted along the Lamoille
Highway between Khourys, past the high school, there was enough commercial
property for two or three miles for many mini-marts, gas stations and bars. Robert
Aslett commented that there was a buffer area between those commercial lots and
the residents. He noted that on all these lots proposed commercial there was no
room for any buffer. Robert Aslett stated the people who invested in those lots
invested in residential property. He commented that there still was commercial
property available to be invested in. Robert Aslett noted that people make it
sound like these two intersections out on this highway was the key to the
economic growth in Elko County but he did not believe that was true. Robert
Aslett commented that there was a great deal of commercial property out here.
He stated nobody was going to run out of gas and everybody still would be able to
get a quart of milk. Robert Aslett stated that if these lots were developed they
would literally be in his yard. He commented that he did not have the resources to
       Jim Jefferies reported that he had talked to some of the Commissioners
beforehand. He commented that the Spring Creek Association had a process that
needed to be followed. Jim Jefferies felt the property owners should go to the
Spring Creek Association’s Committee of Architect and submit an application first.
He respectfully asked this Commission to not approve this designation in question
until those property owners go through the Spring Creek Association process first.
       Steve Stork stated he was a resident and business owner in Spring Creek.
To address Mr. Schneider’s comments, he owned the service station and truck
stop a mile from the highway. He stated when he bought that property it was
zoned commercial and he had paid a commercial price for it. Steve Stork stated
they were seeing some growth and he was trying to make some other
developments back there. Steve Stork stated they have these lots on the Master
Plan that have little or no chance of being improved because they would be
litigated to death. He stated when you go to a lender and try to acquire funding to
develop a project; they say that someday there would be a zone change on that
highway. Steve Stork stated there were proprieties already zoned commercial up
and down the highway and they did not need to make five specific lots as Mr.
Brown pointed out. He felt that it was ironic when they look at who owned the five
MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -28
specific lots as to how this came about. Steve Stork believed the Master Plan was
good and these five lots would destroy the whole thing. Steve Stork believed they
had the integrity to make the right decision and do the proper thing.
       Jim Copenhaver, representing the Spring Creek Association, thanked them
for coming to Spring Creek to hold this meeting. He voiced concern with what he
saw was an assumption of power that had been dealt them in the Declaration of
Reservations. Jim Copenhaver stated that was a plan driven development with 42
tracts out there. He reviewed the numbers of the tracts involved and the amount
of lots within each individual tract. Jim Copenhaver informed them that every
single tract had a Declaration of Reservations. He stated a person wanting to buy
property in Spring Creek had the right to rely on the Declaration of Restrictions
and it was in their contract. He stated that was one of the things that people
contract for and expect when they move into Spring Creek. They expect to look at
those DORs and those reservations would be respected. Jim Copenhaver stated
every one of those reservations define the zoning for every single lot. He stated
there was not a commercial designation in 103 104 or 401. He stated they were
all zoned agricultural-residential lots. Jim Copenhaver stated there were several
mechanisms pertaining to that. One mechanism was that the property owners
could change that by majority vote but that could only take place when the DORs
have to be reviewed. Jim Copenhaver noted that the Spring Creek residents elect
their representatives and they elect their Board of Directors. He stated every one
of the Declaration of Restrictions not only say that the Committee of Architecture
would make these decisions but they also incorporate Tract 101’s Master Plan
Declaration of Reservations defining each of those land uses. Jim Copenhaver
stated the problem he had was the County Commission says they can’t do
anything unless the Committee of Architecture approves the applicant’s petition.
Jim Copenhaver noted Nancy Porter informed them that the Reno case had been
upheld several times. He stated that refers back to NRS 278, and the Court says
you would give great deference to the Master Plan. Jim Copenhaver stated
basically it stated the zoning regulations must be adopted in accordance with the
Master Plan. He was concerned by the way they designated something
commercial. He noted on page 33 of their Master Plan stated one of the
guidelines for implementing a Master Plan was to rezone appropriate areas where
existing zoning was consistent with the designation proposed in the Master Plan.
He stated that was what they were trying to do tonight was to designate areas
inconsistent with their own Master Plan. Jim Copenhaver stated by their own
Master Plan they were supposed to rezone these areas. He saw this as tying the
hands and creating inconsistencies by putting this proposed commercial
designation on the Master Plan. He felt it would be tough if that designation was
on there and someone comes in and asks for a change and was turned down after
the proposed designation of commercial was placed on the Master Plan. Jim
                                                             ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                    REGULAR SESSION
                                                                       MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                            PAGE   29
Copenhaver noted that people bought their property relying on the Declaration of
Reservations. Jim Copenhaver stated the Spring Creek Association Board of
Directors felt it was their responsibility to enforce the Declaration of Reservations.
They believed that the responsibility should lie with the SCA Committee of
Architecture, without creating inconsistencies. Jim Copenhaver on behalf of the
SCA and the Architecture Committee asked them to remove the proposed
commercial designations on the Master Plan.
       Kenna Utter stated her house was within walking distance of one of the
properties that were being considered. She voiced support for this and would like
to see a convenience store put in. Kenna Utter stated she had epilepsy and
recently was able to get her driver’s license back. She stated if she was denied
transportation again it would be very convenient for her to walk down the road.
She believed that there were other people in the same position which were elderly
or handicapped. She noted Spring Creek was stretched out and she would like to
see more conveniences.
       Dena Hartley, representing Spring Creek Board of Directors and as a
property owner in Tract 403, also thanked the Commission for hearing this issue in
Spring Creek. After the inception of Spring Creek and the initial implementation of
the Spring Creek Master Plan, the commercial zoning on these five lots makes no
sense. She commented this had came up three to five years later after people
had built their homes around these sites and there was undeveloped commercial
property still available in and around the Spring Creek Association. Dena Hartley
commented that Spring Creek was very small and rural compared to Las Vegas.
It made no sense to change the designation now on the Master Plan. However,
should the need arise for commercial development; they should consider it only
after the other commercial parcels had been developed.                  Dena Hartley
commented that it was previously stated that the County Commission would have
the final say and approval of the zone change. She felt it was an undue burden on
the SCA Committee of Architecture to deny said zone change when this was on
the Master Plan as proposed commercial. She stated the property values in the
immediate surrounding areas of these properties could be diminished. She noted
the commercial designation on this property could discourage potential buyers in
those areas. Dena Hartley stated the entire Board of Directors of the Spring
Creek Association asked that the County Commission uphold the SCA Declaration
of Reservations and remand this matter to the Elko County Planning and Zoning
       Ray B. Jones signed in but offered no comment at this time.
       Richard Canady, Chairman of the Spring Creek Association Board of
Directors and Spring Creek resident, stated there would be many more people
affected and traveling through the intersections than the property owners that
currently own those five lots. He stated in looking at the best interests of most of
MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -30
the people in the Spring Creek Association they need to support a proposal to
remove the existing commercial designation status shown on the Master Plan.
        Travis Gerber, representing the Khoury Family, stated he would like to
speak on their behalf. He stated the Khourys own one of the lots in question. He
wished to answer some unwanted criticism against them and address the flyer
published in the paper. Travis Gerber noted that it stated in the ad that this was
the first attempt by the property owners to change the zoning from Spring Creek
Agriculture-Residential to commercial. He commented that paragraph “a” stated
that two of these property owners over the last several years had successfully
changed the zoning from A-1 to commercial on five lots. Travis Gerber stated
there was no doubt that this ad referred to the Khourys. He stated it was true that
many years ago the Spring Creek Association supported and approved the
development of Khoury’s Plaza as it stood today. Travis Gerber stated Khourys
had purchased that corner after it was designated commercial and was approved
by the Spring Creek Association. He stated that the corner development which
started as a fledging grocery store had expanded and re-expanded multiple times
with the growth of the store. Travis Gerber stated there was now a service station,
rental spaces for a variety of businesses and restaurants, the Scoreboard, and the
Post Office. Notwithstanding all the good services Khourys had provided, the ad
published last night said nothing about the good. He stated the ad only painted a
picture of “garbage, dust, traffic congestion and noise.” However everyone here
tonight had benefited from the services and growth that Khourys’ foresight brought
to this area. Travis Gerber noted that the Khourys had been consistent, even
though it might appear to be against their best interest, they supported new
businesses in the area. He stated on the other hand what they saw here tonight
appeared to be a campaign by competing business interests who chose to remain
anonymous to keep out new development. Travis Gerber stated everyone knows
that Khourys had been the principle business in Spring Creek for the past 20
years and they have helped make Spring Creek a thriving community. He noted
that Khourys supported mining. He stated the Khourys were generous and had
donated tens of thousands of dollars each year to community organizations and
schools which was unmatched by most of the other businesses. Travis Gerber
commented the Khourys sponsor the Christmas fireworks and have been
supportive of the community. He stated the Khourys do not deserve the unwanted
criticism that had been levied against them. Travis Gerber stated they recognize
the Spring Creek Board holds the final say in this zoning matter and they accept
that. He stated it was apparent that others would oppose development and
growth in the area but they felt that was the wrong approach.
        Dennis G. Smith stated he lived next to one of the five lots. He had moved
here five years ago and he had one neighbor which had three ponies in the
backyard. He pointed to the display showing the location of his house. Dennis G.
                                                              ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                     REGULAR SESSION
                                                                        MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                             PAGE   31
Smith stated with regards to the Khourys he would love it if they developed a
house on that lot, and if they had horses they could go riding together. However,
he had not thought about a grocery store. Dennis G. Smith stated he loved going
in and shopping at Khoury’s and would like to have them as neighbors but not as
a store. He stated when he looked at the house he saw a grade school across the
street and he had grade school aged children. He felt this was a nice area and it
would stay residential because there was a fire house and an athletic field.
Dennis G. Smith stated the only commercial place was a real estate office where
there was not a lot of traffic in and out. He stated a convenience store or a
grocery store was not compatible with the rest of the homes and school in that
area. Dennis G. Smith noted that there were some comments made about the
Planning Commission meeting. He was at that meeting and Mr. Rice and Mr.
Mahlberg were very professional and courteous, and he did not want them to be
singled out.
       Terry Gary noted her property was on Ashcroft Lane which was adjacent to
the proposed development. She read a couple of points from her letter that she
had sent to the County Commission, as follows: 1) The proposed zone change
will have a great impact on the value of our property, and it’s resale value as our
property directly borders on of these proposed lots; 2) My children’s bus stop
(Ashcroft Drive) is between two of these lots proposed. All children at this bus
stop are required to cross the street in order to catch the bus. The added traffic
this would bring to this area is a threat to our children’s safety; 3) I believe the
property owners who wish to have the proposed zoning changes are thinking only
of their own personal interests. We already have a service station in the housing
section on the Spring Creek Parkway to meet the needs of the residents in this
area. There are already several commercial lots available in the Spring Creek
area for future development needs to meet the growth of this communi ty.
Individuals and families moving into the areas affected by this decision are not
moving here to have more access to commercial business. We move to this area
for the way of life it affords us. We move here to get away from the hustle and
bustle of city life. When we moved here we knew we were going to be several
miles from shops and business. It is one of the main reasons we chose to build
our homes in this area. Mrs. Gary asked that as they prepare to make their final
decision regarding the proposed Lamoille/Spring Creek Master Plan, that they not
make their decision based upon the desires of a few who would financially profit
from this plan at the expense of the residents who have built their homes and wish
to raise their families in this area. She noted overall what they had invested in their
homes outweighed any financial profits that a few property owners stand to gain.
       Chris Carr, Spring Creek property owner, stated in order to build a
sustainable community there must be property values and proper zoning. He
stated the Spring Creek area had sufficient residential and light industrial zoning
MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -32
but it was lacking commercial zoning. Chris Carr stated unfortunately the
commercial needs of the community weren’t being met. He had spoken with a lot
of the business owners and unfortunately they would like to see that development
with a little more competition so their needs could be better met. He noted that by
having the Master Plan stay as it was; it created a little bit of hope in order to give
this community a sustainable place. Chris Carr stated he liked the Planning
Commission’s designation and his recommendation was to leave them the same.
       Theresa Neff stated she lived in Spring Creek by Frannie Ann’s and the
Shell gas station. She would rather have something out by the highway. She
commented about the amount of traffic congestion at the gas station. Theresa
Neff felt it was dangerous at the school bus stop at that intersection. She asked
what there was to prevent a bar or a massage parlor from going in close to her
house and there would be more access to the children. Theresa Neff stated that
road was very congested but she felt if they promoted businesses on the highway
it may improve their chances of them getting a stop light there. She felt it made
more sense to put the businesses on the road rather than back within the housing
area where the children play. Theresa Neff stated she was in favor of putting that
up for election. She noted depending upon the election year there may not be a
lot of people who were present tonight here another ten years. Theresa Neff
noted that way it would go before the residents every time that a change came up.
       Dyril Bernius stated he had been a Spring Creek resident since 1990 and he
had seen businesses come and go in this area. Therefore, he felt that meant the
area was already saturated. Dyril Bernius stated people go into Elko to buy their
goods and services and come back home. He noted that Spring Creek already
had gas stations and grocery stores. Dyril Bernius stated he did not want to see
any more commercial buildings with “For Lease” or “For Sale” signs on them.
       Kelly Di Lulo had signed in but did not wish to testify.
       Carla Wilson-Leff had signed in but did not wish to testify.
       Kacen Wines had signed in but did not wish to testify.
       Frank Wilson had signed in but did not wish to testify.
       Mark Wetmore stated he appreciated the opportunity to appear before them
and to represent the citizens of Spring Creek. He would not repeat what everyone
else said but would summarize that Spring Creek did have its own master plan.
Mark Wetmore stated that he had the opportunity to serve on the Elko County
Planning Commission which was a very difficult job especially when it came to
Master Planning. He stated it was a lot easier to plan things prior to a subdivision
inception than trying to take what was already there and re-plan it. Mark Wetmore
stated the Spring Creek plan was not a perfect plan and there were a lot of things
that they had run into but the plan was what they had to work with. Mark Wetmore
stated one of the situations they had run into with the commercial designations
was there were a large range of permitted uses within the commercial
                                                                 ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                        REGULAR SESSION
                                                                           MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                                PAGE   33
designations. Mark Wetmore stated that these lots were not purchased as
commercial lots but were purchased as residential lots. He commented the lots
next to them were purchased as residential lots and those people do not want
commercial endeavors in their backyard. He stated the committee members
change, peoples’ opinions change but they need a plan that stays the way it was
to protect all property owners. Mark Wetmore noted there had been some
questions as to the legality of County Code 4-9-4 and he hoped it did not get
pressed toward whether it had legal merit. Mark Wetmore stated the Spring Creek
Board was not against the Khourys and they appreciated what Khourys had done
in Spring Creek. The Board did, however, want everyone to play by the rules.
Mark Wetmore stated that there was plenty of commercial property within Spring
Creek. He stated that there was commercial along Lamoille Highway all the way
from Khoury’s to the Horse Palace. Mark Wetmore stated the bottom line was the
Spring Creek Association represented two different groups of people. They
represent the residential people who bought land as residential and they were
here to try and protect their interest. He stated those people did not buy into it
assuming they would have a store or a gas station in their backyard. Mark
Wetmore stated the other people they represent were the people who invested in
commercial land within the SCA plan. He stated it would certainly undermine their
investment if someone started creating additional commercial lots less than two
miles away from their previously zoned commercial lots. Mark Wetmore stated the
SCA Board did not represent a small minority of people that would benefit from the
change of Agricultural-Residential to Commercial at the detriment of the
surrounding property owners.
       Bruce Hett stated the zoning change being proposed would affect a number
of properties negatively. He noted previously they had abandoned a proposal to
create a scenic corridor because of the fear that corridor would devaluate the
property value. Bruce Hett felt this would create the same detriment for many
more properties and there were plenty of commercial properties already zoned
close to where these properties were. He stated this would also devaluate the
commercial properties that were already zoned commercial within the residential
tracts. Bruce Hett commented that his Dad had lived directly across the street
from where a gas station was supposed to go. He was aware of a similar situation
wherein a gas station was built and another house across the street went up for
sale because the lights from the gas station were so bright people who lived in
that house could get a suntan. Bruce Hett stated that house stayed on the market
for nearly two years. He was sure that person did not want to sell that house and
felt that house would have sold a lot faster had the gas station not been built
there. Bruce Hett noted eventually his father would want to sell his home in
Spring Creek and he hoped it would not be put in that situation. His father did not
want a gas station across the street blinding him every evening from the lights and
MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -34
stinking up the air. Bruce Hett hoped they saw this the same as the scenic
corridor, a devaluation of the property. He asked that they abandon the proposal
for commercial designation.
       Milt Grisham, a member of the Elko County Planning Commission, noted
there had been comments made from people who felt the Planning Commission
members were rude and he apologized for the Planning Commission. He stated
that commission plan for the future and not for the past. Milt Grisham stated that
in reviewing the Master Plan they figured along on the highway would be the most
beneficial to the public in general to have the commercial. He stated the Planning
Commission had to consider the health, safety and welfare of the general public.
Milt Grisham commented they did the zoning for the benefit of the whole and not
for the individual. He noted there had been pressure for years from the Spring
Creek residents for a signal light because of amount of traffic at Licht Parkway,
and agreed that it was a busy intersection. He stated if they continue improving
those lots the SCA would have a pressure point to get a light put in there. Milt
Grisham commented that the Spring Creek Association and the Committee of
Architecture had the final say on the zoning and the County Commission and the
Planning Commission could not say it was commercial with out having the
approval of the Association.
       Waddie (Bruce) Mitchell stated he had bought one of the lots in 1989 that
was being proposed commercial. He stated it was designated commercial when
he bought the lot. He was told before he bought the house adjacent to the lot that
the lot next door was future commercial. Waddie Mitchell felt it would be a good
investment but found out later that there was a specific procedure he would have
to follow for that zoning. Waddie Mitchell heard now that the Spring Creek
Association was unanimously against this. He talked to them a month ago and
was told before anything was built on the lot he had to take it to the Spring Creek
Board. If it was good for the community and the SCA approved, then it would
come to the Commission. Waddie Mitchell believed that they were trying to stop
everything for the future and commented upon the changes since 1967 and the
growth in the area. Waddie Mitchell noted that things continually change and they
may need it in the future. He did not think anyone would want to put a house on
these lots with little kids along the highway. Waddie Mitchell stated his lot had a
perfect ingress and egress. He noted the bus stop was 300 yards above the lot.
Waddie Mitchell stated it had been misrepresented and he had heard people
trying to convince them that this was an evil gas station, etc. He noted it could be
a lot of things. He commented that these people wanted to get this stopped
before anything could happen. Waddie Mitchell noted that nothing would happen
without the approval of the Spring Creek Board or approval of the County
Commission. He noted that professionals have viewed it for future commercial.
Waddie Mitchell felt it was silly to stop something that wasn’t a problem yet. He
                                                              ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                     REGULAR SESSION
                                                                        MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                             PAGE   35
stated when he bought it he looked to see if it was commercial and knew it was
commercial. Waddie Mitchell stated it was not his fault that the people who
bought their property two or three years ago did not have sense to see if it was
commercial or not.
       Commissioner Myers stated based on his prior conversation with legal
advice he disclosed one of the property owners contributed to his campaign in
2002. He felt that there were several issues here and the community was divided.
He believed that the zoning should be consistent with the Master Plan.
Commissioner Myers felt that when property was designated a certain designation
on the Master Plan then eventually it would be that. He believed the property was
bought zoned agricultural-residential and the people who lived around it felt it
should remain agricultural-residential but that was probably a mistake because of
its location on the Lamoille Highway. Commissioner Myers believed that most
people realize that as time progresses property was bought and sold and rezoned
through a process. He felt the approval of this particular zoning lies with the
Spring Creek Committee of Architecture and the Spring Creek Board. He noted
that process was adopted by law. Commissioner Myers felt commercial along the
highway was the best place outside of the residential but the decision did not lie
with this particular board. He stated this board was very supportive of property
rights, and the Elko County Commission did not have the authority to make that
zoning change. Commissioner Myers voiced support of removing this designation.
       Commissioner Eklund-Brown disclosed that Randy Brown of Planning and
Zoning was her husband. She further disclosed that she had Koneheads listed for
sale, it had been listed for about a month, and she did not see it as a conflict with
this.    Commissioner Eklund-Brown disclosed that she had also received
contributions to her campaign from one of the property owners. She felt that there
was sufficient commercial property available and they did not need to infringe on
these parcels. Commissioner Eklund-Brown stated as a Realtor she believed it
would be difficult to resale the adjacent property if these were designated
commercial. Commissioner Eklund-Brown noted the people bought the property
as agriculture-residential and they paid a reduced price, not a commercial price.
She stated the County Commission would not go beyond their capabilities and
make a ruling that the majority of the people living in Spring Creek were adverse
to. She noted the association was part of the County and the Commission sought
solutions and partnerships, not problems. Commissioner Eklund-Brown was in
favor of the removal of the commercial designation.
       Commissioner Nannini stated he had been through this process several
times and had always been against this designation as commercial. He felt the
adjacent property owners had bought this property to raise their family in a
residential neighborhood and that was the way it should have stayed. He
complimented the people who had invested money in the commercially
MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -36
designated areas and the fortitude they had to provide Spring Creek with those
services. Commissioner Ellison stated there were pros and cons on both sides.
He reported the County was attempting to get a traffic light on Licht/Lamoille
Highway. He believed this matter should go back to the Spring Creek Architecture
Committee to get the final decision. Commissioner Ellison suggested they put it
on a ballot and vote on it as a community.
       Commissioner Russell felt that there were four issues. He disclosed he had
a friend who had a business located in the interior of Spring Creek and had friends
who owned property on the corners that were referenced here. Commissioner
Russell stated he had not received campaign contributions from these folks but
respected all of them. He believed a long term political body could always make a
change. He commented that the Spring Creek Committee of Architecture, the
Spring Creek Association Board and the will of the people over time could make a
change. Commissioner Russell stated his personal opinion was the Spring Creek
Association was poorly planned in the beginning and that was why the commercial
development was not planned around some of the major intersections along that
highway. He stated that was not the fault of the people who invested in the
businesses in the interior or anyone else’s fault. Commissioner Russell believed it
would not matter whether they had an ordinance to have to go through the Spring
Creek Committee of Architecture; his personal opinion was to base his decision on
what the majority of people in the Spring Creek Association want. Commissioner
Russell stated his position was not to retain these commercial designations.
       Commissioner Nannini requested clarification that the proper procedure was
to go through the Spring Creek Committee of Architecture, then the Spring Creek
Association, and if denied it came before the Elko Planning and Zoning with the
ultimate decision being with the County Commission. Kristin McQueary stated
under Elko County Code 4-9-4 the applications must be processed under the
Committee of Architecture. She noted the Association had an appeal process. If
there was no approval from the Committee of Architecture or the Spring Creek
Association, then the County did not have the ability to process the application.
Commissioner Eklund-Brown inquired what the appeal process was. Kristin
McQueary replied that James Copenhaver could provide them with that
information. Kristin McQueary also commented that she provided legal counsel to
the Planning Commission, and had found the board members to be very
professional. She noted those Board Members sat through long meetings and the
testimony did get tedious when hearing it over and over again. Kristin McQueary
informed them that the Planning Commission was comprised of volunteers.
       Randy Brown stated as part of staff’s recommendation they would like to
take it back to actual designation. The reason was because they were good solid
decisions. He commented they were located next to the highway and there were
several things that should be looked at before a determination was made. Randy
                                                              ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                     REGULAR SESSION
                                                                        MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                             PAGE   37
Brown noted the law concluded that in good solid planning practice it should go
back to the Spring Creek Association. He noted he did large scale planning and
felt it should go through an election process. Randy Brown felt the County should
step out of it and let the Spring Creek Association do its own planning.
        Commissioner Russell commented that two members from the Spring Creek
Association sit upon the Elko County Planning Commission so the community was
well represented. He noted that usually a Commissioner within a specific district
would promote someone to sit upon the Planning Commission. Commissioner
Russell promised that if either one of those positions on the Planning Commission
became vacant he would come to the Spring Creek Association to seek names of
candidates to sit upon that Planning Commission so the Spring Creek Association
representation would be realized.
        MOTION: Commissioner Ellison moved that they remove the
                    designation of commercial as staff recommended and that
                    would automatically go back.           Commissioner Nannini
                    seconded the motion.            The motion was passed

      11. Proposal to remove dual Light Industrial / Agriculture Residential
Designation SR 227 near Lipparelli Lane - APN 006-52C-002 Lot 1, W1/2
NE1/4 NW1/4 Section 30, T. 33 N., R. 57 E., M.D.B. & M.
      Randy Brown reviewed the Planning Commission vote and stated the staff
recommended the same.
      Chairman Russell called for public comment.
      Robert Wines stated he was here on behalf of the property owner, Carolyn
Peck, and agreed with the Planning Commission’s decision. Robert Wines stated
they believed the Board should consider more dual zoning areas in Elko County.
He stated right now there were a lot of properties located in various subdivisions
where people were running businesses out of their garages and shops. Robert
Wines stated the proposal was if they wanted a shop and a resident on the same
piece of property this would be the right place to do it. He stated roadways would
have to be resolved before any addition or development on that property takes
place. Robert Wines stated this was a conceptional idea but on behalf of the
landowner, he recommended they continue in effect the way it was.
      MOTION: Commissioner Ellison moved to uphold the Planning
                 Commission        decision      for    the    dual    designation.
                 Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. The motion
                 was passed unanimously.

      Commissioner Nannini departed from the meeting room at 9:30 p.m.

MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -38
     12.   Proposal for “Commercial” and “Special Lands” Designations:
           A) Request for Commercial Designation along frontage of SR 228 near
           10 Mile Ranch (LDS Ranch) in portions of Sections 8 and 17, T. 33
           N., R. 56 E., M.D.B.& M.. APN 006-300-004
           B) Request for Special Lands Designation near 10 Mile Ranch (LDS
           Ranch) in portions of Sections 9, 16 and 17, T.33 N., R.56 E., M.D.B.
           & M. APN 006-300-004.
      Commissioner Russell inquired if they should address A & B individually or
together. Randy Brown replied they could address them together. He noted this
was the only true new proposal this year which was brought in by Mr. Stonier. He
stated Mr. Stonier bought the 10 Mile Ranch and showed the area on the map.
Randy Brown displayed where the 10 Mile Creek ran in the middle of the area. He
stated the property owner wanted to leave most of the area as open space for
ranching. However, a portion of the land to the west he would like to subdivide
into 10 acre parcels and there was plenty of water in that basin. Randy Brown
stated a portion of the design was to create two commercial areas near SR 228.
Randy Brown had spoken to NDOT who did not have a problem because there
was not a huge traffic flow. He stated it would also provide better access to the
South Fork area for better commercial uses. Randy Brown noted that the lake
was located south about 10 miles and the intersection of Lamoille Highway and
Jiggs Highway was two miles south. He noted this was the old LDS Ranch area.
Randy Brown commented that staff found the proposal matched the development
patterns and recommended approval of the concept. He stated the staff and the
Planning Commission approved the concept.
      Chairman Russell asked for public comment.
      No public comment was submitted.
      MOTION: Commissioner Myers moved that they approve commercial
                  and special lands designations, items A & B which is the
                  frontage along SR 228 near 10 Mile Ranch and special lands
                  designation near 10 Mile Ranch                 (LDS Ranch).
                  Commissioner Ellison seconded the motion.
      Commissioner Ellison asked Kristin McQueary if they could state A & B in
the motion and it be clear. Kristin McQueary replied they were both in the same
                  The motion was passed by majority vote. Commissioner
                  Nannini was not present during the vote.
      Commissioner Russell suggested that the Spring Creek Association
purchase the property on the corners along the highway where they had adjacent
residents. He stated Spring Creek could then develop a beautification project in
those areas. He stated then there would never be a question of how those

                                                            ELKO COUNTY COMMISSION
                                                                   REGULAR SESSION
                                                                      MARCH 2, 2006
                                                                           PAGE   39
corners would be used without creating problems with the adjacent property


      MOTION: Commissioner Ellison moved to adjourn the meeting.
              Commissioner Myers seconded the motion. The motion was
              passed unanimously.

     There being no further business to come before the meeting, the meeting
was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.


                               WARREN RUSSELL, Chairman


      MARILYN TIPTON, Deputy Clerk

MARCH 2, 2006
PAGE -40

Shared By:
Description: Elko County Nevada Real Estate document sample