APPROVED JULY 1, 2021 When applicable, the minutes below ...

APPROVED JULY 1, 2021

The Regular Meeting of the Board of County Commissioners was held on May 20, 2021 beginning at 1:00 PM at the CVIC Hall, 1604 Esmeralda Avenue, Minden, NV

and via Zoom participation as well as was streamed via Live Stream Video Link, Douglas County YouTube Channel. When applicable, the minutes below have been transcribed.

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 1:01 PM. Commissioners Present:

John Engels, Chairman Walt Nowosad, Vice Chairman

Wesley A. Rice, Commissioner Danny Tarkanian, Commissioner Mark Gardner, Commissioner

Staff Present:

Amy Burgans, Clerk-Treasurer Dan Coverley, Sheriff Patrick Cates, County Manager

Doug Ritchie, Chief Civil Deputy District Attorney Natalie Wood, Administrative Services Manager Paula Lochridge, Administrative Assistant

Nicki Leeper, Clerk Supervisor Michelle Pablo, Deputy Clerk

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Led by Chief Civil Deputy District Attorney, Doug Ritchie.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairman Engels speaks: Public Comment will be taken during the beginning and again at the end of the

Board meeting. Additional Public Comment period may be allowed on the individual agenda items and at the direction of the Chairman. It is requested that

the members of the public provide Public Comment on those agenda items when they are considered. Public Comment is limited to three minutes per speaker on matters over which the Board has jurisdiction, supervision or control. It is

requested that the Public Comment be respectful of offering viewpoints and that individuals do not attempt or engage in personal attacks or become disruptive of

the order and conduct of the meeting. At this time, Public Comment will be taken on those items that are within the jurisdiction and the control of the Board of County Commissioners. Anybody have any Public Comment in the audience?

Lynn Muzzy speaks: Regarding the Bently Light Industrial development project on Heybourne, in the

Planning Commission meeting of April 13th, there were a number of important issues and questions raised about this that did not get very satisfactory answers.

DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF MAY 20, 2021

May 20, 2021

The Bently design decision that imposes two roadways onto agricultural land was

described by those in favor of the development as a zoning manipulation intended to evade the need for a Master Plan Amendment. This should be alarming, but it was not criticized. When asked about the legality under Title 20 of using

agricultural land zoned A-19 to provide access roadways to a separate parcel, both the County spokesperson, and the RO Anderson spokesperson indicated that they merely thought it was okay. Later, when the same question arose concerning the

retention pond being outside the Light Industrial parcel, and RO Anderson Company was tasked with finding the code on which they relied, the result was

that RO Anderson suddenly decided to relocate the pond to the inside of the parcel being developed. You would think this would be seen as a clue as to how shaky the ground was that they were standing on. But no, no follow up. Another

discussion revealed that RO Anderson could not or was not willing to produce any evidence whatsoever that the so-called balky landowner of the eight-foot strip had

ever even been contacted about the development. The County is a public body that is supposed to be looking out for the citizenry and should not be accepting merely the word of the developer as to this vital element of the argument for repurposing

agricultural land. Again, no one representing the County except County Commissioner Casey dared to demand something tangible. They all simply trusted RO Anderson. Who needs proof? Lastly, Commissioner Oland called out what is

being contemplated in the Bently proposal as giving the appearance of self-dealing. Well, it is actually self-dealing. There is a long-standing principle in law

that states that a property owner cannot create an easement over his own land. A right-of-way is, under the law, an easement. So, Bently granting Bently a right-of-way is wrong and meaningless. Because of the issues I’ve described, this Board

should today reaffirm its denial of what Bently has brought forward. It not only fails to meet Finding Number 3 as pointed out by Planning Commissioner Casey and Commissioner Gardner, it also fails to pass muster legally. In any case,

converting agricultural lands zoned A-19 to any use besides agriculture goes directly against the philosophy of the Master Plan for preserving what is rural and

should only be done under the most scrutinized and needy of circumstances. Thank you.

Commissioner Gardner speaks: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry your microphone is not on, so we can't really hear you.

Alex Uribe speaks: We submitted this; the Carson Valley Chamber of Commerce supports the Bently

proposal to create 35 industrial parcels as identified in the Land Division Application DP20-0322. Providing locations for light industrial development in our county supports job opportunities and diversifies our local economy. This type of

development will provide opportunity for businesses to locate and grow in the Carson Valley, enhancing our economy. We have reviewed the Item 9 materials in

your agenda package through a proposal meeting, County requirements and acceptance of this condition identified by the Planning Commission and staff. We all support the location of this proposal adjacent to existing industrial properties

on land zoned Industrial. Thank you.


May 20, 2021

Jack Jacobs speaks:

I guess we don't have to sign in. I’m co-owner with my wife of the Jacobs Family Berry Farm. I'm speaking to you as a business owner of this community. As Commissioners, you have the responsibility and authority to approve, disapprove

measures that come to you. You know that. Your role is to decide what is best for the County, both short term and long term. Economic vitality is very important to our community which we need to continue to thrive. You have identified goals,

policies and guiding principles in your updated Master Plan addressing this. Let me bring these to your attention. Master Plan, under Economic Development, says

goal number one, foster a diverse regional economy that adapts to changing needs of the workforce and enables business development, retention and expansion. Policy one says, continue the ongoing efforts to improve Douglas County approval

process for businesses and industry to incorporate feedback during the development permit process. Policy three says, continue to recruit, retain and

expand businesses and industries that enhance our local economy. Beyond that you have guiding principles. Your guiding principles for economic vitality strategy focusing on improving economic well-being of the community through efforts that

entail job creation, job retention, tax base enhancements and quality of life improvements. These efforts rely on five guiding principles, please remember these; improve business climate, preserve the natural resources, improve

infrastructure, enhance education in workforce, maintain exceptional quality of life and attract businesses that are unique and marketable. In order to meet all of

these you must balance your decision today on any proposal how best to accomplish it. Sometimes a proposal may include a concern that you do not favor, a very specific concern, but stand back and consider what's best for the

community. Number one, if you reject this proposal, what is the impact on the future? What is the long term impact if you make a decision against this? Will you be telling the proposer and future proposals to move out of town? How will this

impact the future economic vitality of our county? Your decision today is yours to own and remember. We should be concerned about adjacent counties who are

looking at Douglas County and could use this decision you make today to encourage future businesses and opportunities to come to their county. Worse, should we be competing with them to encourage Light Industrial development

here? Your Master Plan has the words, are you ready to follow with actions to support it? Thank you.

Jen Nalder speaks: Good afternoon. I am speaking on behalf of your Item Number 9, the Bently

proposed Light Industrial. I’m not going to sit here and argue any of the legal aspects to it, but what I just wanted to bring to light is the history that Bently had here in the Valley. Mr. Bently, for well over 50 years, had a vision for this Valley

and through his work he was able to create a community that was supported by a local industry. He was able to provide a lot of jobs for the families that lived here

and it allowed them opportunities to not only live, but work here, and make this community, I feel, thrive from that point. I had, personally, my first job at Bently Nevada when I was 16 years old. And because of the opportunities that the Bently

Corporation has provided for this community, it allowed me to then progress into more ways for me to further serve and live in my community. So, I just want to


May 20, 2021

bring this to light, so when you do make decisions, you have to consider, also,

who the developers are and who’s behind it. And Bently has done everything in their power to make sure that they have planned their growth to not only sustain economic development, but environmental concerns. And I feel that a vote against

them is really detrimental to our future in this community. Thank you.

Dave Brady speaks:

Good afternoon. With respect to the Agenda Item Number 9, you have in your packet a letter from Virginia Starrett voicing opposition to the approval of this

project. It's on the record that in May, I believe, May 6th, three Commissioners voted in support of her position to deny the project. I think in the spirit of full disclosure, it should be noted that of those three Commissioners, one

Commissioner received $4,000 from the Starrett’s in a campaign contribution. The other received, I believe, $3,700 in campaign contributions. And the third, well,

his campaign was managed by the Starrett’s. You know, I don't know if it was Harry Bosch or Jack Ryan, maybe it was somebody else who said I don't believe in coincidences. I think I’ll leave that up to the public to decide. But in my opinion,

the Starrett’s fingerprints are all over this item and quite possibly future items to come before the Board. I suggest you be aware. Thank you.

Chairman Engels speaks: Any further Public Comment from the Chambers? Natalie, anybody online?

Natalie Wood, Administrative Services Manager, speaks: Yes, we do have Public Comment through Zoom. Anyone else that's on Zoom that

would like to provide Public Comment right now, during Opening Public Comment, please raise your hand. But we will go through our individuals that have already noted they would like to provide Public Comment.

Ellie Waller speaks:

Hello. Ms. Wood speaks:

Okay Ellie, we can hear you now. Go ahead, I'll start the timer.

Ms. Waller speaks: Thank you. Also, Item Number 9, simply redesign the project so you don't need this easement. I think there's better ways to approach this. Yes, the Bently family,

as stated, has contributed to the Valley’s successes, but that doesn't mean you break rules on ag land. The second thing I want to bring up is there was an article in the Saturday Record Courier, the work on the new Spooner Visitor Center. I

think this is going to be advantageous but there is some concern that in the future we should be following this activity and make sure that Douglas County isn’t

going to be held responsible for maintenance or operations. Right now, it says it's an improvement program, a public private collaboration with Nevada State Parks, Nevada Division of State Lands and so on and so forth. Thank you.


May 20, 2021

Ms. Wood speaks:

Thank you, Ellie. Ellie, you raised your hand again, did you have anything further?

Ms. Waller speaks: I do not. Thank you.

Ms. Wood speaks: Okay, thank you. Okay next.

Jim Slade speaks: Yes, can you hear me?

Ms. Wood speaks:

I can. Go ahead and state your name and then I’ll start the timer. Mr. Slade speaks:

I’ve seen information … but it’s a different topic. An article in the Nevada Appeal title, “West Prepares for Possible First Water Shortage Declaration.” Can we stop here for a minute? I'm getting a feedback of my own voice here. I don't know what

the problem is, but I can't, are you hearing me twice or just once?

Ms. Wood speaks: Just once. We can hear you once. I paused the timer, but we can hear you. If you have it playing on any other devices in your house, you should stop those device’s

audio because you will get the feedback if you have multiple, and I do have you in Zoom multiple times. So, if anyone else in your house is listening you'll have to stop their audio.

Unidentified speaker in background speaks:

Right here, unplug this. Now you’re okay. Mr. Slade:

Well, okay. I think, well, the other computer is unplugged but I still hear myself. If you're only hearing one of what I’m saying, then I’ll try to power through this. An

article in the Nevada Appeal titled, “West Prepares for Possible First Water Shortage Declaration,” focused on Nevada. It talked about the negative effects of recent droughts, much of it apparently caused by climate change. While it

discussed the challenges and possible mandatory reductions faced by the Las Vegas area due to dropping levels of Lake Mead it also addressed the negative effect on aquifers throughout the rest of the state. I also listened to an hour-long

webinar by the Nevada State Climatologist who specifically addressed the coming challenges for Northern Nevada. She too noted the effects of climate change on the

rising snow levels and earlier melts which cause problems not only for our ag community but also for the aquifer that we all depend on for water. Page 636 of today's agenda packet addresses what the likely effect of continued increased

temperatures and decreasing precipitation by stating, “if this trend continues, flows will continue to become more extreme, less reliable, and continue to


May 20, 2021

decline.” On another topic a letter to the Record Courier decried the shortage of

affordable/attainable housing in Douglas County. While that’s a worthy goal, there will never be a guarantee that every worker that wants to live in the county will be able to do so. When the Board approved a second Walmart for our county,

a few years ago, they did nothing to accommodate all those low-wage workers as to finding an affordable place to live. One approach that would not be in the public interest is to try to flood the county with lower-end housing hoping that would

somehow lower prices. Not only would that probably not work, but it would ruin the rural character of our county that our residents value so much while also

increasing traffic and have a negative effect, obviously, on our water. The last Board approved nearly 4,000 new homes, many of which required Master Plan Amendments. Added to what was already in the pipeline, there are now nearly

7,000 homes that can be built here. We need to let that process play out and see if any of that housing is affordable. The past Board allowed nearly all of that

housing to be market priced, so to suggest that we need to approve even more affordable housing now is misplaced. We need to wait for most of the already approved projects be built or those development agreements to expire before the

Board approves any further increase in density, especially those that would require Master Plan Amendment. In the meantime, we need to track our aquifer, and the related effects of climate change, before we approve any further largescale

development. To do otherwise would be foolish. The developments already approved may bring us close to the total build-out envisioned by the Master Plan.

In a response to Brady’s comments, the Park family development and real estate issues donated heavily to the campaigns of Mr. Walsh and Rice and yet there was no hesitancy to approve the Park Master Plan Amendment of any other number of

other real estate and development deals. So, I don’t think that’s the reliable way to look at things. Thank you.

Ms. Wood speaks: That was your three minutes. Thank you, sir. Okay, next. Natalie, are you there?

Natalie Yanish speaks: Yes, I am. I just want to provide a couple comments on Item Number M under the

Consent Calendar, as well as Item Number 8. So, I'm requesting five minutes because I’m speaking on behalf of an organization for Item Number M and just the

regular time for Item number eight if that is acceptable. Ms. Wood speaks:

Chairman? Chairman Engels speaks:

Was that in reference to Item N, as in November?

Ms. Yanish speaks: M as in May. The APRA funding.

Patrick Cates, County Manager, speaks: Item M is the quarterly jail status report. Item I?


May 20, 2021

Ms. Yanish speaks:

Oh, I’m sorry. Is it appropriate to speak to the ARPA funding? Mr. Cates speaks:

Item I? Ms. Yanish speaks:

Yes, I’m sorry. My apology.

Mr. Cates speaks: Yeah, that’s Item I.

Ms. Yanish speaks: So, if the Chairman would grant me five minutes, I would like to speak to Item I

on behalf of being a trustee for the Kingsbury General Improvement District, and then speak on Item Number 8, if that's acceptable.

Chairman Engels speaks: Alright, we will accommodate you with five minutes to speak.

Ms. Yanish speaks: Thank you, Chairman. I’m a Kingsbury General Improvement District trustee, I'm

also the Chair. Thank you for taking the time to hear my comments. I am speaking on the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and this is on your Consent Calendar for acceptance of approximately, I think, it's just a little under $9.5

million. So, the ARPA I will refer to the American Rescue Plan Act as ARPA for consideration of time, is $350 billion to state, local and governments for infrastructure, as well as economic transformation, stabilization and public

health. So, the reason I’m speaking today is because I am hoping that there would be a consideration of funds that would go to our general improvement districts

within Douglas County. To give you a little bit of information, Kingsbury General Improvement District provides water and sewer services, as well as road and snow removal services to approximately, I believe, we have 2,850-ish connections as far

as water. Then we have about 6,000 residents that we serve up at the Lake. So, we administer utilities on a local level and we were created under the Nevada Revised

Statutes 318 to provide services for the consolidation of old private water purveyors. And at that time Douglas County chose not to provide those services to residents, so that was the reason for the creation of GIDs. So, we pump water

from approximately 6,229 feet at the Lake level up to 7,980 feet up on the top of the hill and those are all water services. So, we have six pump stations, seven water storage tanks and we also had to comply with LT2 federal safety standards,

so we built a water treatment plant recently in order to be in compliance with the enhanced surface water treatment rule. And we also provide sewer service as well,

and that is through the Douglas County Lake Tahoe Sewer Authority, but we do own the sewer infrastructure. And then the Douglas County Lake Tahoe Sewer Authority does the treatment for our district. In addition, KGID maintains 22

miles of Douglas County roads, including major road replacement. We also do sealing, storm water treatment, signs and we account for a substantial amount of


May 20, 2021

the TMDL credits for Douglas County when you're assessing to meet the TRPA

erosion control requirements, and that's the Tahoe Maximum Daily Load. That's the sediment load that goes into the lake. We have sweepers that go out and maintain a lot of those roads. I would just ask for consideration of funding from

Douglas County because the local GIDs when the APRA was created, we're not considered as far as funding concerns that we have. So, it would have to be a pass through from Douglas County and we would hope to get some of those funds

because, as a local government entity and provider of vital services, we definitely fit the bill as far as the intention of the ARPA funding goes. So, in conclusion, I

would hope that Douglas County would work with us on maybe seeing if there's some way that we could collaborate on getting some of those funds to maintain our services. We, right now, have done a great job of maintaining our

infrastructure as far as the rehabilitation of roads, the water lines and then also the new water treatment facility, but right now, one of our concerns is maintaining

our sewer lines that we operate because they're quite old and they do need some help as far as infrastructure goes. So, I thank you for your consideration, and we hope that we can collaborate with you in the future on possibly some pass-

through funding for us. Ms. Wood speaks:

Thank you, Natalie.

Ms. Yanish speaks: Yes, and am I allowed to also speak on Item Number 8 or do I need to chime back in later?

Ms. Wood speaks: That was the four minutes and 30 seconds, so you still have 30 seconds left in the

approved five minutes if you'd like to use that.

Ms. Yanish speaks: Oh sure. I’m taking off my KGID trustee hat now and I’m putting on my Contractors Association of Truckee Tahoe hat. I am the South Lake Tahoe Local

Government Affairs Manager. You will have seen my comments that we submitted and a letter regarding the VHR first reading of the new ordinance that is being

proposed. Hopefully, we can collaborate with you in the future on the VHR ordinance because we're quite concerned how this will affect jobs and local businesses here in Douglas County. Thank you.

Ms. Wood speaks: Natalie, we missed the last like five to ten seconds, the last sentence that you said,

if you want to repeat it.

Ms. Yanish speaks: Oh, I said that the Contractors Association hopes to collaborate with Douglas County on the ordinance as possible, because we are concerned about the impacts

to local jobs, the workforce, investment and infrastructure, housing, remodeling of our aging housing stock, as well as impact businesses.


May 20, 2021

Ms. Wood speaks:

Okay, thank you. Ms. Yanish speaks:

Thank you all. Have a wonderful afternoon. Ms. Wood speaks:

Okay, that was the last of Public Comment through Zoom.

Chairman Engels speaks: Seeing no more Public Comment…

Janet Murphy speaks: Am I allowed to talk under the VHRs?

Chairman Engels speaks: You can talk in Public Comment, yes.

Ms. Murphy speaks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Commissioners. I’m here today of

course on VHRs and I’d like to say hello to Mr. Doug Ritchie. I haven't seen you in a while. Anyway, I’ll make this quick because I only have three minutes so I’m

going to try to touch basis on all of the main concerns that other people also have up there. Number one, boy I got a whole long list here, okay, as far as you know, does anybody know about Teddy Roosevelt? When you think of Teddy Roosevelt,

what do you think about? National forests, right? And that's what he did, he created the national forests, he created all the parks for a reason. Not only because they liked to hunt, but also because he wanted to, it was all about

preservation. Does anybody know who Burton Santini is? Burton Santini were our folks, our representatives up in Washington that preserved properties, special

properties up in the Tahoe Township for preservation, to never be built upon. There’s good reason why they all did that, and I would, I’m hoping and I’m pleading with the Commissioners to follow suit and to allow those to be preserved.

But they're not being preserved because with VHRs they're destroying, they’re destructing, they’re degregating, defecating the property and the environment. As

you know, when I spoke up here before, that environment was God given to us and we have to be good stewards in order to take care of it. And if we don't take care of it and we let greed take care of it, then we're no better than the people that

are pushing through the greed trying to get their VHRs through. Okay, I’m trying to get this in three minutes. As far as the voters, the people that vote up there are the people that live there, they reside there, not the vacationers or not the people

that own the vacation rentals. Think about that. They just received, they dredged four tons on the Nevada side, out of that lake. Never heard of. Channel 2 News,

everybody knows about it, everybody heard about it, it's unprecedented. The trash company up there, that I know, the owners are saying it's unprecedented, all the trash. The majority is coming from, guess who, vacation rentals. And as far as the

people saying you're hanging a carrot, well we invested, everybody invests in the stock market, there's many investments. It's a risk that you take. As far as their


May 20, 2021

investment, I guarantee, if you look at what they paid for their property, then, and

what it's worth today, they're benefiting. They're not losing a dime. Show me one good reason why, what is the benefit of VHRs? I wish someone would convince me and show me one good reason because I guarantee if you had them down here in

the Valley, you'd have everybody here, this room would be full. It'd be a totally different situation. And let me tell you, you wouldn't be allowing it. Greed, again, and I’ll say it over and over again, is a sin. As long as we go ahead and support it,

we're no better than them. We survived, there's people that I know that wanted to come here. I have many heavy hitters that are up there and it's not only the

lakefront people, it's every, other people up there also. And they have a deep concern and they're having me come here and speak, but if I need backup, trust me, they'll be here. And just remember, what happened to Cave Rock? One person

sued you. These other people are heavy hitters and they'll come around also. So…

Ms. Wood speaks: Thank you.

Ms. Murphy speaks: Just remember it's God's creation. Don't compromise, don't compromise. I won't compromise God's creation, I won't compromise my community or the Tahoe

Township and I’m hoping, as you as our…

Ms. Wood speaks: And can you state your name for the record.

Ms. Murphy speaks: I’m sure everybody knows it, Janet Murphy. Thank you for your time, gentlemen, thank you.

Chairman Engels speaks:

Ms. Murphy, before you leave today, I’d like to talk to you. Ms. Murphy speaks:

Not a problem, sir.

Chairman Engels speaks: Thank you.

Ms. Murphy speaks: And I’ll be willing to talk to anybody. Walt, Wes, he's my neighbor. Danny, you know me. And Mark, please. You don't even know how much this means to all of

us up there. I’m trying to stop a war up there from coming down here. Thank you, sir.

Chairman Engels speaks: Any other comments, Natalie?


May 20, 2021

Ms. Wood speaks:

Nothing from Zoom, sir. Chairman Engels speaks:

Any more comments from Chambers? Seeing none, we’ll proceed.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MOTION to approve the agenda, as presented; carried,

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Wes Rice, Commissioner

SECONDER: Walt Nowosad, Vice Chairman

AYES: Tarkanian, Gardner, Engels, Nowosad, Rice

APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES For possible action. Discussion to approve the draft minutes of the April 5, 6

and April 7, 2021 special budget meetings, and April 15, 2021, regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners.

MOTION to approve the draft minutes of the April 5, 6 and April 7, 2021 special budget meetings, and April 15, 2021, regular meeting of the Board of County

Commissioners; carried.


MOVER: Mark Gardner, Commissioner

SECONDER: Danny Tarkanian, Commissioner

AYES: Engels, Nowosad, Rice, Tarkanian, Gardner

ADJOURN AS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONVENE AS DOUGLAS COUNTY LIQUOR BOARD

DOUGLAS COUNTY LIQUOR BOARD 1. For possible action. Discussion to approve the On-Site Retail Beer and Wine Only Liquor License for Kevin and Angela Campbell dba Pizza Factory.

Kevin and Angela Campbell have both signed a Waiver of Notice of Hearing. The Pizza Factory is located at 1758 U.S. Highway 395 N., Minden, Nevada.

(Captain Mitchitarian)


May 20, 2021

MOTION to approve the On-Site Retail Beer and Wine Only Liquor License for

Kevin and Angela Campbell dba Pizza Factory, as presented; carried.


MOVER: Wesley A. Rice, Commissioner

SECONDER: Mark Gardner, Commissioner

AYES: Coverley, Engels, Nowosad, Rice, Gardner, Tarkanian

ADJOURN AS DOUGLAS COUNTY LIQUOR BOARD RECONVENE AS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION to approve the Consent Calendar, as presented; carried.




AYES: Gardner, Engels, Nowosad, Rice, Tarkanian

CLERK-TREASURER A. For possible action. Discussion on the Outdoor Festival Permit application submitted by the Carson Valley Days Active 20-30 Club, for the 111th Carson Valley Days Festival, to be held June 9 - 13, 2021, from 7:00 a.m. to

Midnight, daily, throughout Minden and Gardnerville: Carnival and Craft Fair at Lampe Park, with the Parade on Saturday, June 12, 2021, beginning at

Douglas High School, along Highway 395 to Lampe Park in Gardnerville, Nevada. (Amy Burgans) B. For possible action. Discussion on the Outdoor Festival Permit application

submitted by Michael Milthorpe, American Century Championship, for the Edgewood Tahoe Golf Tournament, to be held July 6 - 11, 2021, from 7:00 a.m. to 5 p.m., at the Edgewood Tahoe Resort, 180 Lake Parkway, Stateline,

Nevada. (Amy Burgans) C. For possible action. Discussion on the Third Amendment to the current

contract between the State of Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer for Stateline DMV services offered through the Tahoe General Services Office. The amendment extends the

length of the contract for two years, from July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2023, and revises the scope of services to be provided by Douglas County.

(Amy Burgans)


May 20, 2021

D. For possible action. Discussion to accept the Douglas County

Treasurer/Ex-Officio Tax Receiver's affidavit affirming the required Notice of Delinquency was mailed to each of the 1,224 delinquent parcels for FY2020-21 per NRS 361.5648(3). (Amy Burgans)

E. For possible action. Discussion to accept the cumulative voucher sheets required under NRS 244.210 for checks issued for 04/02/21 Payables, 04/09/21 Payables, 04/09/21 Payroll, 04/16/21 Payables, 04/23/21

Payables, 04/23/21 Payroll, 04/26/21 Payables and 04/30/21 Payables. (Amy Burgans)

COMMUNITY SERVICES F. For possible action. Discussion to approve the Douglas County Parks and Recreation Department's Programs and Facilities Manual, making minor changes, edits and clarifications. (Scott Morgan)

G. For possible action. Discussion to accept a $106,882 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) CARES Act subgrant award from the State of Nevada to

purchase a new food delivery vehicle and fund Social Services employment assistance programs, authorize the County Manager to sign all necessary grant documents, and approve Resolution 2021R-047 which augments the

budgets in the Social Services and Senior Services funds by the grant amount. (Scott Morgan) H. For possible action. Discussion to accept a proposal from Nutrien Ag

Solutions, Inc. to supply weed control chemical products at a per unit price to the Douglas County Weed Control Division within the budgeted amount of

$245,000, and authorize the County Manager to sign a contract with Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. based on the proposal for a one-year term beginning July 1, 2021, with an option to extend for an additional year upon mutual

agreement of the parties. (Scott Morgan)

FINANCE I. Discussion to adopt Resolution 2021R-045 approving the creation of

Douglas County American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Fund and Resolution 2021R-044 augmenting the revenue and expenditure budgets of the ARPA fund in the grant amount of $9,484,824. (Terri Willoughby)

J. For possible action. Discussion to adopt Resolution 2021R-048 augmenting the Library Fund budget by $31,088 from the greater than anticipated ending fund balance at the end of Fiscal Year 2019-20, as

approved by the Library Board on April 27, 2021. (Terri Willoughby and Amy Dodson)

K. For possible action. Discussion to accept the auditor's report on Douglas County's general ledger cash balances through April 29, 2021 per Nevada Revised Statutes 251.030. (Terri Willoughby)

PUBLIC WORKS L. For possible action. Discussion to approve a cooperative agreement with the Nevada Department of Transportation to receive $350,000 in

participation funds for the SR 88 Box Culvert project and authorize the County Manager to sign all documents related to the agreement. (Jon Erb)


May 20, 2021

SHERIFF

M. For possible action. Discussion to accept the Quarterly Jail Status Report for the first quarter of 2021 in accordance with NRS 211.020. (Captain Duffy)

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS PULLED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION - None

DOUGLAS COUNTY PRESENTATIONS

1. For presentation only. Ceremonial presentation of Proclamation 2021P-041 recognizing East Fork Fire Protection District for 40 years of service to

the citizens and visitors of Douglas County. (Chief Tod Carlini)

Chairman Engels read the agenda item into the record. To review the full proclamation please see the Agenda Packet materials.

Chairman Engels speaks: Chief Carlini, this is the most auspicious and heralded occasion. Would you like to

receive the Proclamation for your department? Tod Carlini, East Fork Fire Protection District Chief, speaks:

Yes, I would. Thank you. And I also have with me here today, our Board President, Mr. Jacques Etchegoyhen.

Chairman Engels speaks: Jacques, come on up here. Those of you who don’t know Jacques and you have

trouble spelling his last name… Jacques Etchegoyhen, East Fork Fire Protection District Board President, speaks:

Or my first name.

Chairman Engels speaks: He knows more about this Valley, I think, than anybody. So, it's a real honor to be able to make this presentation to you guys and well, just keep on doing exactly

what you're doing so. Thank you very much for your years of service and dedication to the Valley and to Douglas County in general. Here's your Proclamation. Congratulations.

Applause was heard. Chief Carlini speaks: Thank you.

Mr. Etchegoyhen speaks:

Mr. Chairman, thank you.


May 20, 2021


No masks. Laughter was heard.

RESULT: FOR PRESENTATION ONLY.

2. For presentation only. Ceremonial presentation of Proclamation 2021P-049 designating May 2021 as Nevada Wildfire Awareness Month. (Chief Amy Ray, East Fork Fire Protection District and Jamie Roice-Gomes, Living with

Fire)

Chairman Engels read the agenda item into the record. To review the full proclamation please see the Agenda Packet materials.

Chairman Engels speaks: Explain what you do. And do you want to explain a little bit about the Wildlife Awareness Month?

Amy Ray, East Fork Fire Protection District Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal, speaks:

Yeah, and I’d like to introduce Jamie Roice as well from Living with Fire. Chairman Engels speaks:

Oh, introduce yourself. Jamie Roice-Gomes, Living with Fire Manager, introduced herself. Megan Kay, Outreach Coordinator of Living with Fire, introduced herself.

Chairman Engels speaks: You’re going to have a lot to deal with with the wildlife. They’re going to have a

tough season. The water levels are not looking good. Those poor critters are going to be stressed a lot. Good work you guys. Doug, do you want to present the

Proclamation to Amy? Thank you very much. Jamie Roice-Gomes, Living with Fire Manager, speaks:

Wildfire can threaten Nevada communities and impact homes, property and human life. The key to minimizing wildfire impact in Nevada is proactive communities that take steps to prepare and become fire adapted. In response,

representatives of Nevada's local, state and federal firefighting agencies, wildfire prone communities and University of Nevada Reno Extension have conducted an

annual Wildfire Awareness Campaign since 2006. Wildfire can threaten Nevada and communities at any time, and because of that, our campaign is extended from the month of May to October. So, it's a six-month campaign, instead of a one-

month campaign, as in previous years. So, I'm just going to share a few general tips to help residents to become prepared and become fire adaptive; keep the first


May 20, 2021

five feet from your home free of combustible items like wood mulch, woodpiles,

dried leaves, pine needles, flammable shrubs like sagebrush or juniper. Use noncombustible items like rock, concrete, brick or pavers. Complete a home inventory, prepare an evacuation go bag and prepare for an evacuation for your

household. Connect with your neighbors and encourage community projects to help reduce the wildfire threat. Really, all year long we encourage residents to prepare for wildfire and you can look at livingwithfire.com for more information or

talk to your local fire service representative. Thank you.

Chairman Engels speaks: Thank you.

Applause was heard.


3. For presentation only. Ceremonial presentation of Proclamation 2021P-046 designating May through October 2021 as Lake Tahoe Wildfire

Awareness months. (Todd Stroup, Fire Prevention Captain, Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District and Ann Grant, Skyland Fire Adapted Community

Leader)

Chairman Engels read the agenda item into the record.

To review the full proclamation please see the Agenda Packet materials. Keegan Schafer, Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection Division Chief, speaks:

Actually, I’m speaking on behalf of Tahoe Douglas. Todd couldn't be here today to accept this proclamation so I’ll be stepping in for him. But I’d like Ann to say a few

words for the Lake Tahoe (inaudible comment).

Ann Grant, Skyland Fire Adapted Community Leader, speaks: Good afternoon. In Tahoe, we're doing the same campaign throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin from May through October. One month, we felt with all the new

visitors coming and whatever, some of them not so aware of wildfire, we thought that a campaign through the summer would be good. This will be running throughout the summer, a video that will run through the summer. Living at Lake

Tahoe is special. It means living among endless recreation and living with the peace and serenity created by our shared body of pristine water. However, living at

Lake Tahoe also means living with something else, wildfire. Wildfire knows no season. This year fuels are especially dry. That's why Tahoe Resource Conservation District, University of Nevada Reno Extension, Lake Tahoe Fire

Districts, land management agencies and communities have launched the Lake Tahoe Wildfire Awareness Campaign to encourage and inspire Tahoe residents to prepare for wildfire. Act by creating defensible space, addressing your home's

ember vulnerabilities and working together with your neighbors. Learn more about at livingwithfire.com. So, we would like our residents to be sure they're prepared


May 20, 2021

for evacuation. Have to-go bag or a to-go box or a suitcase or whatever you want

to put a to-go in, so that you're prepared for 72 hours of evacuation, if you have to on your own. And Tahoe Douglas Fire, as usual, is continuing on with all their fuel reduction efforts and also educating our residents. So, I’ll turn it over to

Keegan Schafer. Division Chief Schafer speaks:

Thanks Ann. For about over 20 years now I’ve been a firefighter in and around the sierra front. In 2007, my hometown of Meyers, California burnt and it took 250

homes. Luckily, nobody was hurt during that fire, but really, education and awareness of the locals and the visitors in the fires front is paramount during these critical months. So, on behalf of the Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District

we accept this proclamation. Thank you very much.

Applause was heard.


COUNTY MANAGER

4. For presentation only. Discussion on the Carson River Water Marketing

Study. (Edwin James, Carson Water Subconservancy Watershed, General Manager)

Chairman Engels read the agenda item into the record. Ed James, Carson Water Subconservancy District General Manager, speaks:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Today I wanted to give you an update on this Water Marketing Study. A study that CW received a grant from the

Bureau of Reclamation and we hired Lumos and Associates to help us with this study, to give you, kind of, an overview which leads into some other stuff to that we will get into at the end. A little background on this, several years ago, CWSD

Board had authorized some money to look at potential storage sites in the watershed. For years subconservancy focused, and this was many years ago, on building a dam on the Carson River. That never became economically feasible or

environmentally possible and there was no water for it. So, over the years there’s been a lot of changes and how do we adapt to the actual water resources we have?

But there's also concerns about where do we have some storage? Are there some opportunities? So, as we got this funding, the grant from the Bureau of Reclamation came out with water marketing. We thought this was a good

opportunity to match our funds with those to do a lot more than what we were originally going to do, to actually look at water marketing and other sustainability

projects, to look at where we are in our watershed and also trends. So, this is kind of what led to our whole analysis. It’s called the Water Marking Study because of the grant but it actually incorporated a lot more work than what our goals were.


May 20, 2021

Project strategy, the first one is watershed trends. We will talk about the trends

we've seen. It’s hard to project into the future, especially when it’s a projection but we know what’s happened in the past. This gives us a good indication of what we can expect in the future so we want to look at what trends are now occurring; the

existing water users, what's actually happening today, what are the demands, where the water’s coming from. Kind of looking at where water marketing could happen or, actually, sustainability and other marketing projects. So, it's getting to

the watershed trends. This here is a graph that was put together. The top graph shows the variability in the runoff. This is, actually, flows of the Carson City gauge

and you can see from the years 1940 forward that the river is constantly up and down. There is no average. We have dry years, we have wet years. We have very little storage in the upper watershed. So really, we depend on Mother Nature. We

can have a major flood in January and be in a drought in July. So, it really depends on what Mother Nature gives us. This is one thing we have to deal with

when we start looking at the variability of flows. The table at the bottom, I’m going to focus on the bottom row, this is showing trends that we’re seeing over the period of time from 1940 to 2018. And you’ll see that on the West Fork at the

Woodfords gauge that there has been a steady decrease of about almost eight percent in flows in the West Fork of the Carson. You get to the East Fork, it’s about a four percent reduction. Now, the East Fork is a larger watershed, it’s also

higher in elevation but when compared, when you add the two together we’re seeing just under five percent in impact of less flows. There's very little

development or storage upstream of these gauges. This really kind of indicates what Mother Nature is providing us. So, in the long term, we see that there is a reduction.

The next gauge we looked at is the Carson City gauge. This now looks at what's happening to Carson Valley. This incorporates not only what Mother Nature is

doing, but also, what we as humans are impacting, the diversions and pumping. You can see almost a nine percent reduction that is occurring at the Carson City

gauge. When we move to the Fort Churchill gauge, you can see it's just under four percent. One reason why you’re seeing less impact of the Fort Churchill is there is quite a bit of agriculture in Lyon County that’s gone out and because of a lack or a

reduction in agriculture there’s actually more water showing up than historically occurring. So that's kind of masking the overall impacts we’re seeing for the upper

watershed. This graph here just kind of shows how we’re seeing a change in our flow patterns.

The orange line is from 1940 to 1959 and you can see that during January, February, March it was pretty stable. Then we’d have the spring runoff start hitting. In April and May we’d have our peak and then we’d come down and it was

steady down and gets low during the summer months, but then starts coming back up in October, November, December. If you look at 2000 to 2019 you'll see a

difference in pattern. We’re actually seeing more water coming off in the springtime. The peaks are not as high as they were and then we also have a very dry fall and winter. So again, we’re seeing this shift in runoff patterns on the

Carson. The dotted line here shows you what’s happening on the Truckee River. They do have upstream storage so you can see it’s a much flatter peak and you


May 20, 2021

can actually have more flows going out in the later season. We do not have that.

So again, we have to meet our needs through other methods. This graph here is just showing some changes in climate. This is happening

throughout the entire watershed but we're just now focusing on the Carson City temperature weather station here. What you see from the 1940s forward on the blue line, which is temperature, we are seeing a slight increase in temperature

over this period of time, so, things are getting warmer. We’re getting an indication throughout the entire west that this is occurring, so this trend should not be too

surprising to most people, but we do see it in our own data set. What really caught me off guard was if you look at the precipitation of the Carson gauge, again, it fluctuates up and down. It could be a wet, it could be a dry, but there is a trend

line showing that we're having less precipitation falling in the Carson City area.

So, what are our challenges? We have our water fully allocated, both groundwater and surface water. That means that if you have a new demand coming in, it has to come from an existing source. So that's what we have to look at, how do we utilize

that resource? Now, most of the surface water is used for agriculture. It's either used in the upper watershed or in the new lands project. A couple years ago I had several people come and approach me in Douglas County and say we see all this

water flowing by, we need to build a dam because look at all this water going downstream. Well, in reality that water was already earmarked for Churchill

County. They have a 1909 or 1903 water right, that water is already earmarked to them. So, none of that water was actually available for any use and it had to move forward. So that's something that people have to understand when they move to

this area, even though you might see water in the river today, until Lahontan fills and spills, there is no extra water in the system. So, as we start developing these, and as you start looking at moving maybe demands to a surface water right, you

have to be prepared for those very dry periods and that you may not have the water year-round.

Let's look at the watershed users. This year is focusing on groundwater. There are five major groundwater basins in our watershed. There's the Carson Valley, there's

the Eagle Valley, which is Carson City. The Dayton Valley, which basically goes from Dayton to, well, the Dayton area. We have the Churchill Valley, which is

Silver Springs, and then you have the Carson desert, which is the Churchill County area. You'll see in this, the different colors. Orange is how much is pumped for irrigation. The blue line is for domestic and the green line is

municipal. What's interesting is how much water is actually pumped by domestics. Now, you do not need a water right for a domestic well; however, domestic wells do use water and you need to include it in your calculation. So,

you can look through the area, most of the ag in this area, actually for irrigation, comes from Carson Valley. The other thing you'll see in here are dots. These dots

represent the perennial yield. Perennial yield is a description of how much water naturally recharges an aquifer. And you can see in Carson Valley the perennial yield is above what is actually being pumped. The one thing you should realize,

though, is the perennial yield is really not a good indicator of how much water you have available. If I can walk through these groundwater basins, if you look at the


May 20, 2021

Carson desert, you'll see that the perennial yield is way below what they pump on

an average basis and yet you're not seeing an impact on the groundwater. The main reason for that is because of their agriculture. If they did not have all that agriculture in Churchill County they would not have the water tables they have.

So again, there's an indication there that the perennial yield is not appropriate to be used in Carson desert, Churchill Valley. Now that is outside so actually the perennial yield probably is a better indication of how much water is available. It

would be interesting to note that the biggest, the perennial yield out there is only 1,600-acre feet and the biggest user is domestic wells. So, they have a lot of paper

water out there, but not much wet water. Dayton Valley actually has a high and a low perennial yield. The high one is for more wet years, it was calculated, and then if it's a dryer period, you would get the lower number. So, you have a range there.

Eagle Valley, you look and it seems like they're pumping their full perennial yield; however, they have other recharges occurring. Again, a perennial yield is a natural

recharge, but you have Ash Canyon, Kings Canyon and Marlette systems that actually bring water in and recharge the aquifer so they actually have a system yield that's greater than their perennial yield because of these other sources.

Then we get into the Carson Valley. Now, if you would look at this chart, you would think, oh Carson Valley, there’s not a problem, look at our perennial yield.

The problem is that there are places in the watershed that are not being recharged by the river. So, you have areas in here that are actually seeing water tables

dropping, mostly in the Pinenut areas. So again, you had those impacts. The other thing you have to be aware of is, as you start pumping water and you start pumping it closer to the river, you can start interacting with surface water. And if

you start taking water out of the river at certain times you may be actually impacting a user downstream. So, these are some things you have to be aware of when you start looking at your overall water supply.

The question is how do we look at sustainability? And that's the goal. What kind

of management tools can we look at and opportunities? Now, one thing that is important to understand is that all our waters are administered through the Alpine Decree. A lot of people think the Alpine Decree really restricts what we can

do, in reality there's a lot of flexibility in it. But you have to follow the rules in the Alpine Decree. Just recently in this legislative session there were two water bills

introduced, one was called water banking and the other is for water conservation. Both of these concepts are not new, they have some real potential; however, the way the bills were written they violated the Alpine Decree and we could not

support those bills as written. I'm hoping in the future we can actually develop something like that, because I think water banking and conservation will be an opportunity for this watershed. But there are things you can do with the Alpine

Decree, also working cooperatively. We're looking at municipal water systems.

There is a pipeline between Carson City and Dayton that moves water back and forth. It was put in there, it really helps both communities. It's actually economic driven because sometimes Carson City has some extra water that they can pump

up to Dayton and then Dayton can turn around and pump the water back and it helps alleviate some of their pumping restraints. The one that you're really


May 20, 2021

familiar with is probably the well here, or the regional pipeline that’s in Carson

Valley. Water is pumped from Minden, it provides water to north Carson, or north Douglas County, Indian Hills and Carson City. Now, there's a misconception by some people that this was put in because those areas were running out of water.

The reality of why that pipeline was put in is because of water quality standards. When the water quality and arsenic went from 50 parts per billion to ten parts per billion, basically, everything north of the Minden Airport no longer met the

standard. So, the only way you could utilize those wells, you would have to do treatment on them. We did an analysis and we looked at what it would cost if we

had to treat every one of those wells to get the arsenic down to ten, and what we found is it would cost the community as a whole, four to five times more than a regional pipeline and the operation costs would be significantly more. So that's

what really drove that regional pipeline and it was really a cooperative effort to provide water to the communities in a most economic manner.

Reclaimed water is critical. We get a lot of reclaimed water that's currently being used. Most of it is for agriculture. But that is something that, again, is a resource

that we want to consider as we get into it. Aquifer storage and recovery, this is when you actually have a well where you can pump water into the ground and then later pull and extract it out. This may be something that we want to look at

in the future. Water leasing and water banking are also some tools. Also, water import. Two things that are important on this is that we get water from the

Marlette System in Carson City and Virginia City. That comes from the Truckee River Watershed and also the Truckee Canal. An example, this year the Truckee Canal that takes water out of the Truckee River and brings into Lahontan

Reservoir, this water year from October 1st to May 18th, 74 percent of the water that's in Lahontan came from the Truckee River and only 26 came from the Carson. That's how important that Truckee Canal is to the lower watershed and

basically to the overall water supply in this river system.

We looked at a couple of different concepts, these are just conceptual. The consultant did look at a lot of different ideas. To shorten my presentation, I’m just kind of focusing on some of the ones we looked up in your area, but we did look at

a lot of different areas. Looking at water extractions, water conveyance, storage and banking, and these are just some of the scenarios they came up with. One

was looking at pumping the water, maybe out of the Allerman Canal over into some storage area. This is where I think the wastewater plant used to have a storage pond up there, and possibly looking at utilizing those in the future. One

thing again that's important, you need these projects before it has to have some water supply attached with it. It's not going to be new water, it's going to be an existing water right. In some of the communities, the water purveyors actually

have surface water rights on their books. This may be an opportunity to use these water rights.

The consultant also looked at what if you were to expand Mud Lake. Here's an opportunity, it’s actually the largest reservoir we have in the upper watershed.

However, once you start raising the dam in Mud Lake you have a problem to the east because you would actually start flowing into the irrigation fields there. So,


May 20, 2021

you'd have to actually build a dike over there to bring water over. Again, you

would have to identify water rights on the West Fork to be able to put water in here. And that's one of the things that the consultant is now looking at; is there available water to actually put it in these projects? So, this is just a concept at

this point. There was an idea of could you look at a combination of a stormwater and recharge, and this was looking in the Ruhenstroth area. We know that the water tables are dropping out there, they also have a flooding issue. The

consultant had looked at putting this together, where you tie in if they were to build a flood storage facility to protect the community, then, would you be able to

maybe pump water in and put water to recharge the aquifer? This one, probably, is not cost effective. There's a lot of issues with it, but again, something that the consultant looked at. As we got into more details we realized that the numbers

probably do not work. One other concept that was brought forward, someone asked us to look at the Bing pit maybe coming to its end of usefulness and could

you use that as a storage or maybe like a Sparks Marina. So, here's an idea, there are several issues when you start using a pit like this and there would be some concerns with water quality. Also, could you move water in and out enough to

make it actually a viable recreational area versus a stagnant pond. So, these are questions that we would have to look into in more detail.

Costs, you're looking at about $6 million. The biggest one was raising Lahontan Reservoir. You can see they're not cheap alternatives; however, much cheaper

than building a dam on the major river. If you wanted to build a dam on the Carson River you’re probably looking at two to $400 million. So, these are within the realm but at this point they're probably not going to be pursued, because

there really is not the demand for those. Maybe induction wells, maybe a more interim process, but just to get an idea of what we're talking about in the future.

So where do we go from here? This is really just one step in a larger overall regional plan that we're looking at. We have just recently applied for another grant

with the Bureau of Reclamation to develop a Regional Watershed Management Plan. That management plan would incorporate the work that the study has come up with. It would also take the work that USGS did on their middle and upper

Carson River models. There are some great models that they have developed for another project; however, some of the data inputs they did need to be corrected.

We would correct those working with the USGS. You guys have just authorized the USGS to do an analysis of the groundwater in the Carson Valley. That data would also be incorporated, so we have a good feel for the actual ground water supplies

in Carson Valley. We would then develop all that and have a plan in place of how much water is actually available for now and the next 40 years; where do we see ourselves to make sure that there is a sustainable supply for each of the

communities up and down this watershed. We would develop those, we’d put that plan together, and then we would incorporate this climate change model with the

USGS. Again, I can never tell you what the future is going to give us, but if we have this model tool, what we can see is what do we have today. And if these climate change projections occur, what does that mean to our overall plan? So

again, looking at long term sustainability. This would develop our future demands, we'd also look at those and then look at the groundwater, surface water


May 20, 2021

interaction. This would give us a tool as we move forward to hopefully give you a

plan and your community and the whole watershed our ability to meet a sustainable water supply. So, with that, if there are any questions.

To review Mr. James full presentation please see the Agenda Packet materials. Commissioner Tarkanian speaks:

Mr. Chairman?

Chairman Engels speaks: Yes, go ahead.

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: I had two questions, the first one dealt with the temperature graph that you had

and you said the temperature had gone up, I think it's on page 635 of everything. It looks to me like the temperature for 1950 was a little bit over, 1940 was a little bit over 50 degrees and now, 2020 looks like it's a little bit under 50 degrees. I'm

not sure, am I reading this wrong or where do you get the temperatures increased?

Mr. James speaks: Actually, the line does go above that 50 degrees, so it's going up. It's a slight

trend. You can see the statistics on that too. Commissioner Tarkanian speaks:

Well, I'm looking at the graph and it goes up in 2000 and it looks like between just before 2015, but now in 2020 it's below. Oh no, it's a tad bit above it. I see where you're saying, but it's not any higher than it is in 1940.

Mr. James speaks:

Well, again, what we're looking at is trends because every year is going to give you something different. If you look at the bottom graph, I mean that's our precipitation and you can see it's all over the place. You're going to have a wet

year, you’re going to have cold years. Even in the future, you may have those changes. But the reality is what is the long term trend and that's kind of where

we’re looking at. Commissioner Tarkanian speaks:

I appreciate that and I’m just trying to understand how you read this graph and where you get that trend, because most of the years it's underneath that line. My second question is and I’ve heard this a lot. I’m new in the Valley so I’m trying to

understand the water and how very important it is to everybody. And the people in the Pinenuts and other areas, they are having a hard time finding the water

because it's getting lower and lower out there. But at the same time, according to your graph on 638, it looks like there's another 18,000, whatever number you're using, 18,000 extra amount of water going in to the Carson Valley. Now some of it

being less than certain areas, where's all the additional water that's being brought into the Valley? What's happening to that? Is it staying in an aquifer or is it being


May 20, 2021

released down in a river? I understand there’s certain areas where there’s

shortages, but where's the excess going? Mr. James speaks:

Again, it's a dynamic system. Especially because the same as what you have in Churchill County because of your agriculture, that is spreading water in the valley itself and recharging it. So, if you look at water levels in the Valley, they have not

changed much at all. They go up or down, but they are very much maintained, and so there is not really any kind, that's where most municipals have their wells

too. So, they actually have a pretty good water supply today and they're pumping. But when you get into the Pinenuts they're not being recharged by the river, they're being recharged by the Pinenuts themselves and that's where you're seeing

those water levels dropping.

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: I understand that. I was talking about the other areas where there was a surplus but that's okay; I think you answered it for me.

Mr. James speaks: There is no surplus because if that water is not being used that goes down to the

river and actually will flow back in because when you look into the Carson Valley, when it enters the Carson Valley it's losing reach. There's actually water going into

there, but when you get into the north part it’s actually gaining reach. So, all that water will flow, even in the ground will flow to the north and come up and actually add into the Carson River flows, which then is used by people downstream.

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: Thank you.


Ed, could you explain sublimation. Mr. James speaks:

Oh sure. That was my master thesis. So, sublimation is the actual evaporation where water goes from a liquid to a gas. Sublimation is basically taking a frozen

solid to a vapor. And so, what happens is when you have a lot of wind or exposure, you can actually have very high sublimation. And in the mountain areas you can actually see quite a bit of loss where it's actually below freezing so it's not

melting, but the water will actually go from an ice to a vapor. It actually goes right into that transaction. And so, we see sublimation can be an impact especially with high winds in the upper watershed.


So, from a layman's point of view, we have a snowpack up in the Sierra and if we have a lot of sublimation the snow doesn't get into the Carson River; it evaporates up in the mountains because of the wind.


May 20, 2021

Mr. James speaks:

Well, that's correct, I mean when you say we have snow, this year we don't have much snow up there. But that's why there's a lot of things you have to look at. I think sometimes we're now more understanding the science of runoff. Wind can

be a huge deal. When I did my thesis, it was looking at the Boulder Watershed because that was a main source of water in the Boulder, Colorado area. And they kept trying to calculate their water supply, and it was never coming in correctly.

This is when we did an analysis and realizing that if you take in the wind, we saw sublimation. If we had a very windy winter we could actually see less snow than

we would project and we were able to calculate this into it because of the sublimation loss which became significant which most people didn't think originally. This year, what's really interesting is how dry the ground was. We had

very little precipitation in October and when the snow came in it actually came and froze over and it didn't actually perk into the ground until now. And so, our

run off that we've seen is actually much lower than what everyone predicted. In fact, in California, I was just hearing an article where they were predicting in the San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento Watersheds how much water was coming

down and now they're looking at losing about a half a million-acre feet of water, because the ground was so dry that that water never came down. So, it's something that we have to look into and we're starting to do more of this. But

predicting the runoff is always tricky because we never know what's going on. But there's a lot of factors that can also impact how much water actually comes down.

Chairman Engels speaks: So, this phenomenon could affect any of the areas in the Carson Valley in regard

to replenishing the aquifers? Mr. James speaks:

Replenishment, again, depending on where you're coming from, probably the biggest replenishment in the Carson Valley itself is probably from your agriculture

and your river. It's a great way of distributing water. That's one reason why we promote don't build on the floodplains because keeping your floodplains open is also your water supply in wet years. When you get into the Pinenuts, or maybe

even into the mountain range here, you’re dependent more on the precipitation that occurs that year. And so, you have to be looking at those recharges. The

problem is, is you just do not get much precipitation that goes across the Valley into the Pinenuts, and that is why you're seeing those impacts over there.

Chairman Engels speaks: Thank you. Any more questions from the Board.

Commissioner Gardner speaks: Mr. Chair?

Chairman Engels speaks: Commissioner Gardner.


May 20, 2021

Commissioner Gardner speaks:

Mr. James, thank you for this presentation. It is very informative. I had a couple questions, I know that our State Legislature has been looking at a number of water laws and bills. I don't know exactly where they are, but you indicated that

sometimes they conflict with the Alpine Decree. Did I hear that right? Mr. James speaks:

What was being proposed, two water bills were introduced by the State Engineer. Both of them have died or changed significantly. But our original review of them,

yes, the way they were written originally, they would have violated the Alpine Decree.

Commissioner Gardner speaks: So, my question is, which takes precedence, state law or the Alpine Decree?

Mr. James speaks: Well, in that situation, the Alpine Decree would dictate how the water was there.

So those programs, if they were passed, could have to be used in other parts of the state. But they would never actually work in the Carson. And it turns out, when I brought that issue up they realized that it wouldn’t work on the Truckee or the

Walker or the Humboldt. So, I think that's one reason why they're going back to the starting gates. I think it's a good program concept; it just needs to be rewritten

and worked a little closer to actually benefit the communities. Commissioner Gardner speaks:

So, I suppose it's a good idea we have you where you are and can point those problems out with those State Legislators who look in a very narrow picture and don't realize that. I’m very interested in this picture here that shows the

conceptual alternative number six, the new reservoir. It's my understanding that the Bing quarry in the Ranchos is almost at its usable life as a quarry. And, I

believe, at one point in time, with our Special Use Permit with the County and the Bing property owners or the Bing leasees that that was originally expected to be some sort of a recreational pond area. But when I looked down further in your

opinion of probable costs, there's no indication there of what turning that into a possible reservoir, a new pond is. Have you done any studies on what the cost is

and would be to do that process? Mr. James speaks:

This study was done, again, by Lumos. But if you look under new reservoir storage, the bottom one, they’re showing about $18 million. Mostly it's because of all the pipes. You have to run water, if you're going to get water in there you're

going to pump it from the river structures and bring it up into the system. So, it becomes expensive. Those are estimates. We've asked a consultant to come back

and give us a little more detail on some of these projects. They haven't quite finished everything, but, those are some of the final questions we asked in the report.


May 20, 2021


Okay, I didn't realize that was considered the new reservoir storage. So, $18 million, obviously, out of our financial range as well. Thank you. I’m sorry, I did have one additional question. You indicated if that option was somehow to become

feasible, there's still a question of possible quality issues with that water. Did that $18 million also include the mitigation issues of making sure that that water was safe?

Mr. James speaks:

The answer for that one, I’d have to talk to the consultant. I’ll get back to them. I’m not sure quite how they came up with these numbers. I haven't had a chance to sit down and actually figure it out. These were more conceptual ideas and they

were throwing numbers, so these were very rough costs. I would not bank on anything there; I just gave you a range of costs there.

Commissioner Gardner speaks: Well, I guess, my concern is, I understand that Bing has some performance bond

or a mitigation bond or a restoration bond or something of that nature to the tune of somewhere in the neighborhood of $700,000, which is far short of us being able to mitigate that site and what we're going to do with it later on after it uses…and I

think we're almost within a year of that happening. Okay, thank you.

Chairman Engels speaks: Any further questions or comments from the Board? Mr. James, we appreciate your presentation very much. It’s very enlightening and we're going to be all

affected by this.


5. For presentation only. Discussion on condition of the Carson River, impacts from drought and on the water table in the Carson Valley and a

presentation on the "Water Connects Us All" campaign. (Ed James, Carson Water Subconservancy General Manager and Brenda Hunt Watershed

Program Manager)


Brenda Hunt, Watershed Program Manager, speaks: Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm the Watershed Program Manager with the Carson Water Subconservancy District. Ed is my boss actually. I am going to

talk about, I have the pleasure of sharing with you our latest public service announcement called “Water Connects Us All.” Before I share it, I want to give you

a little background on why we're doing these PSAs and how they came about. We have started with a watershed literacy program and it's been years in the making. It started with our CRC education working group. The CRC is the Carson River

Coalition, it's a large stakeholder group that you are a part of.


May 20, 2021

The group sat down and we really were looking at how do we start to measure our

outreach efforts. So, we started thinking about that and we came up with a Watershed Literacy Action Plan, which called for a survey of the watershed to be conducted. We surveyed the residents of the Carson River Watershed in June of

2015. It was a telephone, landline and cell phone survey. We asked residents about their general knowledge and attitudes toward things like watershed health, knowledge of basic watershed concepts, and participation and activities or

behaviors that may impact the watersheds and the watershed in its environment. So, some of the key things we learned are that, when we asked whether a resident

currently lives in a watershed, 62 percent of our population didn't know or didn't think they lived in a watershed. When we asked where the water ultimately drains from their property, only nine percent of them could actually name the Carson

River, so the rest of them didn't know where their water ran off to, they didn't know about the Carson River. The survey indicated that once people were

informed about what a watershed is, 75 percent of our residents gave them an eight or above and the rating was zero to ten. So, we got 75 percent of people to show that they really cared, they do care. Once they know about it, they care

about it. So, when we asked how much they affect the health of the Carson River Watershed environment, 70 percent of our population said they either didn't think they affected the health of the watershed at all, or they only affect it a little bit.

And this indicates, I guess, to us, the disconnect because the cause of pollution is basically polluted runoff or non-point source pollution in our watershed. The

Carson River is on a 303-D list of impaired waters under the Clean Water Act and the main issue is non-point source pollution or polluted runoff. So, it means you and me, basically, we are the cause, and so this was an interesting statistic

because it showed the disconnect. We used the survey to really come up with in-craft messaging for our population.

And we really focused on, our key overarching messages were connecting the resident’s health and quality of life to the health of their watershed. And the three

main messages, there were a lot of messages that came out of this, the process, the survey and working with our Carson River education working group, but the main ones that we focused on were protecting the floodplain from future

development, reducing runoff from property to show that that can improve water quality in the watershed, and that the Carson River Watershed is the source of our

drinking water. We have put together the watershed campaign. We've started with the “I am Carson River Watershed” campaign. We have a bunch of stickers and Ed is going to hand them out, and I have enough, I think, for everybody in the room.

We'd love for this to become like our Keep Tahoe Blue campaign. It's the “I am Carson River Watershed.” On the back of the stickers it indicates things that residents can do, simple actions residents can take to help the quality of our

waters throughout the watershed.

We've also done our first film, which is available on iamcarsonriver.org, which is a walk through the watershed. Vanessa Vancour, who is a former news person out of Reno, she walks us through the whole watershed and it shows us the

landscape. The second film, and you may have seen the watershed signs around the Carson River Watershed where it says you're entering the Carson River


May 20, 2021

Watershed or you're entering the Walker River or the Truckee. Our organization

partnered with NDOT and with NDEP to have those signs put up. So, that's part of this whole idea of getting people to kind of have watershed in their daily lives, basically, knowledge of that. So, this second film, we're calling it “Water Connects

Us All,” and it has about 40 members of our public. So, the first one is all about the landscape, this one is about our community and who lives in our community. There's 40 community members recommending to their neighbors that they just

need to take a couple of simple actions to help and maintain the quality of our drinking water. With that, I want to show you the film and then we can talk about

it, on the other side. The “Water Connects Us All” video was played.

Ms. Hunt speaks:

We would really, really appreciate people sharing it as much as you can. Like I said, you can just go to iamcarsonriver.org. Both films will play, one after the other. The new one first and the older one which came out in November of 2019

just before COVID. So, with that, I think I’m done. Thank you. To review Ms. Hunt’s full video please visit iamcarsonriver.org. Chairman Engels speaks:

Thank you. Brenda. Are there any questions or comments from the Board? Brenda, thank you very much for the presentation. It was well done. And Mr. James, thank you so much for coming here and sharing this information for us.

To the audience, I think we all have a better understanding of just how difficult and dynamic the situation is with our water. You folks in the audience now have a better understanding of just how essential and difficult and dynamic all of this is.

Because all of the plans and all of the things that we've talked about, if you don't have water, it doesn't matter. This next season do your rain dance, because if the

same thing happens next season we're going to be in some trouble. We're already seeing some things happen, but we'll get into that later. Commissioner Gardner?

Commissioner Gardner speaks: Yeah, I just had a quick comment, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Ed, and also

Brenda for bringing this forward. As a member of the Carson Water Subconservancy District I got to witness this a couple months ago, during one of our meetings. And I appreciated it at that time, and it was very enlightening. I was

very pleased when the Chair chose to put this on the agenda and bring it forward so our public could get a view of this, as well. And I’m also encouraging our PIO to bring this forward to our County website also so that members of our public can

witness this as well. So, good campaign, and I want to appreciate that. And, once again, thank you, Mr. Chair, for bringing this forward.

Chairman Engels speaks: You're welcome. Thank you, folks.


May 20, 2021


6. For possible action. Discussion to adopt Resolution 2021R-050 declaring drought conditions in Douglas County and encouraging conservation actions. (Chairman Engels)


Chairman Engels speaks: We have a resolution that's been drafted and I’m not going to go into all of this because it's a lot of where is and stuff. Five years ago, I went to a water summit

up at Carson. The State Engineer, geologists, hydrologists, meteorologists and one of the things that they were talking about in regard to our climate is coming true

and we're seeing this with the runoff in the Carson. So, this resolution is asking for a voluntary reduction in water usage by all of us in the neighborhood of ten percent. Now there's a lot more going on than just that. We have another thing

that is impacting the Carson Valley, we had a USGS study just recently presented in regard to nitrate buildup in the Valley. Well nitrate buildup is caused by improper maintenance of septic tanks. So not only the lack of water, the lack of

water is impacting these nitrate plumes that are moving in the Carson Valley and they aren't getting washed or scrubbed because of the lack of water. This is true

up in Indian Hills and some other places, and the important thing is that everybody who's on a septic get the septic tank pumped every four to five years. Some people just don't do it for whatever reason. We're all in this together. It is a

serious problem. California is looking at some drought years right now that are the worst in history. I’ve had people contact me from Placerville, ranchers over there, looking for pasture land to bring their cows over here because they're

already in a dire situation. They don't have water and they don't have feed. So, what we're looking at here is, yeah, there may be areas that have an aquifer that

seems to have plenty of water, but then there's aquifers all around the Valley on the periphery that are having trouble.

The USGS reported that the average well depth in the Carson Valley is 260 feet. Now that's very deep and a lot deeper than it had ever been historically. So, how

does this happen? Well this happens because the replenishment rate is not keeping up with the demand on the aquifers. Down here in the Carson Valley we're all on an aquifer. And we know that Minden has a very ample aquifer, but

what is replenishing that aquifer when we don't have any weather and precipitation? Well, the only thing that could be replenishing it is the aquifers and the permeable rock and the moisture in the permeable rock underneath us that

has been tugged on by gravity and replenishing or going down into the Minden aquifer. This has been confirmed by geologists and members of the USGS; it's not

me making it up. We're having a study done by the USGS; it will probably be a year or two before it's done, specifically in regard to the Carson Valley and the water situation here. But all we have to do is look around and we just know that

we're not getting the precipitation we need. We need to have the weather change, but the weather patterns nationwide in the southwest do not seem to be very


May 20, 2021

favorable. So, this is a very important consideration and we need to be very

cognizant of the fact of what's going on. Today you folks have a better handle of just what we're up against because I hear

plans, and I want to do this and I’m going to do that and I always ask what about water. And yeah, we could build a dam; yeah, we could fill it up, something, we could do that, but we've got to have the water to do it. And if we have another

season next year like we're having right now it's going to be interesting because we already know that there are certain places where the aquifers are over

appropriated. The Gardnerville Ranchos, their GID services 4,200 homes, roughly. And of the nine wells, they only have three and a half that are operational. The other ones have, they just haven't had adequate replenishment. And out in the

Pinenuts, you know, we talked to people about this and we've talked to people out there, they were pulling water years ago at about 10 feet. Well they're down 100,

200 feet now. The other problem with going down deeper is there seems to be a higher concentration of arsenic in the water. So, there's all these dynamics going on that make it a very difficult consideration because if you fix one thing it causes

another thing. And this is what Mr. James was talking about in some of these areas here in the Valley.

So, there's two things that we have to remember; we need more precipitation, our aquifers are being over appropriated, and nitrate build up. I think this is the first

study that the USGS has ever done on nitrates in any area. I asked Dr. Ramon Vera (unconfirmed spelling), who was presenting it, what about the other areas like Lyon County and Elko and places like that. He said, well, we don't know yet

because we haven't done studies out there. These studies are relatively new, and these are the things that we're facing. So, all of this is something that you can

pass on to your neighbors and discuss it because it's vital. Anyway, this is an item the Board is going to need to vote on, this resolution. So, we'll open it up for any discussion among the Board Members. Vice Chairman Nowosad?

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: Yes, just a little note of importance, I'm a graduate of the Navy Survival School,

and there I learned you can go for two weeks without food; you can go three days without water. So, it's part of who we are so we've got to do something to prevent

overdrawing our aquifer and there's little that we can do to promote the weather except hope for the best.

Chairman Engels speaks: Well that's true and it's going to affect everything here. If you want water, you’ve

got to go to Idaho. They've got a lot of rivers and lakes up there and we don't have that here. You can look at what's going on in Las Vegas with Lake Mead and the Colorado River. Developers keep wanting to build out there but they’re running

out of water. I don't know what part of insanity I don't understand. But they keep doing it. So, you know, the more you research it, the more you look at it, the more you dig into it and I’ll tell you I’ve been doing a lot of it. I’ve learned more than I

ever thought I would about all on this water and aquifers and how an aquifer works and how a well works and all of the dynamics involved. We want to preserve


May 20, 2021

our area as best we can. It's the best county in Nevada and we're all here for the

same reason. So, this is for possible action. Would somebody care to bring a motion forward?

Commissioner Gardner speaks: So, Mr. Chairman?

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adopt Resolution 2021R-050 declaring drought

conditions exist in Douglas County and encouraging conservation actions. Commissioner Tarkanian speaks:

I’ll second it.

Chairman Engels speaks: We have a motion by a Vice Chairman Nowosad, a second by Commissioner Tarkanian. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The motion is

carried 5-0. Thank you. Commissioner Gardner speaks:

Mr. Chair?


Commissioner Gardner speaks: Just prior to taking the vote I just wanted to make a comment so I’ll get that into the record now if you don't mind. We talked about the nitrate issue and you talked

about the deeper that we're going into the aquifer and the private wells. And, of course, that brings up the concerns of water quality in my mind to a much greater

extent. It's my understanding that while you start picking up nitrates at the higher levels of the aquifer, when you go deeper into the aquifer, you start picking up greater heavy metals and the arsenic level continues to go up. So, certainly, the

safety of our water and the quality of our water cannot be overlooked in this process as well. That's critical to us as well. So, I just wanted to make that point,

thank you. Chairman Engels speaks:

Thank you. I just thought of one other thing that they presented with the USGS study, and this was very, I don't know, shocking or like disappointing. They're getting high concentrations of caffeine in the nitrate plumes and in the Carson

River. And I would have thought that caffeine would metabolize in nature, but apparently it doesn't. Even the USGS was stunned by this finding. I don't know

what it means, but it's an interesting phenomenon that concentrations of caffeine are showing up in these different areas. Thank you.


May 20, 2021

Patrick Cates, County Manager, speaks:

Mr. Chairman? If I could just add a comment, for your information and for the public. The Douglas County Water Utility does have a water conservation plan and this month they sent out with their annual bills or their monthly bills a call for

voluntary conservation and to limit watering of landscapes and to use even and odd addresses to limit watering days. So, Douglas County Water Utility is on board with this. Thank you, sir.


Yeah there's a lot of ways we can do this. Even when you take a shower in the morning, if you take a five, six, eight-minute shower, just cut back one minute. That will save a lot of water and in aggregate, it'll help. But, the bottom line is

we've got to get some big storms in here. Alright, we have to move on.

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: Mr. Chair, just an anecdote, being a veteran of the Navy on board ships always practicing conservation because our ability to desalinate water and make it usable

for drinking is limited. But the Navy has an idea for that; go in, turn the shower on, get under there, turn the shower off, soap down, get done with that, turn the shower on and rinse off and get out of the shower. That's an extreme measure, but

do you want to try living three days without water?

Chairman Engels speaks: Gee, you had showers onboard ship? We didn't even take showers in Vietnam; it just rained.


MOVER: Walt Nowosad, Vice Chairman


AYES: Rice, Engels, Nowosad, Gardner, Tarkanian

ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENT

7. For possible action. Discussion to appoint a Douglas County

representative to the Nevada Local Justice Reinvestment Coordinating Council (NLJRCC) for a 2-year term effective August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2023 in accordance with NRS 176.014. (Patrick Cates)

Chairman Engels read the agenda item into the record. Patrick Cates, County Manager, speaks:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a new advisory council, a coordinating council. It's under the auspices of the Nevada Department of Sentencing Policy, which is a

brand-new State Department that was created last legislative session. It requires


May 20, 2021

each County Commission to appoint a member to represent them. Per their letter,

which is included in your packet, it was important that we appointed somebody, rather, the Commission appointed somebody that was a stakeholder in this issue. So, we did not go out and solicit the general public to apply for this. Instead, we

took nominations from the DA’s Office and the courts, and we have one qualified nominee, who is Eric Levin, who is the Senior Deputy District Attorney for the criminal side of the house under Mr. Jackson. I believe he's here in the audience.

However you'd like to proceed, sir.

Chairman Engels speaks: Mr. Ritchie, I would like you to start with you on the procedure we should follow.

Doug Ritchie, Chief Civil Deputy District Attorney, speaks: Thank you, Chairman. That’s actually for the next item, but for this item there's

one candidate. You can open it up for any questions the Board may have or open it up for a motion.

Chairman Engels speaks: Do I hear a motion from the Board?

Commissioner Rice speaks: Mr. Chairman, before the motion, I would like to say that having worked in the

courts up at the Lake for as many years as I did and as many times as I had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Levin in court, I’m very comfortable appointing him to this position. And I want to thank him for being willing to do so. Mr. Chairman, I move

that we appoint Eric Levin, Deputy District Attorney to be our representative to the Nevada Local Justice Reinvestment Coordinating Council for a two-year term effective August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2023 in accordance with NRS 176.014.


Mr. Chair, I’ll second that. Chairman Engels speaks:

We have a motion by Commissioner Rice, a second by Commissioner Gardner. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The motion carries 5-0. Thank

you. Thank you, Eric. I haven't seen you in a while.

Eric Levin, Deputy District Attorney, speaks:

Well you got to see me today and I got to see you as well. Good to see you. Chairman Engels speaks:

Would you like to make a comment?

Mr. Levin speaks: I could say thank you. It's a new Commission, I can't give you a lot of information about its history. But I look forward to working with the Council and making

recommendations should the State decide, as they're able to do, to allocate funds for county or regional projects. There are certainly some needs in this region with


May 20, 2021

respect to various forms of treatment, particularly mental health treatment.

Transitional living skills for people that have had problems in the past and are trying to overcome them. Certainly, if we can get people working and being productive in society it's preferable to the criminal justice system. That's what I’ll

be trying to do. Chairman Engels speaks:

Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. I appreciate you stepping up or did Mr. Ritchie volunteer you? I don't know how it happened.

MOTION to appoint Eric Levin, Deputy District Attorney, to serve as Douglas County's representative on the Nevada Local Justice Reinvestment Coordinating

Council for a two-year term effective August 1, 2021 through July 31, 2023 in accordance with NRS 176.014; carried.



SECONDER: Mark Gardner, Commissioner

AYES: Rice, Engels, Nowosad, Gardner, Tarkanian

Commissioner Gardner speaks: Mr. Chair? Would it be appropriate to maybe take a ten or 15 minute break at this

point in time to use the facilities, get a cup of coffee, maybe? Chairman Engels speaks:

It is now 3:00 PM. We will reconvene at 3:15 PM.

Commissioner Gardner speaks: Thank you, sir.

A break was held. Chairman Engel speaks: Okay, it’s 3:15; we’ll reconvene.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

8. For presentation only. Introduction of Ordinance 2021-1582, an ordinance repealing the existing text of Chapter 20.622 of the Douglas County Code related to Vacation Home Rentals within the Tahoe Township and adopting

new text. First Reading. (Jenifer Davidson)



May 20, 2021

Jenifer Davidson, Assistant County Manager, speaks:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I apologize that I’m not there with you this afternoon, but I’ll keep this very brief. I do not have a formal presentation for you today because we will be having formal Board action and a

public hearing of this agenda item scheduled for our June 3rd meeting in which I will go over in detail the history that got us to this point and the proposed amendment to our regulations regarding vacation home rentals. This is intended

for introduction only at this time, no action. I am available, however, to answer any questions that the Commission may have.

Chairman Engels speaks: Ms. Davidson, are you prepared for any questions?

Ms. Davidson: speaks:

Yes, sir. Chairman Engels speaks:

Anybody from the Board have any questions? This is for presentation only. Commissioner Tarkanian speaks:

Mr. Chairman, I think we're all questioned out after five of these sessions.

Chairman Engels speaks: Ms. Davidson, thank you and we appreciate all the work you've done. It's been a monumental task for everybody. So, if nothing further, we will move on. You’re

excused, Ms. Davidson. Ms. Davidson speaks:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll see you all on June 3rd.

Chairman Engels speaks: Okay, thank you.


9. For possible action. Discussion on the reconsideration of Land Division

Application DP 20-0322, a Tentative Subdivision Map to create 35 industrial parcels ranging in size from 1.07 acres to 6.2 acres. The project site is located on 78.7 acres at the northwest corner of Heybourne Road and Airport

Road in the LI (Light Industrial) and A-19 (Agriculture – 19 acre minimum) zoning districts and the Airport Community Plan area. The applicant is

Bently Family LTD Partnership. (APNs 1320-07-002-005, 1320-07-002-006, 1320-08-001-011, 1320-08-002-005, 1320-08-002-006). (Lorenzo Mastino)



May 20, 2021


Mr. Ritchie, would you care to discuss some further points? Doug Ritchie, Chief Civil Deputy District Attorney, speaks:

Thank you, Chairman. I’d like to start with some procedural issues. Under the Board's Norms and Procedures, any Commissioner may request an item be placed on the agenda. That's in Section IX A. of the Norms and Procedures, and the

Chairman has the discretion to place an item on the agenda. From the May 6th meeting, on May 11th, which is five days later, there was an agenda setting

meeting where the preparations for the upcoming agenda, today's agenda was being discussed. Because this matter has been placed at the request of a Commissioner who voted with the majority the last time this matter was heard on

May 6th, it is appropriate that an initial procedural vote occur. A supermajority must vote in favor of hearing this matter again. The vote is only whether

additional information or clarification to the public and the Members of the Board of County Commissioners should occur. It is not a vote on the underlying application, either in favor or opposed. If the vote is in favor, then a presentation

will occur and additional questions and clarifications will be made to the public and to the Board. Again, at the conclusion of any presentation, the Board will then vote whether to approve or deny Land Division Application DP 20-0322. However,

at this time, procedurally, a vote must be taken where a majority, a supermajority, four votes must vote in favor for the Board to receive information.

Chairman Engels speaks: At this time, I will let Vice Chair Nowosad explain briefly why he requested

additional information or clarification be presented to the Board on this item. Vice Chairman Nowosad, you have the floor.

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My concern was with the eight-foot strip. I had asked if

we had entered into negotiations with the owner of that eight-foot strip and the resulting answer was indefinite. I had no way to know one way or the other if there was a negotiation going on, if they couldn't come to terms, or what the

answer was. So that's the basis for what I used to say no. And my assumption was that the eight-foot strip ran over onto the adjoining parcel that is now proposed

occupied by Earnhardt Drive. I come to find out that the eight-foot strip does not go over into that next parcel. That being said, that was why I thought we would revisit this. But I would still like to hear an answer on your negotiations with the

owner of that eight-foot strip. In the handout that I just received it seemed there was a sentimental facet to this, which seems interesting at best. How anybody could become associated and enamored of an eight-foot strip of land, I have no

idea. But I would like to know if you actually did enter into negotiations with the owner, Mills, I believe it is, and that you could not come to any agreement. I would

like to also know what the offers and exchanges were.


May 20, 2021


Okay, at this point we're going to have to take a vote and we need a two thirds majority? Four of the Commissioners, in regard to continue with this matter. So, do I hear a motion?

Commissioner Rice speaks: Mr. Chairman, I’ll make the motion that we take a vote to continue hearing this

matter.

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: I’ll second.

Chairman Engels speaks: We have a motion by Commissioner Rice, a second by Commissioner Tarkanian.

All those in favor signify by saying aye. Commissioner Gardner speaks:

Mr. Chair, before we go there, can I ask a question? I have a point of information that I need. The vote here, Doug, is strictly to hear more information, not to approve or deny this project. Is that correct?

Mr. Ritchie speaks:

Chairman, if I may? Commissioner Gardner, that is correct. This is a procedural vote whether the rehearing of this will even occur. There will be further information provided. If there’s an affirmative vote of at least four Members, then

there will be a presentation and then there will be a vote on the actual application itself.

Commissioner Engels speaks: Thank you.

Chairman Engels speaks: Okay, we had a motion by Commissioner Rice, a second by Commissioner

Tarkanian. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed?

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: No.

Chairman Engels speaks: The motion carries 4-0, 4-1, excuse me.

Commissioner Gardner speaks: I’m sorry, point of clarification. Mr. Nowosad you brought this and then you voted

no to… Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks:

As is my right.


May 20, 2021


Okay, then, since I voted, I would like to change my vote, though, and just go to no then. And we’ll just dispense with this item, right?

Chairman Engels speaks: So, the vote is three in favor, two against. Go ahead, Doug.

Mr. Ritchie speaks: Thank you, Chairman. Apparently because there's some question about votes and

maybe a change in mind on votes, I would recommend that the Chair call for the vote again or there could be further discussion. But have another call for the vote just for everybody to have a chance to be clear what their vote is.

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks:

Mr. Chairman? Chairman Engels speaks:

Vice Chairman Nowosad. Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks:

Mr. Ritchie, in parliamentary procedure if a vote is cast that is the last word, unless you want to do something else. What else could you do? Because this

seems like oh, by the way, since you have objected to it, he gets to vote again? Commissioner Gardner speaks:

Mr. Ritchie, since I voted in the majority on that one, I can ask for a reconsideration of that vote once again. Is that correct?

Mr. Ritchie speaks: That's correct.

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: Mr. Ritchie, would you need a supermajority of that to have a vote for

reconsideration?

Mr. Ritchie speaks: No, you need a simple majority for the vote for reconsideration. The actual motion itself would require the 4-1 vote.

Commissioner Gardner speaks: So, I move to reconsider the previous vote.

Mr. Ritchie speaks:

Is there a second? Chairman Engels speaks:

Commissioner Gardner has put forth a motion, is there a second? The motion doesn't carry.


May 20, 2021

Mr. Ritchie speaks:

In that case, Chairman, the last vote was three, sorry, excuse me, 4-1 in favor of reconsideration of rehearing. Presentation now.

MOTION to reconsider the Land Division Application DP 20-0322, a Tentative Subdivision Map to create 35 industrial parcels ranging in size from 1.07 acres to 6.2 acres; carried.

RESULT: APPROVED [4-1]



AYES: Gardner, Engels, Rice, Tarkanian

NAYES: Nowosad

Chairman Engels speaks: So now we'll have the presentation on the Bently project.

Lorenzo Mastino, Senior Planner, speaks: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Today I’d like to begin by

introducing some background information on this application and present some additional details on the specific context. The project site for this industrial subdivision is two properties to be divided into 35 lots ranging in size from 1.07

acres to 6.2 acres. Although the land to be subdivided is entirely contained within two contiguous parcels, the project also includes offsite improvements

accommodated on three additional abutting properties zoned Agriculture 19-acre minimum as shown on the offsite dedication, attachment four. These offsite improvements include two access roads that are required for this project. At this

point I would like to note also, that you've been provided with an enlarged map, so you can better see the configuration of the properties, the APNs, and the access

points. One is also available to the public in the back, and we can make copies if needed. If this item is approved today after reconsideration, within four years the applicant shall file a Final Subdivision Map for Community Development to review

and approve. After recognition of the map, one or more parties will need to receive approval of Major Design Reviews for each proposed structure in order to be developed on the individual lots.

To recap the recommendations and decisions, on April 5, 2021 the Water

Conveyance Advisory Committee recommended approval of this project. On April 13, 2021 the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project by a vote of 5-1 with one Member absent. Member Casey cast a nay vote for inability to meet

Finding Number 3. On May 6, 2021 this Board, the Board of County Commissioners denied the project by a vote of 3-2 based in part on the inability to meet Finding Number 3 and out of public safety and health concerns. Finding

Number 3 is the Tentative Subdivision Map conforms to Public Facilities and improvement standards contained in the development code.


May 20, 2021

At this point I want to show this vicinity map so you can see the project site and

you should be familiar with it. It’s at Heybourne Road and Airport Road on the northwest corner. You can see, highlighted in red, are the two properties that are proposed to have 35 individual lots instead of two and then the access points we’ll

see now with the next slide where they would be located. Actually, that's one slide after. But this is a zoomed in version where you can actually see that strip of land which is not owned by the applicant and, as such, it was not included in the

proposal as access point. On this slide you can see the configuration of the proposed subdivision…

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: Excuse me, can you go back to the last slide. I’m trying to find it on my computer

and I couldn't see it. There you go, I couldn’t see it.

Mr. Mastino speaks: Is it okay if I move on? This is the configuration and now I have highlighted some of the things that I want to point out at this point. That is the required access

point on Earnhardt Road. Now, in the red highlight is the 12 by 2,590 strip of different ownership and you can see how the applicant proposed this configuration with access that would be coming through property that is owned by

the applicant and is one of the two access points that is proposed. That is the name of the owner of the strip. I know there were some questions about spacing

between roadways for this project and the County Engineer and I had a discussion and we're providing here an exhibit showing what the minimum required road spacing is and what is being provided with this application. Based on the

designation of a state road, the minimum road spacing is 660 feet. That is where you can find the Meridian Business Park just across the street on Airport Road. With this application the applicant would propose a 1,175-foot roadway spacing

between the western most access point at the Meridian Business Park across the street and the proposed improved Earnhardt Road.

Those are pictures taken from Google Street View and also an aerial from our GIS database. You can see that's the same point, just one is an aerial and one is a

perspective picture. That is the current condition of Earnhardt Road at Airport Road. The photo that has been taken, that's looking northwards. So, the strip that

we were talking about the last time, it's what you see on the right side of that picture past the tree.

Unidentified speaker speaks: But it’s important to note it doesn’t extend where the road currently is.

Mr. Mastino speaks: But it's important to note that it does not extend where the road currently is.

Those are the findings for a Tentative Subdivision Map approval. They're given by Douglas County Code section 20.708.030 and there are eight findings as described in your packet, pages 733 and 734. Some of the things of note are the

use and density, the conformance to improve standards and an acceptable phasing plan that was proposed by the applicant. Staff believes that the findings


May 20, 2021

have been met and the project has been conditioned appropriately to work

towards the Final Map submittal. You can see all these conditions for all phases on packet pages 734 through 740. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this project and staff concurs. This is the motion. And now I would

open up for questions if you have any and I believe the applicant is present. Thank you,

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: Mr. Chairman?

Chairman Engels speaks: Vice Chairman Nowosad.


Could you put the picture back up please, of the end of the road as it joins Airport?

Mr. Mastino speaks: Yes, sir.

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: When was that taken?

Mr. Mastino speaks: Mr. Vice Chair, I don't know. Probably 2019, that is what is currently on Google

Street View. Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks:

I drove that road after we had the last meeting and there's a ditch that runs the entire length of Airport Road to Heybourne. Why is that not shown here?

Mr. Mastino speaks: Mr. Vice Chair, I believe it's on the other side of the fence. You might be able to

see some of it, it's kind of hard. Maybe from the aerial it’s a little more clear. It looks like it actually belongs on the property owned by the applicant but I will

defer to the applicant for that clarification. Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks:

So then, I’m driving down that road on the left-hand side, I’m heading toward the Airport, on the left-hand side there's a ditch that's very near the road.

Commissioner Gardner speaks: Mr. Chair?

Chairman Engels speaks: Vice Chairman Nowosad has the floor, so standby.


May 20, 2021


Okay, so one of the issues I thought would be an issue would be getting across that ditch as it comes into Airport. Am I missing something?

Mr. Mastino speaks: Mr. Vice Chair, yes, there is a ditch. And the current configuration of Earnhardt Road does take that into account and it crosses that ditch running north and

south. Now, the applicant is proposing to improve that access in a manner that is appropriate for the industrial subdivision and not the current condition of the site.

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: I was not referring to a north, south orientation. I was talking about east, west

along Airport Road. I should have brought my camera with me, I guess, or at least a movie camera so you can see what I was looking at and it didn't look anything

like that. Now it comes to question number two. If you will refer to your large-scale map, if you have it. The heavy outline on our map that's in bold, what does that denote?

Mr. Mastino speaks: Mr. Vice Chair, that is the offsite dedication that the applicant is proposing. And

that means that its dedication is not on the site of the 35-lot subdivision but accommodated on the neighboring parcels that’s still owned by the same applicant

and they're being considered as part of this application. They were notified as part of this application. Documentation was provided about them as part of this application. One thing that I do want to note, and we talked about this at the last

meeting, is that the offsite dedication that is currently labeled as number 2, there is a condition on this project that that actually needs to be included within the two industrial parcels. And the applicant is going to be providing that revised

exhibit at the time of the Final Map submittal. However, back to your question, the notation with the hash and the darker color, that is the offsite dedication that

was provided by the applicant in this exhibit. Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks:

So, that’s the extent of the parcel. That's where the parcel ends?

Mr. Mastino speaks: Mr. Vice Chair, that is…

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: I guess I need the name, give me a definition of what you mean by definition.

Mr. Mastino speaks: Mr. Vice Chair, can you clarify the question, please?

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: Certainly. The heavy bolded line, broken line that seems to run down the middle

of the road called Road 2 and terminates at the southern end at another bold line. What does that bold line denote?


May 20, 2021

Mr. Mastino speaks:

Mr. Vice Chair, thank you. That is the existing parcel line, the property line. In this case, that is the line that divides the two large, almost 40 acres Light Industrial Zoning, parcels that are roughly a square size.

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: Now, if you can, just above that line is a series of x's separated by a very long

dash. What does that indicate?

Mr. Mastino speaks: Mr. Vice Chair, I believe that there’s small confusion given by the fact that you've been provided the actual subdivision map where on this exhibit that I’m

presenting here on this PowerPoint, that is the offsite dedication map. So, we might be looking at two different things, that's why my inability to grasp some of

the questions. Thank you, Mr. Cates. I’m going to be looking at the same thing that you have been.

Mr. Ritchie speaks: Mr. Chairman?

Chairman Engels speaks: Mr. Ritchie.

Mr. Ritchie speaks: Thank you. Just for the record there's a copy of the map that they're looking at for

the members of the public in the back if they'd like to look at it. There are quite a few maps in the packet but there's a hard copy in the back.

Mr. Mastino speaks: Mr. Chair, I believe that that is a fence, an existing fence, that is labeled.

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: You don't know for sure?

Mr. Mastino speaks:

I would defer to the applicant, since they prepared this exhibit, to know if that is the fence. But it looks like it's a fence from the label that is indicated roughly to the right of the north-south line that you indicated before, towards the bottom.

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: Okay, well now, since I drove down that road, and I saw this long ditch, where is it

on this map? The point I'm trying to make is if I drive down that road today and I go across these two parcels there's going to be a ditch somewhere along the line.

Either that or they covered it up overnight. Mr. Mastino speaks:

Yes, that is correct, Mr. Vice Chair. There is a ditch on the site.


May 20, 2021


Now, can you indicate where on this map that ditch is? Mr. Mastino speaks:

Yeah, I believe the applicant is probably a more appropriate person for these questions.

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: I just came across a note over here, it says 44-foot ditch easement per document

numbered blah, blah, blah. So apparently that heavy dashed line I was referring to earlier, is the ditch line. And there's a person in the back raising, giving me a thumbs up on that.

Mr. Mastino speaks:

Mr. Vice Chair, I don't think so. The heavy line is definitely the property line. The ditch easement, I believe that might be some misunderstanding because the ditch easement does not necessarily match the width of the ditch itself as built. It might

be just the easement, the legal easement boundary. But the ditch you might see from the road might be slightly different. But again, I’m not the expert on this site, so if the applicant wants to add anything, I’ll defer to them.


Mr. Chair? Chairman Engels speaks:

Commissioner Gardner. Commissioner Gardner speaks:

Mr. Mastino and Mr. Booth and fellow Commissioners, I took an opportunity to drive this yesterday, as a matter of fact, I had a few minutes and drove this. And I

think what Vice Chairman Nowosad is referring to is there is an irrigation ditch that runs east-west from 395 all the way up to Heybourne Road. It is apparently about a 44-inch irrigation ditch. In addition to that, there is an irrigation ditch

that runs parallel to Earnhardt Road that comes off of Airport Road that extends north as well to a property, a farmhouse of some sort, residence. And then, and I

appreciate what Vice Chairman Nowosad brought forward in regards to pictures because yesterday when I did take pictures out there, those fences do not exist any longer. I think that's probably what you were referring to Vice Chairman

Nowosad in that regard. One of the questions I have here, if you don't mind me stepping in here, Vice Chairman Nowosad, is that, as I look at this map and I look at this map that we've been presented here, this map that we have here is

obviously different from this one up on the board. But here we have the current existing road off of Airport, it is Earnhardt Road going up to the farmhouse and

I’m not sure what the distance is there. I’m sure it's listed here, 1,329 feet it actually looks like. But then on this subdivision map, I don’t know, is what it’s probably called, but anyway, on this map Earnhardt Road comes off and as it

shows it comes off the Airport Road and it takes a jog to the east to come into the development. Then the road that's on the far side of this map in the development


May 20, 2021

is also called Earnhardt Road. Is that right? I’m there. Okay, but the current road

that is a dirt agricultural road coming off of Airport Road is an ag road, farm road going up to the house. And that's currently called Earnhardt Road as well. This map shows, it says here that that road is going to continue to exist. Am I reading

this right?

Mr. Mastino speaks:

Commissioner Gardner, yes. The road is there physically. It is a private road today on private property. And with this application, it would become a dedication to the

County, so a public road for access and it would actually be improved and modified in a way, again, that is suitable for the site development. So, it would be different, but roughly along the same width of where there is a road existing today.


I understand that. Are we going to have two roads called Earnhardt Road? Because that's what it appears to be on this map. And my question is then, coming off the Earnhardt Road and then accessing because the planned

Earnhardt Road here in this… oh you've taken it down. Going back to the other map if you don't mind, that Earnhardt Road that's existing right now, that's a dirt road coming off of Airport, borders that western boundary directly. So how does

one get from taking a left there on Earnhardt Road to go into the development? How does one get from the current landowner up there in the current farmhouse

that's up there, how does one get from that finished road to then the current agricultural dirt road going up to that property house? I don’t understand that.

Sam Booth, Planning Manager, speaks: Mr. Chair, if I can? Commissioner Gardner, I think I understand what you're asking there. So, I’m just going to scroll back to the aerial photo here if I can. So,

on the west side of the site, and just to orient you, the yellow lines on the map there are parcel lines. The black lines indicate the roads today. So, you can see on

the west side of the site there's a black line running north-south off of Airport and it's labeled private, just indicating that it's a private road. But it is not actually named Earnhardt Road today. I believe that's where you're saying how does that

home get access, that's the road that we showed in a photo that exists there today. That goes back to that home. I believe they can also access that from the

east-west road that's on the very north side of the property. They do indicate, and maybe that's where your question is coming from Commissioner, on the subdivision map, they say approximate driveway to remain. Essentially, I think

what would happen here is Earnhardt Road will be created or dedicated to the County, and that is on the bottom left side of the map. That's what we have hashed there. That's the new Earnhardt Road in the same location as the existing

private road today. Where that road turns into the site, where it turns right into the subdivision the existing private road would continue north to that home and

that's what they’re labeling on the map is existing to remain. So, they're not going to remove that road in any way and it is just a private road. But the public road or Earnhardt is only that portion that you see there that's bolded on the bottom left.


May 20, 2021


Question then, that part in the shaded area, is that a concrete road? Sam Taylor, Deputy District Attorney, speaks:

If I may, Mr. Chair? I’d like to insert something here. I've been speaking with the applicant and the applicant would be happy to answer all these questions. I think they have a better knowledge base than staff does about the specifics for the site.

The applicant would like to take maybe a few minute break to go over the maps with his ranch foreman, the person who has really extensive knowledge of this site

to familiarize himself with the map that has been presented to the Board. Because I don't think he saw the map that was presented to the Board. So maybe if we could take maybe a few minute break to let them do that, and then they would be

available to answer all these questions about the site.

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: Okay, then let me just throw another question in. Is that existing access road to go to the farmhouse, is that going to be butted up against the concrete based

road? Mr. Taylor speaks:

Again, I think the applicant would be in a better position to answer that.

Chairman Engels speaks: Okay, we'll adjourn for 15 minutes. It’s 3:54 PM. Let's get back here at ten minutes after 4:00 PM.

A break was held.

Chairman Engels speaks: Okay, we’ll bring the meeting back to order. Any further discussion by the

applicant or the Commissioners? Keith Ruben of RO Anderson, representing the applicant, speaks:

Sorry, that's a new phone and I haven’t quite figured it all out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me in the audience is Andrew Wolf with Incline Law Group; he's

one of the legal team members with Bently. I’ll try to respond to your questions Mr. Nowosad. I also have with me in the audience, I should say, the Ranch Manager for Bently, Matt McKinney, who also has very intimate knowledge of the

site and he could probably even answer some of your questions better than I can. But I’ll be happy to try to respond. Regarding your question, I’m going to try to remember them all. There is a fence. The fence is marked with dashes and x’s. I

want to note that you did find what I believe to be an error on our map. The first 40 acres if you're going from Airport Road towards the Heybourne Road

intersection, the first 40 that is zone Light Industrial that has a, I think, it's two wire barbed wire fence. The second 40 that goes all the way to the intersection, that does not, according to Matt. But our map shows that it does continue on. So,

that might be one source of confusion. But the map does show the center line of the 44-foot ditch easement that has been reviewed. The County has what's called


May 20, 2021

the Water Conveyance Advisory Committee; they review all these ditches when we

come in with a development request before it comes to this Board and they make recommendations that are usually included, I believe they have in this case, in the staff recommended conditions. So, they reviewed the map with our engineers.

They look at things like ditch crossings for roadways, driveways. They want to make sure the flows are maintained, that whatever we're proposing won’t impede the flows. They can get the volume of water that they used to prior to development

and post development. That's always a big issue with them and they have approved the map with the improvements that we showed on the tentative map.

Regarding the current Earnhardt Road alignment to the current ranch house, there are actually two accesses provided to that. One is along Milky Way Road.

That's an existing ranch easement to the north side of the property. In all likelihood we use that and discontinue use of Earnhardt to serve that existing

ranch house on the A-19 property. Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks:

So, you're saying then, access to the farm house can be achieved on Milky Way via Heybourne.

Mr. Ruben speaks: Correct.

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: And the road that exists now going north-south, is it going to still be there?

Mr. Ruben speaks: No.


Okay, that solves that transition to a paved road. Mr. Ruben speaks:

We could use it but we don't believe it’s necessary. If that's a concern of the Board, we would be willing to discontinue the use of that ranch road. Any other

questions? Commissioner Tarkanian speaks:

Mr. Chairman, I had one question, and maybe the applicant should stay there in case it needs to go further. One thing I think that needs to be made clear and I’d like to get legal counsel to state it on the record clearly, before I voted the first

time on this issue I spoke with the County staff and they told me there is no legal prohibition of a County road being put on A-19 property. So that was my

understanding. We've heard some testimony today that there is a prohibition of putting a road on A-19 property and there was one document that was submitted by Ms. Starrett that said there was. So, I would ask you, Doug Ritchie, is there

any prohibition of having a County road put on A-19 property?


May 20, 2021

Mr. Ritchie speaks:

Chairman, if I may? Thank you. To be clear, a road can be built on A-19, Light Industrial, any kind of zoning. The only question is that it has to meet the County's Design Standards. So, to say a County road on A-19, what you're saying

is can a road be built on A-19? Yes. Can it be offered for dedication to the County? Yes. Depending on how it's built, the County may say it doesn't meet our Design Standards, but if it's built to the required Design Standards, then yes, a road can

be built on A-19 zoned land offered for dedication and accepted by Douglas County.

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: The obvious follow-up question to the County would be does the County Design

Standards, are they satisfied with respect to the proposed road by the applicant?

Mr. Mastino speaks: Yes, Commission Tarkanian, it does comply with the standards.

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Engels speaks: I have one comment and it's not directly related to this project. But in another

way, it is. One of the things that is disappointing, I know that Mr. Bently is a strong advocate for the environment and what we're going to do is we're going to lay down a bunch of asphalt and cement and that doesn't help to recharge the

aquifers. And with this project and people and businesses being in there it's going to put additional demands on the aquifer that they’ll probably put on the County. And these are the things we're up against. So, Mr. Bently just had some acreage

approved for our RA-5 and some homes to be built out there. These are the things that are disappointing. It has no bearing on the project and the validity or the

legality of it. But it's just disappointing that we have to take that into consideration and it's things like that bother me because this is Northern Nevada. They're doing it all over the place, down in Las Vegas they're doing it and they're

out of water. So that's just a comment, and it has no bearing on this project. Thank you. Any further comments? All right, we’ll take it to a vote. Then I need a

motion. Commissioner Tarkanian speaks:

I’ll make a motion that we approve the application. Commissioner Rice speaks:

I’ll second.

Chairman Engels speaks: We have a motion by Commissioner Tarkanian, a second by Commissioner Rice. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The motion carries 5-0.

Thank you, gentlemen.


May 20, 2021

MOTION to approve application DP 20-0322, a Tentative Subdivision Map for

Bently Family LTD Partnership, based on the Staff Report, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the presentation to the Board, Public Comment, and the applicant's ability to meet the required findings; carried.


MOVER: Danny Tarkanian, Commissioner

SECONDER: Wesley A. Rice, Commissioner

AYES: Gardner, Engels, Nowosad, Rice, Tarkanian

FINANCE

10. For possible action. Approve the Quarterly Financial Report for the Quarter ended March 31, 2021. (Terri Willoughby)

Chairman Engels read the agenda item into the record. Terri Willoughby, Chief Financial Officer, speaks:

The first item is the Quarterly Financial Report. We first started doing these in Fiscal Year 2018-19 and they sort of went on hiatus. It's designed to be informative for both the Commission and the public. It will be up on the County's

website and we will distribute it via social media to all the stakeholders. I’d be happy to answer any questions. We typically report on General Fund and Room

Tax Fund; those are considered our two major funds in our Annual Financial Report. And that's really it. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

Chairman Engels speaks: Are there any questions? Do we hear a motion?

Commissioner Rice speaks: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the Quarterly Financial Report for the

quarter ending March 31, 2021. Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks:

I’ll second.

Chairman Engels speaks: We have a motion by Commissioner Rice, a second by Vice Chairman Nowosad. All those in favor signify by voting aye. The motion carries 5-0.


May 20, 2021

MOTION to approve the Quarterly Financial Report for the quarter ending March

31, 2021; carried.



SECONDER: Walt Nowosad, Vice Chairman

AYES: Tarkanian, Gardner, Engels, Nowosad, Rice

11. For possible action. Discussion to review and adopt the Fiscal Year 2021-

22 Final Budgets for Douglas County, the Town of Minden, the Town of Gardnerville, the Town of Genoa, and the Douglas County Redevelopment Agency. (Terri Willoughby)


Terri Willoughby, Chief Financial Officer, speaks: Thank you. These budgets represent what was presented at the Tentative Budget, which you approved and the supplemental requests which you approved at the

meeting on, I believe, April 27th and the supplemental personnel requests. The Town’s budgets have been presented to their boards and approved and now the

next step is to adopt the final budget. Some, kind of fun facts about the budget, with the Towns, total revenue for the County is $122, almost $123 million. Current operations, $109 million, debt service $2.5 million, Capital Outlay and

Capital Projects $14 million, and we have about $14 million of transfers that are just money moving between funds. As far as full-time equivalents, which is our personnel, at tentative we presented 551.34. You added 4.75 positions as

supplemental requests that were approved in the last meeting and there was one position that was authorized during the reorganization of Community

Development. There's no fiscal impact with that, but they were able to add a body for the same amount of money. And we cleaned up .08 of a position. So, our total full-time equivalent count of County personnel is 557.01 for the final budget. I'd

be happy to take any questions.

Chairman Engels speaks: Any questions from the Board?

Commissioner Rice speaks: Ms. Willoughby, has there been any significant change that we need to be aware of in the budget that have occurred between the time that we spent three days going

over this, and now?

Ms. Willoughby speaks: No, sir. The changes were what was approved at the tentative when you approved all those supplemental requests and the Capital Improvement Projects. Those

have been rolled into the budget. Those are the significant changes, so you saw all of those already and approved them. Routine personnel changes, like if someone


May 20, 2021

between tentative and final got a merit increase, I try and adjust that in the final

budget, so it’s accurate but that's not significant. Chairman Engels speaks:

Commissioner Gardner. Commissioner Gardner speaks:

Ms. Willoughby, if we had any desired changes to this budget would now be the appropriate time to do that or do you have more to present before we do that?

Ms. Willoughby speaks: I had not planned on doing a full presentation since you've seen it several times. I

would advise the Board that if there's changes here today that it might require another special meeting to bring those changes back. We have to turn in, we are

required to file the final budget with the State Department of Taxation on or before June 1st.

Commissioner Gardner speaks: Ms. Willoughby, if we made a change that remained in balance would that cause an issue?

Ms. Willoughby speaks:

I'd have to hear the change and we could discuss it at that time. Commissioner Gardner speaks:

Okay, so Mr. Chair and fellow Commissioners, I have looked at this budget and I chatted with Community Services Manager Scott Morgan and there is a Capital Improvement Project that's sitting out there, that is delayed for about a year to

two years for lack of funding. And that is what I feel is an area that is critical to the health and safety of our citizens, and especially those in the Tahoe Township.

That is the Community Services desire to install a backup generator and the appropriate weather proof housing at the Kahle Community Center. I think that's an important item that that needs to be addressed, sooner rather than later. So,

what I would suggest, and what I would propose to my fellow Commissioners is that we go ahead and fund that. I talked with Mr. Morgan and he indicates that

that cost is right in the neighborhood of $300,000. So, what I would like to propose to my fellow Commissioners, is that we go ahead and fund that Capital Improvement Project for the backup generator at the Kahle Community Center

and with a reduction by the General Fund of $250,000 with our Library and the additional $50,000 coming from the South Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce allocation, to make that down to $25,000, which is exactly the same amount is

we're giving the Carson Valley Chamber of Commerce. So, I would like to balance those two numbers and take $50,000 from the South Tahoe Chamber of

Commerce budget from the allocation from the General Fund and the additional $250,000 from the Library for a total of $300,000 to bring that CIP forward and put a backup generator and appropriate weatherproof housing at the Kahle

Community Center. That's what I would like to propose.


May 20, 2021


Is that a motion? Commissioner Gardner speaks:

I’ll make that in the form of a motion and hopefully, I can get concurrence out of Commissioner Rice since this affects his district.

Commissioner Rice speaks: Commissioner, I was considering this but I had no idea that we were going to

short the South Tahoe Chamber by that amount of money. And I’m unwilling to do that.

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question?

Chairman Engels speaks: Commissioner Tarkanian.

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: Who would have the reasoning of why we're giving the South Tahoe Chamber so

much more than Carson Valley Chamber?

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: Mr. Chairman, point of order. A motion was made, we didn't get a call for a second and now we're discussing it. We're a little bit out of joint here. So, would you care

to propose your motion in a way that can be recorded by the Secretary and then we’ll go from there?

Commissioner Gardner speaks: Yes, Vice Chairman Nowosad. I would move that this Board bring forward this

Capital Improvement Project for the Kahle Community Center with a backup generator and appropriate weather housing for that, with the allocation of a reduction of $250,000 from the Library and an additional $50,000 from the South

Tahoe Chamber of Commerce. Thank you.

Chairman Engels speaks: Does this include the budget review? So, what you're saying is that in your motion you approve of this line item with these modifications. Is that the direction we're

going? Because we have to approve Item Number 11 with these modifications. Ms. Willoughby speaks:

Chair, if I may?

Chairman Engels speaks: Ms. Willoughby.


May 20, 2021

Ms. Willoughby speaks:

If we were going to reduce the General Fund transfer to the Library Fund that would leave the Library Fund out of balance. We would have to go back and redo their budget and bring that back at a special public hearing in order to meet the

State's deadline. Chairman Engels speaks:

Does that mean any amount that is changed with the Library Fund we'd have to have a meeting?

Ms. Willoughby speaks: Yes, the two sources of funding for the Library Fund are the PALS sales tax,

property, Airport, Library, Senior Services, the Special Sales Tax. The balance of their budget is made up by the General Fund. So, if we reduce the General Fund

transfer to the Library Fund that will leave that fund in a deficit which we would have to correct. It's not allowed by NRS.

Commissioner Gardner speaks: I still think we lack a second on this yet to be discussing it. So…

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: I find it hard to be able to second something or vote on it, if I don't know a couple

of these questions. So, is the rule that we can't discuss this until a second is done?

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: The purpose of a second is to open the floor for discussion. At that time, you can ask your question.

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks:

I was checking with Richie but if that's correct, then okay. Chairman Engels speaks:

Mr. Ritchie.

Doug Ritchie, Chief Civil Deputy District Attorney, speaks: Chairman, thank you. Generally, the process will be there's a presentation, questions, discussion among the Board Members and then there's a motion. If the

other Members don't have sufficient information that they feel they can second that motion, then they don't second it and then there's further discussion. If someone feels that they have enough information to second it then as Vice

Chairman Nowosad indicated, there's a first, there's a second and there's further discussion on the motion itself.

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: So, then I can ask questions because I don't have enough information to second it.


May 20, 2021

Mr. Ritchie speaks:

Or, you just wait for a second, it will die, and then you can have further discussion.


Commissioner Gardner speaks: Mr. Chair, thank you. Commissioner Tarkanian asked a very important question

and that was why we fund the South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce, to the tune of $75,000 and yet the Carson Valley Chamber of Commerce at $25,000. And when I asked this question back in April, it was my indication that because the Carson

Valley Visitor’s Authority was working through the promotional aspects of the entire Carson Valley. We at some point in time, in the past, reduced our allocation

to the Carson Valley Chamber of Commerce. I would contend that and yet the South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce get $75,000 because they're promoting the Lake. However, when I look at that I also look at the TOT and the TLLT tax that

goes to the Lake Tahoe Visitor’s Authority to the tune of almost $1 million a month. $1 million dollars a month. Okay, so it seems to me like they’ve got plenty of promotion up there and don't necessarily need the additional promotion by the

South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce. So that's why I suggested that we make those two numbers commiserate, similar at $25,000. And I was looking for

sources of balancing this to get this CIP project that I feel is extremely important for the Kahle Community Center and that is, to the tune of, as I understand from talking with Scott Morgan is $300,000. So, I didn't want to deprive or take all that

money away from the Library, I thought that to balance those two numbers with the two Chamber of Commerce's to get $25,000 each and then the $250,000 because the PALS money is going to take the Library budget to better than what it

anticipated, that we could take it from there. That's where I came up with the two numbers in order to get to the $300,000 required for this backup generator. And

it's not the backup generator that's so much the cost, but the weather proofing of the structure that's required in Tahoe because of the weather that occurs up there. Being a public facility up there, that Kahle Community Center is extremely

important to those folks up there, and it should be available to them 365, in my opinion. So that's why I thought it was important to bring this forward. That was

the whole purpose of my motion. Commissioner Rice speaks:

Mr. Chairman? Chairman Engels speaks:

Commissioner Rice.

Commissioner Rice speaks: I would be the last one to argue against putting a generator at Kahle Park, trust me. However, the argument that all the TOT goes to TDVA, Tahoe Douglas

Visitor’s Authority, that is not going to the Chamber down there. It’s a totally different entity and that money is going to fund the building of the event center


May 20, 2021

and not for promoting tourism at Lake Tahoe. That money is dedicated. As much

as I would like to see the generator at Lake Tahoe, I’m not willing to slash the budget for the Chamber.

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: Mr. Chairman, can I ask Commissioner Rice something?

Chairman Engels speaks: Commissioner Tarkanian.

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: So why do you believe there should be such a disparity between the two

Chambers? And again, I’m trying to learn so just educate me, please.

Chairman Engels speaks: Commissioner Tarkanian we don't know. It's like we were paying $150,000 a year to rent the center up there for our meetings in the past, and nobody could really

explain how that ever came about. Ms. Willoughby speaks:

Actually, I might Chair.

Chairman Engels speaks: Ms. Willoughby.

Ms. Willoughby speaks: Part of the reason for the disparity is the Carson Valley Chamber gave away, they do not promote tourism in the Valley. That's why they don't get TOT. There are

legal restrictions on the use of room tax funds and to transfer the use from tourism, which is what Lake Tahoe Chamber does; if you go to their website they

still promote tourism. The Carson Valley Chamber does not, that's why they do not get room tax money any longer. The two Visitor’s, the Carson Valley Visitor’s Authority does, the Tahoe Visitor’s Authority does and the Lake Tahoe South

Chamber because they promote tourism. If you look at their websites and this is actually set by resolution each year, so the Board will have a chance to hear this,

and we will bring back the background information on it. Commissioner Tarkanian speaks:

Thank you, that answered my question. Thank you. Chairman Engels speaks:

So, if I understood this correct, LTVA promotes tourism and the Tahoe Chamber of Commerce promotes tourism. Is that what I heard?

Ms. Willoughby speaks: There was an agreement a long time ago, which we'd have to dig up the history,

that the Valley Chamber gave up their tourism activities and gave it strictly to the Valley Visitor’s Authority. So, you're correct.


May 20, 2021


So, we have two entities up at the Lake allegedly promoting tourism and this is typically not the mandate of the Chamber of Commerce, they promote business. This is a substantial amount of money that just is going to the Tahoe Chamber in

conjunction with what LTVA is getting. It seems exorbitant, the amount of money they're getting.

Ms. Willoughby speaks: The amounts for the Chambers are set by resolution. The amounts for the Visitor’s

Authority are in NRS which we can't change. There are some very strict requirements about the distribution of room tax and we can certainly bring back a full presentation on the program and for the Board's information. I would suggest

that there may be money in the Room Tax Fund for recreation after we close this year's budget. We would add this project to the CIP as an unfunded item and then

look at it next year and be able to add it into the budget from adjusted opening fund balance.

Commissioner Gardner speaks Mr. Chair?


Commissioner Gardner speaks: If the allocation to the South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce is set by resolution

and in order to do that we would have to change that resolution, I would take that out of this request. I would then request that $250,000 still come out of the Library and that we go back to Community Services and ask them to look for

some other method of finding the other $50,000 to fund that generator and the appropriate weather housing. If that would be acceptable to Commissioner Rice.

Commissioner Rice speaks: That would be acceptable to me, but my problem is if we do this now, then the

entire budget has to be gone over again, and then we will have to bring this back and risk meeting the mandated deadline.

Chairman Engels speaks: Okay, so we've got two issues that are at hand, and that is a resolution that was

established sometime in the past that needs to be addressed, and throwing the Library budget out of whack.

Patrick Cates, County Manager, speaks: Mr. Chairman?

Chairman Engels speaks: Mr. Cates.


May 20, 2021

Mr. Cates speaks:

If I could just add a little bit more information. Yes, we would have to have a special meeting for the Library budget because if you remove the funding, the expenditures are out of balance. So, they'd have to find where to cut to balance

the budget. I also want to make sure the Board is aware, I recently talked to Director Morgan about the generator project. That project was not on the CIP list that was reviewed by the Board. It is on their long term CIP plan, but I’m not sure

through some miscommunication it did not get on the Board’s list. But I just want to clarify, he did provide that project sheet to Ms. Willoughby and myself, and it is

not a $300,000 project, it is a $450,000 project. And the funding that he had for that was $50,000 in room tax and $400,000 from a grant. I asked him what the grant was and he said he didn't know, this was a kind of a long term plan need.

So, I’m not sure; there's a discrepancy there. The sheet I saw was for a $450,000 project.

Chairman Engels speaks: Hence, we have a situation that is pretty convoluted. Let's stick with the action

item as its presented and then we'll bring some of these things back after the budget has been settled for next year. That’s the way I’m looking at it.

Commissioner Gardner speaks: Mr. Chair, I have a motion to make. I would move that we adopt the Fiscal Year

2021/2022 Final Budgets for Douglas County, the Town of Minden, the Town of Gardnerville, the Town of Genoa and the Douglas County Redevelopment Agency.

Commissioner Rice speaks: I'll second.

Vice Chairman Nowosad speaks: I’ll third.

Chairman Engels speaks: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Gardner, a second by Commission Rice.

All those in favor signify by saying aye. The motion carries 5-0.

Ms. Willoughby speaks: Thank you. We will bring back some more information on the room tax program. Thank you.


May 20, 2021

MOTION to adopt the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Final Budgets for Douglas County,

the Town of Minden, the Town of Gardnerville, the Town of Genoa and the Douglas County Redevelopment Agency; carried.


MOVER: Mark Gardner, Commissioner

SECONDER: Wesley A. Rice, Commissioner

AYES: Engels, Nowosad, Rice, Tarkanian, Gardner

COUNTY MANAGER

12. For possible action. Discussion and direction to staff regarding

legislation or legislative issues proposed by legislators or other entities permitted to submit bill draft requests that may impact Douglas County. The

Board may take action to support or oppose any legislative item included in the Douglas County Bill Tracker report included with the Board packet. (Patrick Cates)

Chairman Engels read the agenda item into the record. Patrick Cates, County Manager, speaks:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just going to highlight a few bills. We're nearing the end of the session. Tomorrow is the deadline for non-exempt bills to pass the

second house. Last Friday was the deadline for non-exempt bills to pass out of the second house committee. The legislature is supposed to wrap up and adjourn on the 31st. So, we are rapidly coming to the end. There are a lot of bills that have

died. I did send out an updated report with Supplemental Material last night to try to give you as much current information as possible. But most of the bills that we're tracking now have been granted exemptions to those deadlines so they're

still in play, and we won't know the disposition of some of those bills until the session adjourns. Just a few things I want to highlight, all the bills that are still

on our list are still moving through. A couple of small ones, I just wanted to confirm with the Board that AB363, that

dealt with short term rentals, vacation home rentals. As I talked about at our last meeting, there was a conceptual amendment to make it a Clark only bill. But that

didn't get a work session and approved until the 18th but that indeed got approved the way we were anticipating. So, it's still a Clark only bill and doesn't interfere with our program at all. Of minor note, SB50 is now in the Assembly, and it was

passed out of Government Affairs last Friday. It had an interesting amendment to it; the amendment was that the commissions when enacting these new rules for tiny houses should “consider the environmental justice of the location of zoning

for tiny homes,” whatever that means. They're putting a lot of that language in on some of these bills. Again, I think this bill is in a place where it's pretty harmless,

and I think the County can work with it. But that's where that one is at.


May 20, 2021

The China Springs budget, I believe I reported this to Commissioners via email

after our last meeting, but it was the day after our last meeting the full money committees considered the Division of Child and Family Services budget and the proposed 71 percent cut from the Governor. All indications were that they were

going to proceed with the 71 percent cut; however, that did not happen. They all had a copy of the NACO proposal, this was like our second proposal that we did to them to try to lessen the impact and they accepted it. So, they closed the budget

with a 23 and a half percent reduction to China Springs budget next year and 47 percent in the following year. We do still have a request in with Health and Human

Services to restore some of that funding, some lost revenue. It’s possible that could happen. We're working with China Springs on how to reconfigure their budget to absorb this impact, it's about $400,000 a year. It basically means that

there'll be less beds available than they could if they were fully budgeted. But at least it's not as drastic of a cut. NACO will be leading a working group with the 16

counties; I think the NACO Executive Board has this on their agenda for the Executive Director to get their approval to do that on Friday, tomorrow. And we intend to convene a meeting early in June with 16 counties, with stakeholders,

with the Juvenile Probation Officers, the Judges and the various county leadership. That's County Managers and Commissioners, depending on the county. One of the things that I will be proposing to that working group right out

of the gate is that all 16 counties consider using their ARPA funds, their American Rescue Plan Act funds to help cover the shortfall for the next fiscal year. We do

have some guidance we will be bringing back to you at a future meeting, more details on that guidance. We just received that earlier this week and it does seem pretty clear that we would be able to use that money to help China Springs. I’m

hopeful that we can get a consensus quickly among counties to do that. There are some things that counties want to look at regarding the camp’s governance, and communication and programming. I think those are issues that we can resolve

and I think we're making a lot of progress. So, I’m still working on that and I hope we have some funding solutions for them soon before they get too far into the next

fiscal year. One last bill that I wanted to talk about, now this has been on our long list that

we've been tracking but I’ve not highlighted this bill previously to the Board. This is AB424. This deals with pretrial release. It, basically, would require somebody to

have a hearing within 24 hours. So, it has an impact on the weekend operations of the court and District Attorney's Office. When this bill originally came out, there were a few fiscal notes on it, but not a lot. NACO was working with the bill

sponsor to get it changed. This bill actually came out of an interim committee, a study that they did. In the study they didn't specify 24 hours, they used the term a reasonable timeframe or a reasonable period of time. And so, the bill sponsor

made it 24 hours. There were some more amendments to it that came out after our last meeting that really raised concerns. The sponsor wasn't listening to the

advice that was being given by NACO and other stakeholders, so there was a call out to do fiscal notes. We reached back out to the courts and the District Attorney's Office and we submitted an unsolicited fiscal note for $895,000. That's

having to hire more District Attorneys, more Judges, more staff to be able to have operations on the weekend. It is pretty significant. There have been a lot of fiscal


May 20, 2021

notes filed as a result of that amendment. I am not sure where it stands, it was

passed out of the committee that way in the second house. It has not gone to a money committee yet and this bill now is festooned with like two dozen fiscal notes. So, I anticipate, if it continues to survive, it's going to have to go to a money

committee. We'll see how that turns out. I haven't spoken with Daphne at NACO this week, so I don't know if there's been any developments behind the scenes on this bill. I’m sure she'll be highlighting it in the NACO meeting tomorrow. So,

hopefully I’ll know more information there. But that was obviously very concerning that they couldn't work with the sponsor on language that wouldn't end up

costing counties so much. It's marked as an unfunded mandate. So, we'll see what they do with that. That's all I was going to highlight for tonight.

Commissioner Rice speaks: I have a question, sir. What happened with the spank Minden bill?

Mr. Cates speaks: It's still out there. You know, I forgot to look at the update on that. I can't

remember if they've had a hearing. Let me see, where is it on my list? I apologize I can't remember the bill number. They had the conceptual amendment proposed; I don't know if it was approved by the committee. I’m sorry?

Commissioner Rice speaks:

Was that 88? Mr. Cates speaks:

I think it was. Commissioner Rice speaks:

SB88, I think it was.

Mr. Cates speaks: No, that's emergency management. I apologize, I’ve lost track of that; it's probably in here somewhere. I can't remember if they approved the amendment and moved

out of committee or not. I can send you an update.

Commissioner Rice speaks: I’d appreciate it. There are a lot of folks here in town that…

Mr. Cates speaks: Yeah, I should have double checked on that one, I’m sorry.

Commissioner Gardner speaks: Mr. Cates, or Mr. Chair?



May 20, 2021


Mr. Cates, what about the, apparently the Innovation Zones is actually, is that bill alive, or what's the status on that one?

Mr. Cates speaks: The original Innovation Zone concept died as a bill. They did come out with a bill to create an interim study to look at the concept of Innovation Zones, not specific

to the actual project that was being discussed as part of that bill. And they have a limit on how many interim committees they have and studies that they do, so

that's often where bad ideas go to die. They may or may not actually end up doing an interim study by the time they adjourn. I think they did that as just a way for the Governor to save face.


Thank you, Mr. Cates.


COMMISSION

13. For presentation only. Reports/updates from County Commission

members concerning the various boards and/or commissions that they may be a member of or a liaison to or meetings/functions they have attended.

(Chairman Engels)


Chairman Engels speaks: Anybody have any information?

Commissioner Rice speaks: Mr. Chairman, I was invited by the Douglas County Chamber up at the Lake to

address them this morning and I gave them a rundown on what we've been doing here at the Board and information that was germane to those at the Lake.

Chairman Engels speaks: Any other comments? Yesterday, I attended the NNDA board meeting, and they

have several projects going on. They're very enthusiastic about the transportation center in Fernley. One of the questions that was asked of them is what about water? All we heard was crickets. Then there was another meeting yesterday with

the Carson Water Subconservancy; Mr. James was here presenting, and we saw all of the proposals for ways to save water and to bank water into different lakes or

different things, and none of them were practically viable. The one question that we had was we need water. You can't do any of these projects without water. So, that's what we're looking at. Other than that, nothing more.


May 20, 2021


CLOSING PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairman Engels speaks: Any Closing Public Comment, Natalie?

Janet Murphy speaks:

This is how important this is to me, Commissioners. And to a lot of people up there.

Natalie Wood, Administrative Services Manager, speaks: Please state your name for the record for the clerk.

Ms. Murphy speaks: I’m sorry. So, do I get longer than three minutes? Nobody's here, no, I’m just

kidding. I gave you a handout. I’m on the fire board up at the Lake. I gave you a handout, it’s for two months. I want to, because I didn’t have enough time earlier, but if you see on that first page. Can you see at the very top, it says staff monthly

time per activity report? This is the Fire Department on all of the things that they do during the month. You can see the one that's the most time that they apply to

is VHRs. VHRs are 25 percent. That was in the month of March, right? So, if you look at the pie down below and it shows you the fees collected, which was 11.7. Well, I didn't put this in your packet but in that month the salaries, as far as the

total salary for the Fire Department was $198,000. So, hypothetically, if it was $200,000, that means that's $50,000 that was exhausted on VHRs, but we only got $11,000. If you can see, I wanted you to go to the next month, which was

April, and that was still the highest also in that month on every item that they had to do. That was 18 percent. It was more than meetings, office work, plan review,

training, business inspections, projects. It's always the higher amount, but we're not, we're at a loss. We’re at a loss, I’m just saying, like in the Fire Department, in the Utility Department. I don't know how strongly I can stress the loss that we

have because of vacation rentals. I talked to former casino owners and I’m sure you know who they are, they're up there at the Lake, but they were saying how it’s

always been the locals that help them survive. They want to eliminate VHRs also, so I’m speaking on their behalf. They've always said it was the locals that’s always had them survive in the down seasons. It was the locals that kept them surviving

because we didn't have VHRs for years and years. So, it's always been the locals. If you want them to come here they'll tell you that as well. Also, I wanted to touch base on as far as when you make your decision making, I know there's been the

pandemic and you haven't been able to have your meetings up at the Lake and as far as, I know and I understand the cost as far as the transportation area, but

being on the board, I asked yesterday, if you can use the Fire Department and they're open to it. I mean that's no cost. So, you can have a County Commissioner meeting there or at the Kahle Center or even the Library up there, which is all

owned, you know, those areas by the County. So, I would strongly suggest, since this issue is pertaining to the Tahoe Township, any decision making, I would


May 20, 2021

hope, to be transparent, would be done up at the Lake so these people have the

opportunity to have a say so in their backyard. And again, when it comes to property rights, what about the people that bought into residential. If you legally break it down, residential means where you reside at, not visit, but where you

reside at. And that's what the people bought into, so they know their neighbors, they trust their neighbors. And a business, legally, is for profit. Businesses are commercial. That's why these areas were zoned in the first place. The biggest

ticket item that people purchase in a lifetime, number one is the property, is their home, number two is their vehicle. So, that's their pride. I mean, their property

means a lot to them and when you reside in an area it's no different than a dog. A dog will not deficate where he sleeps and lays, but he will everywhere else. Basically, a lot of humans are the same way. When people live there they're going

to take pride in where they live. Also, the fire hazard as well; we have one way in Lake Tahoe and one way out. So, that is also a very high risk. But the utilities

cannot keep up with the demands. We have 19 sewer stations on that Lake and we get high wet walls all the time. We get blockages all the time. I won't compromise, I don't want to compromise, I feel compelled here. Something's telling

me to come here. I’m going to come here every meeting until they say no more and the ones that they have run out of time. No more. That is what we would prefer. We need to be stewards and we need to preserve the property, the environment,

and our God given resources that have been given to us. And there's a difference between capitalism and greed. Does anybody want to take a guess at what the

difference is? Capitalism is when yes, you have something but you're giving back, also, to the community. What I mean by that is there's a lot of people up there that work that have no place to live because of vacation rentals. You hear it down

here all the time, and I know a lot of you were proponents as far as there's nowhere to live down here, we need to have fair housing. Well there's nothing up there. How are those people going to work and live in their backyard? They don't.

People work in the casinos, even two of my employees, their houses have turned into vacation rentals and now they can't live up there. They have to find means

and down in the Valley. When you're talking about a sewer spill, you have to get there. You have a certain amount of time before it dumps into our national treasure. So, I’m urging you, I am pleading with you from above to please take

care of our God given resources. It's no different than what you want to do down here, you want to take care of it. You're going to destroy it, deplete it, defecate it,

degradate it; I can probably go through a whole list of D’s. All I’m asking, I can't think of one good reason why we have them. We didn't have them before and we always survived. You're going to lose what you have up there; that national

treasure is going to become a national disaster all because of greed. And as long as we allow it, and we support it, then we're no different than the ones that are greedy. Thank you for your time, and thank you for allowing me the extension of

time. I just want you to realize I don't stay here, I mean, I’m supposed to be talking to Rick, one of your engineers right now, by the way, because there's a

Cave Rock issue going on up there but I stayed here because this is really, really important to me. Wes, he's my neighbor; he knows. I bought next to the forest for a reason, because I love it, I embrace that environment. I would not have ran for

office over and over again to preserve the Tahoe Township because I know the people down here it means just as much to them. When they have people that


May 20, 2021

come visit or stay with them, they take them up to the Lake. So, I hope you factor

all those in and ponder it, because I will not compromise that Lake, that environment, nor my character, but will you? Thank you.

Ms. Wood speaks: Can you make sure to turn any paperwork that you gave to the Commissioners to the clerk? We need a copy for the clerk.


Thank you, Ms. Murphy. Patrick Cates, County Manager, speaks:

Mr. Chairman?

Chairman Engels speaks: Mr. Cates.

Mr. Cates speaks: May I make a Public Comment?

Chairman Engels speaks: Yes.

Mr. Cates speaks: I just want to mention that AB88 was amended and passed out of Senate

Education on May 12th, last Wednesday with the amended language regarding sirens. It looks like it is scheduled to go to the floor of the Senate tomorrow, that's the deadline. There's no exemption on this bill. So, if it does pass the Senate then

what will happen, and this language was amended in the second house, so they will have to go back to the Assembly for concurrence. If the Assembly doesn't

concur, then they will have to have a committee, where they will discuss it and make a decision on the bill. So, it's not over yet, but I just wanted the committee to be aware that that language was incorporated in the bill. Thank you.


Unbelievable. Well, if there are no further comments, this meeting is adjourned. Ms. Wood speaks:

Wait, sir. We have Zoom Public Comment. We do have two people on Zoom for Public Comment. Our previous Public Commenter was given nine minutes, so I assume, we have to give that same amount of time if they do want that much

time. So, I’ll go ahead and start with the person.

Commissioner Tarkanian speaks: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to excuse myself in five minutes. I have to pick my son up in Carson City and I can't leave him by himself and I thought that this

meeting was going to be over earlier. Thank you.


May 20, 2021

Mr. Cates speaks:

I’m sorry, but the time limit is your discretion. You don't have to give everybody nine minutes if you don’t want to.

Ms. Wood speaks: For the timer, Chairman, what would you like me to do?

Chairman Engels speaks: Three minutes.

Jim Slade speaks: Can you hear me now? I'm on a different computer I've never used; can you hear

me okay?

Ms. Wood speaks: Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead and state your name and then I’ll start the timer.

Mr. Slade speaks: I still find the procedure for Public Comment on action agenda items to be confusing, unacceptable, and not in the public interest. Under Public Comment on

page two of the agenda, it states Public Comment will be talken during the beginning and at the end of the Board meeting. Additional Public Comment

periods may be allowed on individual items at the discretion of the Chairperson. It is requested that members of the public provide Public Comment on those agenda items when they are considered. But how is the public supposed to know if

additional Public Comment periods will be allowed or not? Without knowing that in advance it's impossible to know for the public what they should address in Opening Public Comment or if they will be allowed to comment when an item is

considered. That is not clear in today's agenda. That is neither in the interest of transparency, nor in the public interest. You should want to hear from your

constituents on action agenda items. It sometimes seems that the Board is trying to have the meeting end as early as possible. Given that you only have two public meetings a month that should not be a consideration. Sometimes, though, if you

ask for five minutes for Public Comment, instead of three, you get that or even if you don't and you go on for nine minutes, perhaps even though the agenda clearly

states three minutes. How does that make sense and how is that even handed? In that same vein, Agenda Item Number 1 was a ceremonial presentation of a proclamation recognizing the East Fork Fire Protection District for 40 years of

service to the citizens of Douglas County. That proclamation was to publicly honor the district for their exemplary service to our community over four decades. Always in the past that type of proclamation has been read aloud in its entirety as

a public way to honor the person or organization being recognized. Then the person or head of the organization is invited to speak. In the case of the agenda

item, Chief Carlini who has served the community for a good number of those 40 years was not offered the opportunity to speak. Just handing out the proclamation without even reading it or offering the Chief an opportunity to speak seems

contrary to the spirit and purpose of publicly honoring the Fire District. Again, it seems like the only reason for that would be to speed up the meeting. And again, I


May 20, 2021

feel it's not in the public interest and was disrespectful to the Fire District which

has served the community so well. I believe it would be in the public interest, and an interest of the Board to conduct Public Comment in meetings the way it was done for the entirety of this century until last year. Public Comments should be

allowed on all action agenda items. Thank you. Ms. Wood speaks:

Thank you, sir. Moving on to the next.

Ellie Waller speaks: I agree with everything that Mr. Slade just said. Meaningful Public Comment on action items where we don't get to participate, cannot be done in three minutes

before the meeting. I turn in diligently written comments. Not everybody reads them online, so the public participation is an essential component. I found it very

strange that there was no Public Comment on any item today. Can the Chair or the County Manager, or whoever decided that we weren't doing this, provide a better explanation for future meetings on our public right to participate? I could

go into comments about the water conservation, I could go into comments on the VHRs. Again, I know the VHR was just for presentation today. Are you going to allow Public Comment, which we know is going to be extensive, when you do this?

I’ve supported the staff; I’ve agreed with the staff, I’ve applauded the staff on the VHR but it doesn't mean that people don't have a right to participate in that

process. Thank you. Ms. Wood speaks:

Ellie, was that the end of that? I’m sorry. Ms. Waller speaks:

Yes, thank you for the opportunity. I’m hoping everybody listened and there will be some responses to myself and Mr. Slade about this public process. Thank you.

Ms. Wood speaks: Thank you, Ellie. Ok, that is the end of Public Comment through Zoom.


Thank you, Natalie. If there is no more Public Comment from Chambers or on Zoom online, this meeting is adjourned.


May 20, 2021

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:12 PM.

Respectfully submitted:

______________________________________ John Engels, Chairman Douglas County Board of Commissioners

ATTEST:

_______________________________ Amy Burgans, Clerk-Treasurer

APPROVED JULY 1, 2021 When applicable, the minutes below ...

Documents