August 14, 2019

Commissioner Koenig

= Assessor Parcel Number Board of County Commissioners Community Development Block Grant Capital Improvement Plan Manufactured Home Nye County Code Nevada Department of Transportation Nevada Revised Statues Pahrump Regional Planning District Public Works Regional Planning Commission Single-Family Residential = Zone Change Il II Pledge of Allegiance/Call to Order Meeting called to order at 6:01 p.m.

Commissioner Lee

stated she submitted typographical errors to staff.

Commissioner Tyler

motioned to approve. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda. Page | of 14

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification on application counts on total permits. Ex Parte Communications and Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statements None. SITTING AS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE For Possible Action - CIP: Update on the status of the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP); review of the CIP Priority List; and related subject matters. (DL, TD) Tim Dahl inquired to the Board if they had any questions, comments or concerns related to the streets and highways portion of Darrell Lacy’s update. Darrell Lacy stated he is still working on the Capital Improvement Plan and stated he has additional back up for the commissioners to accept.

Commissioner Tyler

motioned to accept additional back up. Seconded by Commissioner Duryea. Page 2 of 14

Mr. Lacy

stated he has a presentation to give and is not looking for any decisions to be made. He reviewed what Impact Fees are and what he is trying to do with the Improvement Plan update and provided some background for the new RPC members.

Mr. Lacy

is currently working on an update to an impact study originally done by Tischler Bise Group, 10 to 12 years ago. According to NRS 278B, we must go through a study to determine what the cost and impacts are to the valley and calculate the maximum allowable fee that can be charged for impact fees. It will be up to RPC and BOCC to determine how much of the maximum allowable fee they will decide to apply, if any, to the developers.

Mr. Lacy

gave a history of how Impact Fees were implemented and determined during the recession. Since then they have been reinstituted back at the original amount. The Finance Department provided a financial balance of the impact fee funds and the CIP last year the total amount for the Parks, Fire, Highway and Sheriffs fees were $968,948.95. Mr. Lacy stated when the Tischler Bise studies were done they looked at those 4 impact areas as well as flood fees. The flood fees totaled up to 12k per home and consequently the board decided to keep it out.

Mr. Lacy

discussed current impact fees and their recent amendments pertaining to each of the 4 impact areas. Mr. Lacy stated that some of our earlier development agreements happened before this impact fee was put in place. We negotiated for impact fees for specific projects per developer to be in place and consequently when the impact fees were instituted, Mountain Falls did not end up paying for their roads and parks. Some of the other projects if they do an improvement as a part of their frontage to a collector street.

Mr. Lacy

asked Mr. Dahl what some other definitions of streets are.

Mr. Dahl

stated collectors, arterials, minor arterials, rural minor arterials.

Mr. Lacy

stated it’s a part of the NRS and NCC 15.32 that puts us in a place if developers improve a road that is on the CIP, then they get reimbursed or get credited towards their impact fee for the improvement they make to the roads.

Mr. Lacy

recommended we do an update of this fee, review all the assumptions, cost structures and do a 10 year look ahead to see the cost. Mr. Lacy also recommended that we calculate and include a flood control component.

Mr. Lacy

stated he and Mr. Dahl have been trying to identify a more cost-effective approach for the flood control plan. Mr. Lacy discussed flood zones and summarizes the details of FEMA coming into the valley.

Mr. Lacy

stated if we do appropriate mitigation measures through the impact fee process, there may be a potential to receive a reduction in flood insurance costs.

Mr. Lacy

references the second page exert from the flood control plan, which shows the various comparisons of the hydrology findings for the drainage basins. He stated Wheeler is the biggest component of our flood control and is top priority. Starting at the very north end of the valley flowing down along Highway 372 and Bannavich it is very flat and very difficult to manage the flood levels. It is a consistent problem when we have rain. We are trying to identify how we can value engineer this and become more cost effective in our approach.

Mr. Lacy

referred to possible approaches. One would be to try to stay within existing BLM for flood basins and activities, so we don’t have any acquisition cost for the right of way that are necessary, wanting Page 3 of 14 very minimal acquisition costs so we aren’t having to buy land. Or to combine roads and flood control structures together.

Mr. Lacy

recommended to tie a flood basin into some of the existing gravel pits that are going to be exhausted at some point in the future. Where Wheeler pass comes across, use that as the entrance into the east bypass and by following that around we can build a combination bypass/flood diversion project.

Mr. Lacy

proposed two options of dealing with flood waters. One option would be trying to catch it before it gets to your flood zones and store it through retention basins. Or they can try and drain it faster out the bottom.

Mr. Lacy

stated if you look at the flood map it shows a 2 foot deep flood area. If we can drain the water out faster there from this very flat area, there is some BLM area where we could do flood basins on. We will evaluate that as one of our top priorities in flood control.

Mr. Lacy

referenced Chapter 4, Facilities description in our flood control masterplan, shows the concept of what a bypass would look like with four lanes and a flood channel adjacent to them. We can use the flood channel as a pit or barrow area to get your fill material to build up your road. In addition to that there will have to be some retention basins along that area. We would catch the water, slow it down and store, then bring them down Wheeler pass and to the gravel pits. The concept for flood control, which will be included in the CIP, will have two public hearings. One to review assumptions and the other to review the final costs. Then BOCC would have a public hearing.

Mr. Lacy

states when updating the impact fees, we will have two ways of calculating. The first for SFR- rooftop fee and the second commercial business on sq. ft. depending on the type. Mr. Lacy gives a brief on how calculations will be determined. When original study was done, they were looking at a 5% growth rate for the valley, more recently we have 3.6% growth, from 2019 and 2018 we are at 3% growth. With less growth we have less # of households to apply the costs.

Mr. Lacy

stated for clarification that once the RPC sets the fees, they will also decide on the road and streets portion. Where we go through on a routine basis to prioritize the road repair.

Mr. Dahl

stated that primarily the streets and highways portion of the plan will not change much with the update. Although there will be some components that get updated within the streets and highways portion.

Mr. Dahl

stated the biggest change is the flood component of this update and about development paying for the infrastructure that we all need to protect our homes and businesses in our community. If we don’t start somewhere we’re never going to get anywhere with some sort of flood control plan in the valley besides roadside ditches. They’ve been trying to obtain properties and right of ways throughout the valley and, they are continuously trying to look at properties on the tax sale lists and try to catch the ones that will benefit us without having to have to purchase that in the future at higher cost. Updating the master flood control plan is an essential part of it, to ensure that we accommodate for the growth that has taken place in the valley since this plan was initially done. When you change a flow path upstream or downstream it is going to be affected. They can’t see the channels changes much as they are depicted in this older plan on the fan, I believe that the result will still be close to where they were in 2006. The changes will most likely be where we have had some flood control improvements done, such as Gamebird. Mr. Lacy and I have spoken about this and have the priority to tie those into this once this gets put into place. So, we can have a flood control plan that starts in the middle and has no beginning and no end. That’s important to take into consideration.

Mr. Lacy

stated he doesn’t think anyone expects we’ll get the full flood control plan done in 10 years or even 20 years. Its more of a 50-100-year plan, we are just proposing how to get it done. For the next 10- year process, one of the pieces of the puzzle is to get the engineering done and the impact fees. The first phase of that would be to use those funds to get the engineering done, to get the right of ways required. And to start having discussions with Army Corps of Engineers about grants. We’ve never been able to get Page 4 of 14 grants because we have never had any projects ready to go. We need to find a way to start this project or we’ll never get it finished.

Mr. Dahl

stated there is a lot of right of way acquisition, environmental assessments and work to be done before we can put that equipment to work to making these channels. We are lucky that there hasn’t been a storm event like the one in 1997 which affected this whole valley. We have to get moving forward with the flood control plan. The CIP and impact fees are a good place to get started.

Commissioner Turner

asked if the basins they are talking about putting in, can be used as or developed into a recharge reservoir.

Mr. Lacy

stated all our retention basins were proposed to be used for water recharge. Anything up on the fan works very well with that, the race track did a couple of those as a test and it has been working very well.

Commissioner Turner

asked, if it qualifies for some of the funding from grants due to water conservation.

Mr. Lacy

stated potentially, because it is infrequent, it is less clear tied to funding for water systems. But the ground water management plan that the water district did, included a small amount of recharge from these.

Mr. Dahl

stated that it hasn’t been a common practice in the valley to have those kinds of sites, where you can recharge storm water back into the aquifer or a water table. But it is a high priority to do just that.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if they are incorporating parks, for instance flood control areas made into parks when they are not needed as flood control.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is not currently part of the plan. One of the things about Pahrump is that we have a lot of land and not enough money to develop it. We have several large areas that have been identified for future parks, like the fair ground, but are undeveloped because we don’t have the funding to do it.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if they are incorporating the two in your thinking?

Mr. Lacy

stated the one on the fairgrounds has been discussed.

Mr. Dahl

stated the multipurpose fields are already below the elevation of the ground around them by a couple of feet to provide some retention. We are getting ready to build some channels on the site with a separate retention basin for the water that’s going to be created from developing the fairgrounds property.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if there are additional grant moneys available for park development.

Mr. Dahl

stated we are benefitting from CDBG grants to do the drainage study for the fairgrounds property to determine what size and location of the channels. The detention basin needs to be for preliminary improvements that they plan on doing for the site. The construction of those channels and the detention basin have also been a CDBG grant they received.

Mr. Lacy

stated it’s easy to make the timing work for these grants, they are very difficult to put into project schedule because of the uncertainty and time restraints.

Mr. Dahl

stated they have received about 600k in the last 12 months for both of those projects.

Commissioner Koenig

stated it is his understanding that impact fees are assessed to pay for that impact that the house has on the community. Same thing with the sheriff or fire department, the more homes there are, the more cops I need, the more fire trucks I need. The impact fees pay for that. He asked how do the impact fees for a house built in Mt. Falls affect the flood zone up on the fan. Page 5 of 14

Mr. Lacy

stated there are two things one is impervious cover, our flood gets worse when we don’t recharge, and it’s a regional project, and when you look at a project like Mt. Falls they got themselves out of a flood plain, by diverting the water around Mt. Falls down Gamebird.

Mr. Dahl

stated for clarification down Gamebird and Yucca Terrace.

Mr. Lacy

stated they helped themselves but have had an adverse impact on people to the north and west of them.

Mr. Dahl

stated in doing so it didn’t have a beginning although they built the middle, and it didn’t have an end. So, their impact to us is more the effect of changing the flow path from the water coming off the hill.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they are not allowed to do that and impact other people, but they did.

Commissioner Koenig

asked why they are putting an impact fee on homes built in Mt. Falls so they can build a dam up on the fan. Building a home down there doesn’t affect the flood up there.

Mr. Dahl

stated it does affect it.

Mr. Lacy

stated when you look at flood zones that impact the valley, what they are concerned about is how it affects the development on the valley floor where we do have the flood zones. We address flood zones and accumulation of water here in the valley by reducing the amount that comes down the hill and increasing the amount that goes out the bottom or additional storage here within the basin

Mr. Dahl

stated giving it a place to go besides those homes or those streets that get to those homes.

Mr. Waggoner

stated Mountain Falls is impacted by the water that comes off the fan. They’ve got all the flood controls that they have put through their community.

Commissioner Koenig

stated his other concerns are looking at the CIP streets and highways. Is that they have uncommitted money going back 8 years that we must commit by 10 years.

Mr. Lacy

stated he has discussed this with finance, and they haven’t updated the 2012-2015 years, if you look down at the expenditures, we spend 1.8 million in 2015.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the money shown on the spreadsheet could have come from anywhere. We need the figures correct so we don’t lose money.

Mr. Lacy

stated in general we must identify projects within 5 years and spend it within 10 years.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if it is still uncommitted does that mean it hasn’t been identified.

Mr. Dahl

stated in doing so, we run the risk of the developer being able to ask for the funds back.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that we need the numbers there or we are liable to lose money. That was one of the reasons we paid the state a million dollars for roundabouts. We didn’t know what else to do with it.

Commissioner Tyler

asked who is in charge of providing us with better spreadsheets.

Mr. Lacy

stated the Finance department and they are working on it.

Commissioner Tyler

confirms that the finance department is the ultimate answer.

Mr. Lacy

stated yes. Page 6 of 14

Mr. Dahl

stated the last time he was here he stated $3 million was where the streets and highways was budgeted. Now it is at $1.6 million and is a more accurate figure. Sheriff, fire, streets and highways combined are closer to $3 million.

Commissioner Curtis

stated at Wilson and Highway 160, we can now only turn right. Locals that are aware of that are using the Walmart parking lot and the little street behind Walmart to find a way to get to the highway to turn left. Is there a possibility to turn that into a roundabout?

Mr. Dahl

stated it is, this subject came up during a meeting with NDOT engineers, along with sheriffs’ deputies, as we discussed striping and signage around town. Wilson and Highway 160 had been slated for a signal. Mr. Dahl stated he is in favor of more roundabouts instead of signalizing intersection. We are going to be doing an analysis though the corridor to try to identify problem areas of traffic, for example my recommendation is to look at Mesquite and Highway 160. Where we have had too many horrible accidents and need to curtail the intersection. We’ll be providing crash information and anything else we can, concerning the activity at that intersection, so they consider putting a roundabout there.

Mr. Lacy

states during the evaluation we will be looking for projects, like streets and highways, coming into town, once NDOT finishes the 4 lanes up to county line, the only piece not done will be the 5-mile section from county line. We will then need to have a discussion and get recommendations from the RPC regarding several intersections.

Commissioner Curtis

asked for confirmation that Mr. Dahl had talked to NDOT about marking. The double round about is in terrible need of marking. Its no longer there, people don’t know what to do.

Mr. Dahl

stated the engineer in charge of this area looked at the overhead aerial photo, while we discussed the striping with sheriff's office, so the sheriffs office could have a better understanding of why its striped like it is.

Commissioner Curtis

stated for clarification there is no stripping there anymore.

Mr. Dahl

stated the state needs to go in and steam that stuff off, it will clean up well. If they just layer it on, it would get dirty in a week and you wouldn’t be able to see it and it was noted by the engineer for our area.

Commissioner Blackstock

stated an option he has dealt with drainage is pumping, because the valley is so flat you can pump a lot of water along way for relatively cheap. If you have the piping in place, possibly 2 ft deep in the ground because there isn’t much pressure. It’s just to get the water from point A to point B. Put a detention basin in so you can put the water that was pumped wherever the county may need it.

Mr. Lacy

stated he agrees with Commissioner Blackstock and stated that probably won’t be the first choice and that they have identified some of the options they are proposing to go forward with.

Commissioner Blackstock

proposes structures you could put into a park like Simkins, if it laid in the area. We could put detention basins under there, its costly, but the field it still there, make it lower than everything else helps it capture everything underneath. It can either exit the area passively or pump it out. That way everything looks the same and you are using the park as a non-structure area to capture the flood rain. Flooding the parks for days and not the streets and homes.

Mr. Dahl

stated some of the Master Flood Control Plans consist of just that, storm water under the surface. We continue to maintain the roadside ditches in hopes that they would carry the next event to where they wouldn’t flood any properties or the edge of the road. Some sort of underground or even vertical injections sites, we are going to be doing in the future.

Mr. Dahl

stated when it rains, they have several pumps that go out to specific locations where we try to capture the flood waters from intersections, so they don’t go into people’s homes or ruin the edge of the road. Page 7 of 14

Mr. Waggoner

asked if Clark County has offered assistance since these washes originate there.

Mr. Lacy

stated one of our challenges in discussing with Army Corps of Engineers in prior years is that Clark county didn’t want the money spent there because it was credited against their account as a Clark county project. They want their projects done on their side of the mountain.

Mr. Dahl

stated that the water is falling from Clark county and running into our county. There has never been any propositions by Clark county to help us build any infrastructure that might help eliminate that burden we have from that water.

Mr. Waggoner

asked if there is any legal avenue we can pursue.

Mr. Dahl

stated he does not know.

Mr. Lacy

asked if they had any direction to staff. They will be bringing it back in a couple of months for a public hearing.

Commissioner Lee

states that having an impact fee statement and we know what we are looking at she thinks we can now take that to the next meeting and compare it to the priority list.

Commissioner Tyler

asked if the priority list that was provide with the CIP, is the evaluation matrix that was approved by BOCC 6/18/2013.

Commissioner Lee

stated it needs to be updated because we’ve had so much new development and changes to the traffic pattern. For Possible Action — PV Land Investments: Discussion, deliberation and possible direction to staff regarding the approximate 900 acres of property currently zoned Specific Plan (SP) that were covered by the now expired PV Land Investments, LLC Development Agreement located within T21S, R54E, Section 2, 11 & 14, situated south of the Jeane Avenue alignments, north of Moonachie Street, east of the Radium Springs Road alignment and west of Mabes Street. Assessor Parcel Numbers 047-011-02 through 047- 011-11, 047-041-04 through 047-041-08 and 047-041-10 through 047-041-20, 047-041-20 and 047-021-

Commissioner Duryea

motioned to accept additional backup. Seconded by Commissioner Tyler.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed the past zoning specification of Open Use and Highway Frontage and that we were in desperate need of something different. She stated the Gateway Master Plan came into the community in 2006 and what we ended up with was a total of 5,898 dwelling units in that area. Ms. Beeman reviewed the applications that effected this property. She reviewed the original intentions of the Gateway Master Plan the redistribution of the commercial, mixed use and the additional 20 acres of residential.

Ms. Beeman

refers to a slide and indicates down on the bottom they added in some more community facility properties. The school property for the college is up on the north end of the project. The school wasn’t actually a part of this, they were just showing us how they were going to tie in and build roads and adjacent sports facilities, parks and etc. Page 8 of 14

Ms. Beeman

states in 2003, we had the masterplan designations that came into our valley. The ones for this entire area, was master planned as mix use or general commercial. We ended up with a masterplan that had the same names as our zoning districts. This presentation talks about what those designations are for and what were represented.

Ms. Beeman

stated once the property went into foreclosure, in 2014 these two properties went through a zone change for a solar development and are no longer a part of that development agreement. All other properties have seemed to stay intact.

Ms. Beeman

stated through this research it was found that this project actually rezoned the property. The property was hard zoned, mixed use general commercial and the conditions of approval that was placed on these zone changes were to get your design guidelines adopted and they did that and the DA has expired. An option is to leave it hard zoned general commercial/mixed use, and we probably do need to tackle the master plan since it is SPD since its no longer a specific plan of development. We can review and revise the master plan land use map and focus on area planning. We might want to revise the master plan and the zoning for this property, that’s going to be a big task, we will have to lawyer up. Maybe us as a group can try and solve the problem that we have now of no master plan but hard zoned land out here.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification that we’ve got hard zoned land with no master plan on it and that is the easiest thing to address. Do we have any parties interested in acquiring about these properties or parcels?

Ms. Beeman

stated she doesn’t know.

Mr. Lacy

stated that the gateway project was initially managed by a Focus Group. It had multiple investors and multiple owners and different parcels of land. Some of that land at one time was going through a bankruptcy process. We probably can’t make any changes until that is resolved. But having discussions with the land owners could be useful.

Mr. Waggoner

suggested leaving it alone, it has hard zoning, rather than take on battles with people the way its zoned today it leaves some options for people to at least come to the county with some proposals of some zone changes. Rather than the county investing money and time into picking a bunch of fights. When we started looking into this, we were having a hard time figuring out what exactly the zoning was. Going back to the development agreement what they found was it did refer back to open use and highway frontage, which are not current zones we have. That is what raised the original concern, through further research that’s how we figured out they did go through zoning and were rezoned.

Commissioner Lee

stated she agrees, it should be left alone.

Mr. Lacy

stated the development agreement expired and you do not have a master plan applied to this right now. You can’t do any zoning unless its in conformance with a master plan. You are going to have to do something with a masterplan.

Commissioner Koenig

stated we are in the process of redoing the master plan right now. And when you get to that point, you can assign a master plan to this without any fan fair. Leave the zoning alone and find the master plan that fits and just do it and its lost in that pieces of paper we are going to have.

Commissioner Turner

stated that he agrees with not doing anything right now as to not scare off someone that will do something with the property. But there should be some direction or guidance for this area because you are talking about 900 acres entering our town, as of right now if they were to come in and rezone the way we have it. He is proposing a district or area zoning, not going based off individual parcel but perhaps sections of the area as a whole and generalizing specific areas for general commercial, mixed use, residential commercial. But also keeping it from the entrance to our town not being what we want. Page 9 of 14

Commissioner Tyler

stated it is currently hard zoned we can roll this into our update so that it conforms with the rest of our master plan. In the meantime, if someone comes up with an application for a specific lot within this 900 acres, general development is going to at some point going to have to come forward for use to approve. There are no utilities or anything else that readily available in this area.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it currently isn’t even annexed into a utility area either.

Commissioner Lee

stated there could be a whole host of reason owners haven’t brought those forward yet. The Master Plan and the zoning are the guidelines to give them an idea of what they want to do it. Its not our responsibility to rezone it.

Commissioner Turner

stated he doesn’t suggest a hard rezone, they could do all residential there, nothing calls for commercial, nothing calls for industrial or anything to support that 900 acres.

Commissioner Lee

stated the development agreement has expired so its not 900 acres:as a whole anymore its all these individual parcels.

Commissioner Turner

stated each individual could put residential on and nothing in our guidelines, you could just have a whole neighborhood to drive through

Commissioner Koenig

states they can put one house on one parcel, a parcel is 40 acres.

Commissioner Lee

stated that’s what they can do if they want to do more than that or they want to increase the density higher than that they have to go through the subdivision process.

Commissioner Turner

asks what the zoning is currently.

Ms. Beeman

stated mixed use and general commercial. Under current NCC 17.04.410, mixed use you can have all the neighborhood commercial permissive uses are allowed.

Commissioner Turner

asked if apartments fall under that.

Ms. Beeman

stated multifamily attached housing is allowed along the beltway major and minor and local roadway classifications in the mixed use.

Commissioner Turner

stated that he doesn’t mean to change it now but is asking to give others some guidance of what we would like to see there.

Commissioner Tyler

stated that is the plan with the update of the master plan. It will give everyone guidance of what we would like to see in those areas, and we are in the masterplan update process currently. I don’t think we want to take this out of that equation, so it is a part of a cohesive plan. There is not currently any developed road in the area at the moment.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if they have been dedicated at all, are there easements for roads. In summary these are landlocked parcels.

Ms. Beeman

stated yes, when coming into a master plan you can create those goals and ideas to flesh out on here is our main design corridors here are our features. Those are some of the things we can dovetail into our masterplan update.

Commissioner Duryea

stated option two sounds reasonable, revise the masterplan which we are doing anyway. When we get to this part, we address these properties in particular and don’t touch the zoning for now.

Commissioner Lee

stated she agrees. Page 10 of 14 10.

Commissioner Duryea

motioned to staff to review and revise the Master Land Use Plan for this area and no zoning implementation at this time. Seconded by Commissioner Turner.

Commissioner Duryea

stated on page 58, regarding roundabouts, to be updated with verbiage to include we have two roundabouts. Also, on page 61 update the beltway section about the beltway being part of the road improvements.

Mr. Dahl

confirmed that the beltway is a part of the CIP, that was done in 2006. It was not removed from the plan the location or configuration may be altered depending on development.

Commissioner Duryea

stated on page 65 he would like to have the proposed roundabout pictured, to be replaced with the actual roundabout located on Blagg & Highway 372. On page 67, equestrian trails, the last sentence in the first paragraph states, “the presence of horses and riders enchance this community quality.” I think it should be enhances. And the bottom right of the page is a picture of a bike lane that is not in Pahrump, if we could update with a local picture. On page 73, Goal 6, is it still a goal to put up an airport on Gamebird?

Ms. Beeman

stated she believes the community stopped perusing the BLM land.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the FAA deemed that their take over area is not suitable for an airport. The airport up by Calvada is not a private airport anymore, it is listed as a general airport.

Commissioner Duryea

asked if they want to take Goal 6 out of here?

Ms. Beeman

stated that we could revise it to fit the other airport.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they are running the airport themselves.

Mr. Waggoner

stated that it is his understanding that we cannot get involved with the airport.

Commissioner Koenig

confirmed stating only if they ask. It is not a private airport anymore but is being run by private people and their money.

Ms. Beeman

stated that we could help them in the future if they have any flood control issues.

Commissioner Duryea

stated we just updated the airport overlay to help them. So, I would recommend removing Goal 6.

Ms. Beeman

stated that there might be some wording we could get from public works regarding the design guidelines and those issues that were concerning Commissioner Turner on how to create goals and policies.

Commissioner Lee

asked if we’re implementing any of the policies in the master plan.

Ms. Beeman

stated in the 2014 master plan update there was a considerable list of the things we had accomplished at that time. She stated that she doesn’t have an updated list but would be happy to provide a report for the commission. Page 11 of 14

Commissioner Lee

stated for clarification that the question was meant to analyze if we needed to either revise the policy, did we overshoot the mark, does it need a deeper look or are we on pace.

Commissioner Duryea

stated on page 62, interstate 11, looks like the final report date needs to be updated. On page 66, another bicycle route picture that needs to be updated.

Commissioner Koenig

stated on page 69 the private air facilities portion needs to be updated, it shows the Calvada airport as private.

Commissioner Lee

asked staff if they would like individual motions for each chapter or all-encompassing motions.

Ms. Beeman

stated the minutes and recording will correctly reflect, so if you wanted to streamline.

Commissioner Turner

stated in Chapter 6 page 86 references under groundwater withdrawals, can we update the numbers?

Commissioner Koenig

stated that the numbers need to be redone, he believes that the numbers have dropped since these reports.

Commissioner Turner

would also like the numbers on page 87 updated and wants clarification on what the number includes.

Commissioner Strickland

suggests instead of having our own stats within the body of this use reference documents like we have on other ordinances and chapters.

Commissioner Turner

asked on page 84, are we still using the terms alluvial fan and valley floor? Or did we get rid of them and asked if they are all the same?

Commissioner Koenig

stated they are not the same.

Commissioner Turner

stated if there is no such thing as an alluvial fan and suggests removing it from the page.

Commissioner Strickland

added that there has been a change in water law and there is no such thing as fan water rights versus floor water rights. As far as the differentiation with the state engineer, you can move water anywhere within the Basin 162 now.

Commissioner Koenig

clarified he is referring to water depths and availability of water. There is more water on the fan then there is on the floor. We need to be able to differentiate.

Commissioner Strickland

stated for clarification that what Commissioner Turmer is stating when talking about alluvial fans and fan water rights, that both of them are the same.

Commissioner Turner

stated for the purpose of this paragraph its regarding the use of the water rights in Pahrump. He suggests striking the state engineers name from the document, as we don’t have one.

Commissioner Lee

stated that she supports referencing a separate document for the numbers so the information is always current, and we don’t have to worry about the Master Plan being outdated.

Commissioner Turner

asked if there is a direction on how to reference? Page 12 of 14

Commissioner Lee

stated she thinks staff can put a reference in the Master Plan document to reference the other document in the wording.

Commissioner Duryea

stated on page 76, third paragraph down about the MOU, Airborne particulates, states we were meeting the standards back then and asked how we are doing with meeting the standards of dust issues and airborne particulates?

Mr. Waggoner

stated currently we are meeting the standards but are approaching our limits. We no longer have an MOU with NDP, that went away in 2016. That part would need to be updated. We will revise this to reflect our current efforts.

Commissioner Duryea

, stated on page 77, his insurance company says there are updated FEMA Maps, and also states there are some grammatical issues in the last paragraph of the page. On page 85, grammatical error on the 1*' paragraph, last sentence, there is a capital I and a small e. On paragraph 2, Perennial yield are these numbers still good? He also suggested leaving the state engineers name blank. Page 90, Critical Management Area, as of the date this was written no basins were critical management areas, has this changed?

Commissioner Turner

stated on page 90 domestic wells without water right allocated to them and ones that purchase water rights for the domestic well are not the same as domestic wells. He suggests we put an addition in to clarify. Further into the paragraph Commissioner Turner asked for clarification on there being two different categories, you have domestic wells that were just drilled and ones that had just had water rights allocated to them.

Mr. Waggoner

stated that he is correct today.

Commissioner Turner

states no matter what happens wells with water rights are higher on priority.

Commissioner Strickland

summarizes the AB95, which state the priority date is not going to be when the well was drilled but what water rights were used and the date of the water rights at the time of drilling. She doesn’t think that AB95 needs to be addressed in this item but referenced in your reference documents.

Commissioner Koenig

stated restriction to domestic well use covers this. And leaves it open to anyone who wants to come and say what restriction.

Commissioner Duryea

stated on page 95, Objective E: Policy 2: Restructure impact fees to encourage construction of water wise buildings and low water use fixtures. Has this been done?

Ms. Beeman

states no and the way impact fees are structured in the NRS I don’t believe we have the flexibility for that.

Commissioner Duryea

suggested that we strike Policy 2, because it is covered under policy 1

Commissioner Duryea

asked if we have done Objective F.

Mr. Waggoner

stated he hasn’t heard of a community drought management plan but questions if that is the water conservation plan.

Commissioner Koenig

stated it is.

Commissioner Duryea

suggested we can strike objective F if we have already finished it.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he doesn’t think we should strike it. He thinks we should leave it as a reminder that we have to keep working on water. We are never going to be done working on water.

Commissioner Duryea

stated that we should then keep objective F Page 13 of 14 11.

Commissioner Duryea

motioned staff to update chapters 5 & 6 with the RPC’s recommended changes. Seconded by Commissioner Tyler.