October 14, 2020

Commissioner Lee

provided staff with some minor corrections.

Commissioner Lee

stated she received a request to move Item # 8 to the end of the meeting agenda.

Mr. Waggoner

stated he has an additional modification to the agenda. He would like to remove item #15 on the agenda. This title was repealed in its entirety and no longer exists.

Commissioner Lee

stated NRS 278.B states we shall review and may revise the Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan at least once every three years. They have not yet seen the Land Use Assumptions, the Capital Improvements Plan they have approved which she believes is the Road Matrix from Public Works. Darrell Lacy reviewed the presentation backup provided and stated he has been working on the Capital Plans with the affiliated Departments. They have come up with a fairly comprehensive batch of projects. The 2005 update included impact fees for flood and drainage and the cost for that was cost prohibitive, so it wasn’t included in the current impact fee. He has been working with PW for a batch of projects for the CIP that won’t scare everyone off. Last year we were running at a 3% growth rate but we have slowed down and our current 2020 growth rate is 2.2%. The current state demographer says we are starting July 1, 2020 with a population of around 42,000 for Pahrump, that is what we will be basing our numbers off of. The 10 year growth projections starting at 42,000 at 1.5% is 48,700; 10 years at 3% growth would be 54,600. The water resource plan that was just completed with constraints on water availability used a 1.5 % growth rate. As the BOCC has looked at new land division maps they are also looking to make sure our growth goes along with the availability of water. Parks and Flood do not have any additional funding sources except the CIP plan.

Mr. Lacy

stated a discussion they need to have is what additional arterial or intersection improvements are needed to go into this. The flood list they have been working on paring it down and PW has a proposal but no price yet but can be scaled down to the 20 to 30 million range. The calculation for the CIP projects only the growth can be charged to the CIP, if the starting point is 42,000 then the growth will only pay for the percentage for impact on that growth. His to do list is to finish the flood plan and do the calculations to bring back to you after the first of the year.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification from Mr. Dahl and Mr. Waggoner. The streets and highways CIP Plan was approved in 2005 with a 10 year plan. We are 5 years past the life of that plan and under NRS 278.b.90 they are required to review every 3 years, they have not seen anything with land use assumptions. Her expectation is that we would be seeing chapters of the plan for review with updates especially land use and CIP Plan. The streets and highway plan identify mileage of paved roads this definitely needs to be updated. Is this a correct assumption that we should be going in that path. We have been reviewing this since December 2018 and we have yet to see a land use assumption review.

Mr. Lacy

stated part of the land use assumption is that we are working consistent with the Master Plan and they have included projects in the CIP plan within our Master Plan update. We have had at least some of that included in the Master Plan update.

Commissioner Lee

stated that is correct they did a review of the Master Plan in 2014 and they did not do a review of the CIP plan in 3-year time frame.

Mr. Dahl

stated what he is expecting to see in the update. In 2011 the Planning Department did a comparison for impact fees, Steve did a report that broke down impact fee ordinance for the county in addition to the NRS and gave a blanket definition of what rules the county has in place and how the CIP works. Some things that would benefit to be in the update would be identify some of the projects we have in our CIP priority list to give them more definition.

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes, he has the same interpretation and expectations if it hasn’t been updated since 2005.

Commissioner Lee

stated the CIP Streets and Highways portion of the CIP was approved July 20, 2005 for FY 2006 – 2015 and we are 5 years past the 10 year vision. Besides reviewing the project list that PW provides we haven’t seen much.

Mr. Waggoner

agrees, it is due. At this point we need to be getting something to review. Page 3 of 9

Commissioner Lee

asked Mr. Lacy if bringing something forward for review is something that can get done quickly, sections of the CIP that are updated for them to review.

Mr. Lacy

stated if that is something they want to do it can be done.

Commissioner Lee

asked if he can bring something back to them for the next CIP meeting they will set.

Mr. Dahl

recommened retaining services through a request or proposals to have an engineering firm that does this everyday analyzing communities and make on what roads size needs to be built, and tools to do this. It will be for a cost, and we have tried to minimize that by doing it in house but he doesn’t have staff sufficient to do this update to benefit the community.

Commissioner Lee

asked what would be involved in going out for an RFP.

Mr. Dahl

stated it would be a scope of work stating it would be an update to the CIP and they have something to turn over as a scope they would like updated and Engineering firm will put together a proposal. Once they have chosen a company they will enter into fee negotiations for the scope of work that we have described for the request for proposal.

Commissioner Lee

asked if there would be a cost to the County.

Mr. Dahl

stated there would be staff time to advertise and put a scope together. The cost to the CIP account would come when we decide on an engineering firm and discuss negotiations on the fee.

Commissioner Lee

asked if doing an RFP would they be obligated to go into contract with any of them.

Mr. Dahl

stated no, only until they enter into the contract would they be obligated to spend anything.

Commissioner Koenig

stated it would be interesting to do it to see what it would cost but once they see what it costs, it will become a different conversation.

Mr. Lacy

stated they had a basic discussion when they stated this project and stated they had gone out and looked at outside companies. The decision was to stay in house and use the same land use assumptions because the recession they had they didn’t grow out to the level of growth they had projected in 2005. Going out and starting from scratch wasn’t the decision that was made it was to use existing land use assumptions and update the cost and project list that went with those.

Commissioner Lee

stated she understands but is worried about negligence in upholding their duties under NRS to update every three years and provide a report to the BOCC.

Commissioner Lee

stated at the last meeting they made a motion contrary to staffs recommended motion and they failed to make findings to support the motion that went against staffs. Shae Anderson stated they have no comments.

Commissioner Curtis

stated she supported the motion due to COVID, small business issues and a possible hardship and to reduce the cost for the applicant in surfacing the driveway.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed the staff report, the property is not part of the development agreement and the masterplan designation of SPD was an error and would need to be corrected in the upcoming revision. Based on findings 2, 3, 4 and 5 staff is recommending approval. Development of the property would require a site development review.

Commissioner Lee

stated Clubhouse drive dissects through the parcel and asked Public Works if Clubhouse drive is a privately owned street or County maintained and if they would need to ask for ROW tonight. Tim Dahl, Public Works Director stated he doesn’t believe the lines from the GIS are accurate and he believes Clubhouse drive on the Westside has been dedicated already.

Mr. Waggoner

stated Mr. Dahl is correct. The OD was handled through the FM that was just approved recently at the BOCC.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if before it comes to the BOCC if the APN number can be corrected on Appendix A. Page 5 of 9 Ed Taney, applicant stated he has no additional comments.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed the staff report and stated staff is recommending approval of the application.

Commissioner Lee

stated the address is listed as 3610 S. Hwy 160 APN 042-451-13 and it was stated it was the North property of the two developed properties. The subject property in the exhibits states 042- 451-12. Is the agenda item correct?

Mr. Osborne

stated the agenda item is correct, the location is 3610 and the APN is 042-451-13. The exhibit maps have the wrong property, it’s the property adjacent to it.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if the location is at the back of the North building or fronting the highway.

Mr. Osborne

stated the proposed liquor store would be in building A. It is the one on the front, adjacent to 160 to the right. The entrance to the store will be in the front on the Hwy 160 side. Sarah Chapman, representing the applicant.

Commissioner Curtis

stated as she looks at the floor plan, the front door exit to Hwy 160 and if that is true the rear door exits to the rear of the building.

Mr. Osborne

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Curtis

stated the deliveries would then be delivered to the storage area in the rear, as shown on the floor plan, correct.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes, that is correct.

Mr. Waggoner

requested to reopen item #4. Page 6 of 9

Mr. Waggoner

stated this is a draft amendment just to the definitions. In the DC manual there is a reference to a compliance review committee. We have no reference in our code to the Compliance Review Committee, so they are proposing two different definition options. The first option is what is current in the DC manual now. Option 2 gives the availability to pull from contractors so there isn’t just three NC officials making the decisions so it is a fair review.

Commissioner Lee

stated she likes option 2 and asked if it is difficult to get an ex-officio with NDEP.

Mr. Waggoner

stated no. It has happened in the past and he has had conversations with NDEP and they stated they do have people available if we ever need them.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if someone goes before the committee and is found to be in violation of the regulations who would they appeal that to.

Mr. Waggoner

stated from that point it is appealed to a hearing officer, which is another contract they will be working on soon. The Hearing Officer was in place in the past, but they would not go before the board.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the appeal procedures are stated anywhere in Title 16?

Mr. Waggoner

state yes, it is included in NCC and references the Compliance Review Committee, but without a definition on who makes up the Committee.

Commissioner Blackstock

asked if they have a group of contractors and if they are vetted. If they have problems in the past will it become a problem.

Mr. Waggoner

stated there are some that have issues in the past and some that haven’t had any issues. That is just an option. We are asking for a recommendation to the BOCC so they are asking the RPC for a recommendation on either option 1 or 2.

Commissioner Lee

stated she forgot to open public comment.

Mr. Waggoner

stated there is nothing currently in NCC that pertains to how they handle unpermitted work. It is a constant issue with Code Compliance and the Building department. In the research with similar size counties and jurisdictions throughout Nevada, they have used a lot of the language from other jurisdictions in this draft.

Commissioner Lee

stated within the exception on page 2 of 3 under paragraph E, exception paragraph A. Reducing the fee. Is there a set schedule for fee reduction or a set percentage for fee reductions? Page 7 of 9

Mr. Waggoner

stated that is discussed in the next draft 15.16 we are going to speak about. Contractors know permits are required. An average individual might not know if there are requirements for permits. They wanted to leave flexibility for that. If it is a first offender, they want to be able to work with them, but habitual offenders they want to be able to have a little harsher treatment. Another thing that they have come across for applications that come in, and there is an open code case there was nothing written in the code that gives staff the ability to condition the approved to remediate or correction to the existing code violation before approval. That language has been added. Also if there are property owners who own several rental properties in the valley if they submit an application on property A and there are existing code violations on file for other properties that they own they can withhold any new approvals based on the existing violations. These are consistent with other jurisdictions.

Commissioner Turner

asked for clarification on the section that refers to maintained. If there is a 2-car garage and they maintained that garage that was existing on the property will they be fined if there were no permits that were ever pulled for the property. Or is this strictly for new builds with no permits.

Mr. Waggoner

stated if it was built prior to building permits being required it would be grandfathered. There is a due diligence that the property buyer should be preforming. If there are structures on the property they are buying then they should be verifying that permits have been pulled. There are also provisions within the NRS when a property seller has an open code compliance or nuisance issue it is illegal for them to transfer the property without disclosing or remediating the issue prior to the transfer. As the Chair was asking if a property owner finds that a building wasn’t permitted they can apply for permits, they won’t be penalized for it if they didn’t know any better.

Commissioner Turner

asked if the application process can be simplified. The site plan may be an issue for some to complete.

Mr. Waggoner

stated they should be directed to the Planning Department or the Building Department. There will be information packets put together to explain what to do if they need permits.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if there was a specific time frame that they would not need to obtain permits.

Mr. Waggoner

stated this is referring to when the Building Department is driving by and seeing new construction no one is going around the valley looking for violations.

Commissioner Turner

will the removal of E.1 removing the word “maintained” still accomplish what they are wanting.

Mr. Waggoner

stated no, that is straight out of the building code. There is an NRS that states there is a building permit requirement when a Building Official is in place for any erected built, moved, or maintained building. This isn’t just a Nye County thing, if nothing is adopted, there still will always be an NRS requiring a building permit.

Commissioner Curtis

asked it states the violation fee shall be collected in advance. Is there any provision for a warning that is given prior to being assessed a violation fee?

Mr. Waggoner

stated that is where the exception is added to give us the discretion. If it is a first offense or they didn’t know better there could be no actual violation fee but they still have to pay the permit fee. If there was a violation fee then yes it is to be paid at the time of the permit fee or they don’t issue the permit.

Mr. Waggoner

stated this goes in conjunction with the previous item.

Commissioner Lee

stated the next regularly scheduled meeting would fall on Veterans day and the next meeting will be scheduled for November 18th at 6:00 pm via teleconference.

Commissioner Lee

asked if there are any results with the Master Plan survey results.

Mr. Waggoner

stated they are still on the holding pattern due to COVID. The next step is a public workshop.