Agendas & Minutes


March 22, 2005

PAHRUMP TOWN BOARD MEETING
BOB RUUD COMMUNITY CENTER
150 NORTH HIGHWAY 160
TUESDAY – 7:00 P.M.
MARCH 22, 2005

 


Agenda

1.    Call to order

A.    Pledge of allegiance
B.    Welcome

2.    Discussion regarding agenda items.

3.    Announcements.

4.    Public Comment (Action may not be taken on matters considered during this period until specifically included on an agenda as an action item (NRS 241.020(2)(C)(3)).

5.    “Good News” regarding people, events, awards, celebrations or occasions that reflects positively for those within the community.

6.    Discussion, action and decision regarding Developer Agreements from Beazer Homes, and Concordia Pleasant Valley recommendation to Nye County Board of County Commissioners.  Representatives from Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner & Renshaw/Town Manager

7.    Discussion, action and decision concerning support for Nye County moratorium on certain land use activities and developments within the Pahrump Regional Planning District that would potentially or actually create a density greater than that allowed in Village residential Zones, in order to complete and implement the Capital Improvements Plan, Impact Fee Ordinance, Fiscal Analysis, Cost of Land Use Study, Growth Management Task Force recommendation, and/or Growth Management Ordinance.  Candace Trummell/Paul Willis

8.    Discussion, action and decision regarding Town of Pahrump PETT requests for 2005-06.  Town Manager

9.    Third reading and discussion, action and decision of revised Pahrump Town Ordinance #46 – Prohibiting the incorporation of any area of the Town of Pahrump that does not include the entire area of the Town.  Town Manager

10.    Second reading of Pahrump Town Ordinance #47 - Adoption of International and Uniform Fire Code – Ordinance #47.  Town Attorney/Town Manager

11.    Second reading of Pahrump Town Ordinance #48 - Creating Fire Inspections for Business.  Town Attorney/Town Manager

12.    Discussion, action and decision regarding approval of letter to the Nye County School District Board of Trustees as it concerns property from the Town to the NCSD and the Town’s use of school fields and playgrounds. Town Board

13.    Discussion, action and decision regarding authorization to make grant application for 2005 FEMS Assistance to Firefighter Program.  Chief Lewis/Town Manager

14.    Discussion, action and decision regarding Resolution # 2005-11 – Requesting support from Assemblyman Sherer to facilitate water rights transfer application for Pahrump/Nye County Fairgrounds.  Town Manager

15.    Discussion, action and decision regarding Simkins Park improvements bid requests.  Matt Luis/Town Manager

16.    Discussion, action and decision regarding request for proposals for collection services for ambulance billing delinquent account collections.  Town Manager

17.    Discussion, action and decision regarding review of status of Fire Department and their future needs because of the growth of the Town.  Sally Devlin/Paul Willis

18.    Town Manager’s Report

19.    Advisory Board Reports

20.    Discussion, action and decision regarding Pahrump Social Pow Wow funding grant of $10,000 .  Sandi Stark/Ed Bishop
21.    Discussion, action and decision regarding request for promotion package or KWNR to promote  and attend the Pahrump Invitational Bull Riders Only event – cost $5700. Karen Spalding/Steven Lee/ Ed Bishop

22.    Discussion, action and decision regarding approval of $25,000 for the July 4th program fireworks Tourism board grant.  Karen Spalding/Ed Bishop

23.    Discussion, action and decision regarding Zambelli Fireworks contract.  John O’Brien/Town Manager

24.    Discussion, action and decision regarding grant request for $3,000 United Way’s Cinco de Mayo.  Karen Spalding/Ed Bishop

25.    Discussion, action and decision regarding addendum to “Welcome to Pahrump” signs from High Impact Sign and Design.  Matt Luis/Town Manager

26.    Discussion, action and decision regarding deletion of the “Good News” item from the agenda.  Richard Billman

27.    Discussion, action and decision regarding National Grant Services Agreement.  Town Manager

28.    Discussion, action and decision regarding High Desert Resource Conservation and Development Council membership.  Town Manager

29.    Consent Agenda Items:

A.    Action – approval of Town vouchers
B.    Action – approval of Town Board meeting minutes of March 8, 2005
C.    Action – approval of ambulance billing write offs
D.    Action – approval of 72-Hour Liquor License for Our Lady of the Valley for fundraiser for new church building, April 10, 2005

30.    Adjournment


POSTED IN THE PAHRUMP TOWN OFFICE, COMMUNITY CENTER, COUNTY COMPLEX AND FLOYD’S ACE HARDWARE

SPECIAL NOTE: Any member of the public who is disabled and requires accommodations or assistance at this meeting is requested to notify the Pahrump Town Office in writing, or call 775-727-5107 prior to the meeting.  Assisted listening devices are available at Town Board meetings upon request.

 


Minutes

PRESENT:
Richard Billman
Ed Bishop
Laurayne Murray
Paul Willis
Cristina Hinds, Attorney

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Richard Billman called the meeting to order and led in the pledge of allegiance.  Mr. Billman welcomed all in attendance.

DISCUSSION REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS

There were no changes to the agenda at this time.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Laurayne Murray announced the following:

    Pahrump Regional Planning Commission will meet March 23 at 6:00 p.m. in the Hall;
    A Developers Neighborhood meeting is scheduled for March 24 at 6:30 p.m. in the Hall;
    Sunrise Service is planned for March 27 at 6:30 a.m. in Petrack Park;
NDOT has planned a Transportation Needs Assessment meeting for March 28 in Room B at 6:00 p.m.;
The Town Board will begin its tentative budget hearing on March 28 at 7:00 p.m. in the Annex.  March 29 and 30 also scheduled if needed to complete the hearings;
Fall Festival Executive Committee meeting will be held April 4 at 6:30 p.m. in the Annex;
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will meet on April 4 at 5:00 p.m. in the Annex;
Nye County Commissioner’s meeting will be teleconferenced at the community center on April 5 beginning at 8:30 a.m.;
PVFRS Advisory Board will be held April 6 at 5:30 p.m. in the Annex;
Public Lands Advisory Board will meet on April 7 at 7:00 p.m... in the Annex;
Tourism Advisory Board will meet on April 7 at 8:00 a.m. in the Annex;
Nuclear Waste and Environmental Advisory Board will meet on April 7 at 7:00 p.m. in Room A;
Sheriff Tony DeMeo has scheduled his open forum for April 10 at 1:00 p.m. in the Hall.
Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

Art Jones announced that he was representing all the veterans of Nye County in the need for Veteran’s Service Office in Nye County to service Pahrump and Nye County.  Mr. Jones pointed out that there is a Bill before the Legislature concerning this matter and urged the citizens to call the Legislature to support this bill for the veterans.  The number to call is 1-800-992-0973 to support Senate Bill 50.

Sally Devlin announced that the Arts Council meets the third Saturday of the month at the library at 1:00 p.m. and the Friends of the Library meet the first Saturday of the month at the library at 9:00 a.m.

Ms. Devlin announced the Toastmasters meet the first and third Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. at the Pahrump Auto Mall.

Sally Devlin also announced that the Valley Electric Association will hold it Annual District meeting on March 25 at 6:30 p.m.  Voting will take place for the District representative for Pahrump area.  

Ms. Devlin announced that long time resident Ruth Von Ronk passed away this past weekend.  Ms. Von Ronk was a pioneer in the community.

Jim Petell announced that the Valley Electric Director’s meeting will be held at 1:00 p.m. on March 23.

Mr. Petell also announced that the Nye County Emergency Planning Commission will meet via teleconference at 9:30 a.m. March 23.

Jim Petell announced that EDEN (Economic Development for Esmeralda and Nye) will meet March 24 at 4:00 p.m. at the Chamber of Commerce office.  

The Nye County School Board will meet March 24 at 6:00 p.m. at the Beatty High School.  

Lawrence Baker announced the Well Owners Board will meet March 28 6:30 p.m. at the VFW building and the member’s meeting is scheduled for April 14.  

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ed Bishop commented that he found a magazine at the airport in Las Vegas which has an advertisement for Pahrump included.  This was an ad placed by the Chamber of Commerce and shows that they are putting the money to good use that the Town gives them for promoting Pahrump.  

Harley Kulkin commented that he was going to provide an update of a Bill he requested through the Legislation regarding ground water and purchase of water rights should not being required
Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

for government entities.  Mr. Kulkin stated that he has sent letters to all the Nevada counties, including Nye and has not received any replies.

Jim Petell commented on Commissioner’s special meeting held this day as it concerns the Pahrump Medical Center (PMC).  Mr. Petell expressed concern regarding the taxes that have been paid on the loans for the PMC building and maintenance, etc.  

Mr. Petell also commented about the County approving a $6 million loan for the Calvada Eye with a vote of 4 – l by the County Commissioners.  

Sally Devlin expressed her concerns regarding the $750,000 from Senator Reid for PMC that the Commissioners could not account for.  

Sally Devlin commented that upon asking the County how much money was in the PETT fund and what they were for there was no response from the Commissioners.  Ms. Devlin suggested that the Town Board instruct the Town Attorney to go the Attorney General and request an accounting regarding the PETT funds.  The funds are given to Nye County for the heath, welfare and benefit of the people of Nye County, not the benefit of a brokerage house and the County going into debt when there is approximately $60 million available.  Sally Devlin said it was her opinion that Pahrump is living in an emergency situation because of fire and lack of infrastructure.  The PETT funds should be used for our benefit as Pahrump is 85% of the County.

Paula Glidden commented that she would like to remind the board, and request the Town Manager, for an update concerning the MAP recommendation.  Ms. Glidden stated she is concerned about what action will take place related to this.

“GOOD NEWS”

Laurayne Murray announced that the KaBoom project was completed this past week at the Salvation Army.  The community came out in full force the help build a new park for the kids to play.  Ms. Murray thanked the Salvation Army and all those that helped as well as the beneficiary of the park project.  

DISCUSSION, ACTION AND DECISION REGARDING DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS FROM BEAZER HOMES, AND CONCORDIA PLEASANT VALLEY RECOMMENDATIONS TO NYE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Jon Field presented, on behalf of Delmar Concordia and Beazer, with respect to the proposed developer agreements.  Mr. Field refreshed the Board of the meeting two weeks prior with the three key points. Jon Field said there is a mutual interest with the Town Board, community and the developers to make sure that a sustainable development are built secure and have fire and safety services. The key point is that development pays for development with residential being the engine of growth, residential bringing commercial which ultimately brings industrial. Mr.
Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

Field noted that the Board must evaluate the development agreements and all that come before the Board, not in a vacuum.  The Board must look at each development in the aggregate and that each developer knows they have to pay their fair share of impacts they will have on the community.  

Mr. Field stated that he understood from the last meeting that there seemed to be some confusion over three things; what local governments can reasonably ask for as its actions, from impact fees to development agreement fees.  Secondly, there was also a lot of confusion on where the developer is in the process of the development and what the role of the Town Board is.  Thirdly, there was much confusion on what is being provided in a development agreement in comparison to what is provided in impact fees in other jurisdictions such as Clark County, Henderson, City of North Las Vegas, etc.  

Jon Field said he wished they could meet with each member individually like they have in other jurisdictions.  Mr. Field stated he was seeking the common ground on all that has been discussed.  Jon Field noted that this would be more discussion rather than action so the issues can be further discussed.

Mr. Field passed out a memorandum which shows what local governments can legally request from developers.  Jon Fields noted that exactions can be non-monetary, which are dedications of land, etc., or monetary exactions which are known as impact fees.  The purpose of exactions is to require the owner of new development to pay all or a portion of new development costs providing additional public facilities that are deemed necessary to serve the development.  Mr. Field added that from a policy perspective the exactions are one alternative to property taxes as a source of revenue to pay for public infrastructure needed to accommodate new growth.  

Jon Field said he would like to focus on the difference between impact fees and development agreements.  Mr. Field noted that the current services for the area are very low and the impact fees that can be collected would not get the Town to the level of sustainable growth.  What is needed are development agreements so they can inject cash into the system, paying their fair share proportionately.  This will raise the level of services then begin charging impact fees.  

Jon Field explained that impact fees are very limited under Nevada law.  Impact fees can only be charged (NRS 278B.160) “A local government may by ordinance impose an impact fee in a service area to pay the cost of constructing a capital improvement or facility expansion….”  Not maintenance of parks, not many of the things you would hope to have money for to maintain facilities, etc.  Impact fees may include the estimated cost of actual construction, estimated fees for professional services, the estimated cost to acquire the land, and fees paid for professional services required for the preparation or revision of a capital improvement plan, which the Town is currently undertaking.  Mr. Field said that he hoped that Tischler and Associates can, in the near future, provide a basis for the impact fees.  


Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

Mr. Field noted that his clients, under the development agreements are providing more than the Town would obtain from the impact fees; and more than what is given to other jurisdictions such as Clark County, Henderson and North Las Vegas.  

Jon Field suggested that the Board read the memorandum he supplied and to call him with any questions.  Mr. Field noted that development agreements are in lieu of impact fees.  There is no double dipping.  Case law indicates that once the costs are set in the development agreement, you cannot impose additional costs.  

Mr. Field explained where they are at in the process.  Delmar and Concordia is one development, Pleasant Valley and Beazer is the other development Tsora subdivision.  The planning has been done; the tentative map has been approved and is now at the stage to finalize the development agreement.  The development of the homes will be over a 5 – 6 year period.  The impacts on schools would be 400 students over 5 – 6 years.  The development agreement was submitted on February 28, 2005 and allows for a 120 day period to work with the planning staff, and other stake holders in the community such as public facilities, before going before the County Commissioners to hopefully resolve all outstanding issues and get approval to begin the development stage.  Costs are being paid for traffic studies, grading issues.  There are many issues going one outside the prevue of the Town Board.  Mr. Field pointed out that it is much more expensive to develop in Pahrump than it is in the other jurisdictions.  The developer’s profit will be much smaller here than in the other jurisdictions as well due to the additional costs they will incur here.  The developers are aware that the Town is not where it needs to be with regard to infrastructure yet.  

Jon Field said he is before the Town Board to focus on two issues; parks and fire department.  The developers are dealing with the police department and the school board separately.  The planning department is too busy to coordinate among all the various public services.  Mr. Field said he is seeking the approval of the Town Board for the fire and parks.  The final agreement is proposed to go to the County Commissioners on June 27.  A discussion period will be scheduled with the Commissioners before that date to discuss any additional items to be added to the development agreement.  

Mr. Field presented comparisons to other jurisdictions with regard to their fees and that of which the Town and Nye County are asking.  Jon Field pointed out that there are many more developments coming and asked the Board to realize that it is not the Las Vegasization of the Pahrump Valley.  The developments are 3.5 dwelling units per acre.  The issue is not lot size but density.  Mr. Willis asked for a copy of the comparisons Mr. Field was presenting with regard to the fees charged by other jurisdictions. Jon Field said he would provide them as he did not have them copied for the backup.  Jon Field referred to a PNFA fee is an aggregate of what is paid for all the services in Clark County.  The PNFA covers fire departments, police, transportation, parks and public safety.  In Clark County, in the aggregate you would pay $467 per home.   In the other jurisdiction nothing is paid for fire, police, school district and parks, in the other

Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

jurisdictions.  Large master planned communities the school board gets a dedication of land.  That is something here that would be paid extra for.  

Jon Field noted that in Nye County they there is no residential constriction tax but would account for it in the comparison in case there is an ordinance placed later.  Mr. Field stated that Nye County does not have a master water fee but they are paying $12,000 for the water rights per home.  A traffic study is being worked on with the Nye County Public Works department which will be a significant amount of money per home.  Mr. Billman asked if these issues only deal within the development or do they include external.  Mr. Field replied they will be onsite and off site.  

Mr. Field stated that the PNFA, the $467 is paid in Clark County.  Jon Field wanted the Board to know what costs they will be incurring as they proceed with the developments.  Mr. Field said that his clients are specks on the screen compared to the large subdivisions.  He explained that they have 1416 homes will be built.  In total, the PNFA charges will cost the developer $2,265,000 for the school board; for police they will be paying between $30,000 and $140,000and $200 per roof top or $283,200.  As it concerns the Town, the charges suggested were for fire department was $40,000 total for a modular structure and paving.   Mr. Field noted that the Town is interested in a fire station at Gamebird and Homestead and the cost would be $850,000 for a new station.  Jon Field said they will work toward that end if that is what the Town needs.  Mr. Field said they are presently proposing $283,200 plus the $40,000 totaling $323,000 is presently allotted.  Jon Field said that the parks will be maintained by the homeowners associations (HOA) within the developments.  Mr. Field said that he noted there were concerns regarding the parks not being used.  Jon Field said parks put in by the developers in the past have been maintained as required by the HOA.  The parks are available for use to the public, although the parks are developed for the purpose of the development itself.  But at the same time there are no gates on the communities.  Mr. Field explained that with impact fees the Town cannot charge a developer to maintain a park.  Jon Field said that they are willing to give the Town cash to use at their discretion which would be $70,800 for parks.  All of these issues are still being circulated through the developers.  Many of the issues are still being ironed out.  Adding up all the numbers is more than three times what is paid in the other jurisdictions.  

Paul Willis asked if the cost is prohibited to building in Pahrump why do so.  Jon Field replied that the developers are out costing themselves out of the market.  Mr. Field said they see a market in Pahrump that would benefit the community economically.  These are rural developments by Las Vegas standards and will bring an economy to the valley.  Paul Willis asked about Mr. Field’s reference to legal limits and what they are on how much the Town can charge a developer.  Mr. Willis said if Mr. Field knows the limit that he should enlighten the Board with that information.  Jon Field said there is no law statement, but there are standards set by the United States Supreme Court.  Paul Willis clarified that there is a fluctuating gray area.  Mr. Field stated that there is Nevada case law and U. S. Supreme Court case law.  Mr. Willis asked for clarification that there is case law but no specific numbers on what the limit is.  Mr. Field replied that this is a question that cannot be answered as there is no black law.  Mr. Willis
Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

explained that it would have to go through a court case to determine if the amount was exorbitant or not.  Jon Field noted that there are specific things you can charge impact feed for.  Because of fewer infrastructures, the developer would have to expect to pay more than they would in other communities, and will pay their proportionate share.  Mr. Willis asked how fast the developers want to build their houses in which Mr. Filed responded previously that it would be over a five year period.  Paul Willis noted that one of the agreements stated that it could be modified but only to the ones that have not received permits yet.  Mr. Willis asked how many does the developer plan to permit at a time.  Jon Field replied that there would be seven phases for Concordia of 830 homes at 100 at a time.  Paul Willis confirmed that there could be modifications made on those that have not been permitted.  Mr. Field said they would then come before the Town Board and County Commissioners again.  

Laurayne Murray asked what the developer is looking for from the Town Board.  For clarification Ms. Murray explained that it was decided by the Town Board that all communication with developers will happen as a joint group and they will happen publicly.  Ms. Murray again asked Mr. Field what action they are looking for from the Town Board.  Mr. Field responded that within the next 120 days, minus two weeks, is to focus on fire and parks and what the Town Board feels is fair to charge a development of this small size for our impact on the community.  The suggested numbers are $323,000 for fire and $70,800 for parks is what they have built in for fire and parks.  

Richard Billman suggested that Mr. Field might be looking for a resolution from the Board to the County Commissioners stating that with regard to parks and fire the Town is okay with it.  Mr. Field noted that there would be some specifics, such as language, that would need to be rewritten to make sure the money goes directly to the Town through the County.  Mr. Field said he would like to come back again for further discussion so that all are on the same page.  

Laurayne Murray noted that due to the Open Meeting Law that the Town Board cannot meet with each other individually.  Everything that is said in this meeting is shared with the Board and Mr. Field for the first time.  Jon Field said that he is unable to understand that as they do it in other jurisdictions.  Richard Billman pointed out that this is something the Board agreed to not an Open Meeting Law.  Ms. Murray added that for the Board to deliberate on what is proposed for the agreement or a resolution to the Commissioners, and to make a decision will have to be done in a public meeting.  Jon Field said he would like to return and will have handouts available to the Board a week prior and take action on that.  Laurayne Murray stated that something that the developers might want to look at is the Capital Improvement Plan for PVFRS Task Force report and look over the recommendations of the proposed stations and when they are scheduled to become effective and why.  Ms. Murray explained that it is understood that the Town must make a reasonable and defensible request made.  The Kellogg station would be in the Concordia Homes area, the one at Gamebird would be more serviceable to Mountain Falls and Calvada areas.  Laurayne Murray stated that the $850,000 is a different station than the station affecting Concordia making the $850,000 two times.  

Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

Harley Kulkin commented that he understands that Mr. Field’s job is to sell the projects to the community.  Mr. Kulkin said his job is to protect his community.  Harley Kulkin responded to some things that Jon Field commented on.  Mr. Kulkin stated that residential growth does not pay for itself and never has.  Harley Kulkin asked who will take care of all of the development that the developers say they will put in such as who will take care of the roads.  Mr. Kulkin said he would like to see developers include an improvement district to their developments.  Harley Kulkin said he would like to address the lot sizes and the density issue.  It would not be morally and ethically right to tell someone they cannot develop their land but the Town needs to responsibly allow people to develop their land as that is how to control growth.  Mr. Kulkin pointed out that most of the jobs created by this growth will be low wage jobs which are supplemented by food stamps and welfare and criminal activity.  Harley Kulkin noted that some people believe that water will be the controlling force.  Mr. Kulkin said this will never happen as greed is very powerful.  With too many homes in the valley people’s rights will be eroded away.  

Paula Glidden commented that the figures that were quoted sounds to be the cost of business.  Ms. Glidden pointed out that the amount paid for water rights is being paid to an individual and has nothing to do with the Town of Pahrump or the County.  The only two things for the Town to think about are what is being given in the $400,000 and does not seem to Ms. Glidden to be enough.  Paula Glidden noted that there will be a lot of follow up care.  Paula Glidden said she feels that the developers are coming to Pahrump because it is cheaper to come here.  What is saved on the land purchase the money saved may have to be placed on the other costs.  Ms. Glidden said it should be looked at in the aggregate as Mr. Field stated.  

John Timmerman commented that Ms. Glidden already spoke about the $12,000 for the water costs.  One factor Mr. Timmerman stated that he did not like is the comparison to Las Vegas and Henderson.  Pahrump is not Las Vegas, nor is it Henderson.  John Timmerman said he feels that Mr. Field should come to the Town with a true and honest number that they feel is sufficient in what the expansion of Pahrump is intended to be.  Thos numbers should be realistic and should not be negotiated on a Las Vegas/Henderson basis.  

Tim Hafen commented that Mr. Willis did not get a clear answer to his question concerning legal limits.   Mr. Hafen said that there are legal limits with regard to impact fees.  That is what TriCore/Tischler is working on presently.  Tom Hafen pointed out that you cannot charge more on an impact fee to raise the level of service from what you have currently.  You can only charge for the level of service you have now.  Mr. Hafen suggested that the Town may be able to do better with a development agreement.  Tim Hafen stated that in his personal opinion there is only approximately one in four homes being built within a planned unit development within the last year.  Mr. Hafen explained that planned unit developments do pay their way in that they pay for all the sewer, phones, water, electric, paved roads, parks, off sites such as improving nearby roads as well as pay into a fund to build traffic signals based on your traffic study.  The one that does not pay its way are the other four out of five that are being built in Pahrump on vacant lots that pay nothing of the items listed above.  

Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

Paul Willis commented that he agrees that there are many homes being built independently that the Town receives no impact fees on at all.  Mr. Willis noted that he hoped that would be remedied in the near future.

Lawrence Baker commented that he agrees on the impact fee for all homes being built in the valley.  Mr. Baker said he felt there was a discrepancy on the $2.5 million on 1416 homes.  The cost is approximately $1,800 and asked if that included the school impact fees.  Jon Field replied that it is included in the $2.5 million amount.  Mr. Baker noted that it would leave $200 left per roof.  Mr. Field explained how the money is divided other than the impact fee for the schools.  

Bob Swadell commented that development does pay for itself in planned unit developments.  Mr. Swadell stated that when the Town or County inherits the built streets and facilities there is extremely low maintenance for the first ten years.  

Jim Petell commented that the figures put out today are almost the same as were put out two weeks ago.  Mr. Petell noted that a couple thousands of dollars have been added here and there   Jim Petell asked Mr. Field if he was aware of the financial condition of the Town or County at this time and do the developers understand the crisis as it is today.  Jon Field replied that the developer cannot be looked at for remedying all of the County problems but will pay its proportionate share.  

Larry Hughes, Anchor Development, said they have been working and playing and enjoying Pahrump for over five years.  Mr. Hughes stated that he has worked in many jurisdictions and has been following this for quite some time.  Larry Hughes commented that he is surprised by the rumor mill that is backed by very few facts and less investigation.  There seems to be a sensitivity that someone is trying to take something from the people of Pahrump.  Mr. Hughes explained that KKBNR is the most well respected and responsible legal firm in Nevada.  They do not take on just anybody.  Larry Hughes continued that what Mr. Field has outlined is a very common mechanism and model that is used very successfully in other jurisdictions around the nation.  Mr. Hughes said he understands that Pahrump is cutting new ground and would encourage that some time be taken to validate what is being said.  Larry Hughes noted that the question of not creating jobs and the budgetary woes and deficits of Nye County being attributed to growth is over simplifying the issue.  Another thing not spoken about is that this will generate commercial business but the rooftops have to be there first.  

Richard Billman commented that he feels no one is saying this will not generate growth within the community.  Mr. Billman said he believes that the developers have a vested interest in making certain the early developments go off well so that they may come back with larger developments.  

Mr. Billman stated to Jon Field that the only thing the Town will be sending a resolution concerning is relative to fire and parks.  The rest of the argument should be saved for the County.  

Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

DISCUSSION, ACTION AND DECISION CONCERNING SUPPORT FOR NYE COUNTY MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN LAND USE ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE PAHRUMP REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY OR ACTUALLY CREATE A DENSITY GREATER THAN THAT ALLOWED IN VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL ZONES, IN ORDER TO COMPLETE AND IMPLEMENT THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, IMPACT FEE ORIDINANCE, FISCAL ANALYSIS, COST OF LAND USE STUDY, GROWTH MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION, AND/OR GROWTH MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE

Commissioner Candice Trummell explained that this item was placed on the Town agenda at the urging of Town Board Member Paul Willis.  Ms. Trummell pointed out that a resolution was not in the Board’s back up material and is present to ask that the Town Board not approve specific language to a resolution, but to indicate the Town Board’s approval or disapproval of the concept to the County Commissioners.  Commissioner Trummell noted that there will be many arguments against this and would explain why she presented the idea, what she hoped to accomplish with it, describing arguments against a moratorium and to present what she believes to be the facts on the opposite side of the arguments..  

Ms. Trummell stated that she placed this item on the Commissioner’s agenda because the County and the Town do not have the necessary documentation to effectively negotiate the development agreements.  Commissioner Trummell stated that until the information of what is entitled to through impact fees there is not even a place to start concerning what should be gotten through development agreements.  Ms. Trummell pointed out that Paul Tischler said that the only mechanism the County may have to manage growth is by regulating the pace of growth and regulating the size of lots and density for the growth.  Mr. Tischler has also stated that he rarely sees residential growth pay for itself, Ms. Trummell commented.  The one exception would be 1-1/4 acre lot estates.  Commissioner Trummell noted that if the County continues to allow hundreds and thousands of small lots to be created, one problem facing the community may be facing is that the community may run out of water.  If the community does not run out of water the surrounding residents may have to spend thousands of dollars to sink their wells deeper as the developers have drilled a community system and have drawn down the water basin to a level that private well owners have to mitigate the impact the developers have caused.  Ms. Trummell stated that the County and Town are facing budget shortfalls to provide the level of service that they would like to provide to the citizens.  Candice Trummell said that as the Town of Pahrump has grown in population, so have the shortfalls for both the Town and the County, proof that residential growth has not paid for itself.  Ms. Trummell continued saying that allowing tremendous growth to happen will most likely result in a lower level of services and/or higher taxes to our citizens.   Commissioner Trummell pointed out that allowing the developers to proceed without having the appropriate knowledge as to what they should be paying means that whatever we do not get that we should have and we find out too late will have to come from the taxpayers pockets.  Ms. Trummell said that people will hear that new homes will help cure the budget shortfalls and the growth will grow the community out of its situation.  

Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

Commissioner Trummell stated that there have been claims that a moratorium would stop growth.  The moratorium, as written, only affects 8,000 – 10,000 square foot lots and smaller lots or densities smaller than those in a VR20 district.  Another argument is that it will harm the construction industry and our economic base.  Ms. Trummell said the truth is as pointed out that the builders will not be affected as there are plenty of lots to build on.  The question was posed why would we want to, without knowing what the cost of the small lots are going to cost the taxpayers, create more lots giving the right to higher density lots without know the impacts and whether the County will be able to pay for it.  Candice Trummell stated that one developer told the Commissioners that this approach would make the developers want to stop working with them.  Commissioner Trummell pointed out that development agreements are required so the developers can threaten all they want but they have no choice if they want to build in Pahrump.  

Ms. Trummell noted that the two biggest arguments are that it infringes on property rights.  The truth, Ms. Trummell said is that ownership and land has never meant absolute control over their property or a right to use it any way the owner wanted.  Commissioner Trummell stated that the property rights were created by the County passing the zoning ordinance.  This action does not deprive the property owner of all beneficial use of their property.   There are other property owners whose rights may be infringed upon if this moratorium action is not taken, such as wells drying up, more restrictions with respect to lawns, etc.  The prices of homes will be based on what the market can bare regardless of whether or not government makes the developers pay their fair share or not.  Ms. Trummell continued that people buying homes in the future subdivisions deserve, just like the existing population, to have their tax dollars go to providing services rather than paying for what developers should have paid for out of their profits.  No public official has supported development agreements and supports getting some kind of payment based on allowing this to proceed that they are for unfettered property rights.  

Candice Trummell stated that the other argument is that moratoria rarely survive court battles.  Ms. Trummell said the truth is that courts have recognized numerous times that a temporary halt on development activity during a period of study is not only reasonable but also insures that government acts in a manner that is thoughtful and deliberate, not arbitrary and capricious.  Commissioner Trummell pointed out that if the County take a temporary halt for a period not to exceed one year, it will give the time to get the data to justify what the County and Town is asking for rather than rely on the developers to tell us what we are legally entitled to and what should be asked for to protect our citizens.  Ms. Trummell cited legal cases during her presentation.  

Richard Billman commented that from where the Town sits currently does not seem that they have gotten into a situation where growth is carrying us away.  Mr. Billman said he sees a lot of developers coming up with development plans now, none of which are going anywhere yet.  Richard Billman said he feels that we are trying to find a solution for a problem that has not occurred yet; not to say it is something that may happen later.  

Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

Paul Willis pointed out that he requested this item be brought to the Town Board by Commissioner Trummell because at the time he had concerns that the Town or the County had a handle on the issue and it was out of control.  Mr. Willis said he felt that a time out would in the best interest.  Mr. Willis stated he is still not convinced that it may not be.  Paul Willis said he thinks it needs to be looked into a bit longer.  Mr. Willis asked if this applied to developments that were already approved.  Commissioner Trummell explained that the current moratorium was drafted was that any developer that already has an approved tentative map would be exempt.  Anyone who has an approved development agreement to proceed with submitting a tentative map would be exempt.  Ms. Trummell explained that once a tentative map is filled the right for that lot is vested.  Candice Trummell said we must evaluate it before the tentative maps stage.  One way to control growth, Ms. Trummell stated, is through density bonuses or incentive zoning.

Paul Willis said he would like to hear from the developers to tell the Town how slowing the growth will harm the ones that have not yet received approval or permits.  Mr. Willis stated that he does not know what to ask for if he does not know what is needed.  Paul Willis said he does not have the information to tell developers what the Town needs and to know what we can demand from them as impact fees do have limitations.

Candice Trummell pointed out that neither the Town nor the County has the information to effectively negotiate for development agreements.  

Ed Bishop asked when this item was on the Commissioner’s agenda, what the outcome of the vote was, and why Ms. Trummell feels the vote went the way it did.  Commissioner Trummell replied that it was March 1, the vote was 3 – 1 – 1 against, and can only speculate why the Commissioners voted the way they did.  Candice Trummell said she was hoping that if the Town decides that this is an issue they want to get involved in, and if the opinion is that a better handle is needed on the growth issue, she hoped that the Commission would consider the Town Board’s opinion.  

Laurayne Murray asked what Commissioner Trummell is requesting of the Town Board and is it the intention of Ms. Trummell to readdress the issue with the County Commissioners again, and what would be the effect on the Commissioners if the Town were to do a resolution.  Ms. Trummell replied that she did not know if the other Commissioners would consider what the Town Board has to say on this issue.  Candice Trummell said she did not come to the Town Board first because she was trying to prevent a flooding of the planning department by developers trying to get in applications to get in before the deadline.  Ms. Trummell said she feels that any public discussion of all the matters but until there is some sort of mechanism to slow down growth, any public discussion of any of these matters could trigger an effect of filing plans before it is made effective.  

Ed Bishop asked if Ms. Trummell was aware that when the RPC was first formed the County Commission put a moratorium on parcel maps.  Ms. Trummell replied that she was not aware of that.  Mr. Bishop explained that what Ms Trummell feared concerning the Planning office did, in
Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

fact, occur at that time.  Candice Trummell said that Tischler did say that the only way to control the growth would be to slow it down and would be less of an impact if slowed down at this stage rather to make sure the Town and County were getting fair compensation for the citizens for infrastructure that is needed.  If a more extreme measure be taken we would have to limit building permits to try to catch up.  Commissioner Trummell said it was her opinion that this would impact them less.  

Harley Kulkin commented that he applauds Commissioner Trummell for her devotion to responsible growth.  Mr. Kulkin said the County has always waited too long for everything including zoning, master plan, etc.  Mr. Kulkin’s answer to dealing with initiating responsible growth is limiting density.  Harley Kulkin suggested that per acre of land, they get one lot of any size.    

Jon Field commented that the main thrust is that the County should wait to hear what Tischler has to say so there is a basis.  Mr. Field said he will not know what the exact figures are that Tischler will come up with but the developers do know that their numbers are going to be lower for impact fees than what Clark County.  The numbers given by Mr. Field will be higher because the services are at a very low level.  Any impact fee level that Tischler comes up with and what the Town or County can charge a developer is going to be less than what Clark County charges with their high level of threshold level of services.  Mr. Field stated that the developer agreements need to go forward so there can be an influx of cash to raise the level of services.  

Bob Swadell commented that he negotiated the first development agreement with Nye County on behalf of Mountain Falls.  Mr. Swadell commented that he has been through moratoriums in other towns and have negotiated moratoriums for other towns.  Problem number one is that the only people that benefit from a moratorium are those that already have their permits.  Problem number two is that there are 47,000 people on the tax roles in Pahrump. This insures that you will never have a really compact place as there are still acres and a quarter lots that cannot go below that.  Mr. Swadell stated that this community has an opportunity to move and the time to move is now.  

Tim Hafen commented that he is one of those that a moratorium would benefit.  There is a principle involved and Mr. Hafen stated that a resolution such as this is dangerous to the entire economy of the valley.  Tim Hafen pointed out that this issue was settled in Tonopah and he failed to understand why this discussion is being had at this Town Board meeting.  

Paul Willis added that one of the reasons this is being heard here is that he would like to make it precedence that before items go before the County Commission without the knowledge of the Town Board that it come before the Town Board before going to the Commissioners.  Mr. Willis noted that too many times things go before the County that does not come before the Town first.  Paul Willis stated that we need to start working together.  


Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

Larry Hughes stated that they are very strong working together on full disclosure and understand the desire not to have a rush of application (at the planning department).  That is what full disclosure is all about; you have to live with that.  Mr. Hughes said he would be very cautious about statements such as “growth does not pay for itself” and the definitions of what that means and what Tischler means by that.  Larry Hughes added that things are more complex than what is being presented today.  Mr. Hughes commented on density and said he cannot tell if the moratorium is about density, preparing to better negotiate fees and cannot see what the agenda is concerning this.  A moratorium is the strongest signal that you can send to a market and is the rashest move the Town can make.  Density does not consume greater resources and will, in the future, help to educate those that are making decisions that are important to the economy by providing facts.    

Vicky Parker commented that her concern is that the issue affects Pahrump and the item was heard in Tonopah.  Mrs. Parker said she would like the Town Board to send a resolution to the County requesting that issues that primarily affect Pahrump, be held in Pahrump.  

Candice Trummell noted that there is video conferencing available; there are fifteen hour meetings when they are held in Pahrump; and the Commissioners would not be back in Pahrump for two months when the item was placed on their agenda.  With regard to the Tischler study, Ms. Trummell explained that there is also a fiscal analysis study, cost of growth study involved plus more.  The issue is not just impact fees.  The issue of the moratorium only benefits the guy with permit; Ms Trummell said she is not looking at those people but she is looking out for the guy paying the taxes on the homes and the current citizens to be sure their level of service does not decrease or their taxes increase due to the developers not paying their fair share.  Commissioner Trummell said she agreed that she would like to being things before the Town Board first, and if the moratorium goes through it will enable us to bring the impact fees issue to the Town Board first and enable to bring the growth management suggestions to the Town Board first without having to worry that there is someone trying to beat the government by getting in under the gun.  The halt also increases public deliberation on these matters by giving government a chance to air them is more than one public meeting without having to worry about someone getting in under the line because they do not want to comply with what is being proposed.  Ms. Trummell stated that not knowing what the agenda of the moratorium is, she thought it was clear.  Based upon what Tischler has told the Commissioners in the past from other communities, we do not know if that applies to Pahrump.  Candice Trummell stated that she believes that allowing greater density without knowing the cost of it is irresponsible at this point; therefore it only addresses the higher density developments.  

DISCUSSION, ACTION AND DECISION REGARDING TOWN OF PAHRUMP PETT REQUESTS FOR 2005-06

Dave Richards explained that items being requested from the County to be funded by PETT money are in the back up.  These are the items were prepared on his own initiative.  If there are recommendations by the Town Board members for other items, or if the Board would like these
Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

items or not, or would like to prioritize these items, please feel free to do so.  Mr. Richards said he felt it would be a good idea to get these requests in writing to give to the County Commissioners before their deadline of April 8.  Dave Richards stated that the Town was not given much notice of their deadline.  Dave Richards said it was his recommendation that the current requests be forwarded to the County Commissioners to meet the deadline.  If the Board would like further discussion it can be placed on the agenda and then forward those recommendations for prioritization.  

Laurayne Murray asked if the timeline for the County is that these requests must be in to them by April 8 for them to consider it at their April 8 meeting.  Mr. Richards said it was his understanding.  Ms. Murray clarified that the requests must then be submitted 10 days prior to the Commissioner’s meeting to be in their back up.  Dave Richards said he was unsure.  Ms. Murray asked if this would be an item that could be considered during the Town Budget Hearing meeting.  Mr. Richards said it would be possible and he feels that the County is flexible.  However, some of the items are budgeted in the Town’s proposed budget.  

Ed Bishop agreed that if this discussion could be held during the budget meeting he would rather do it then.  Mr. Bishop stated that he would like more time to go through the requests.  

There was no motion regarding this matter.

THIRD READING AND DISCUSSION, ACTION AND DECISION OF REVISED PAHRUMP TOWN ORIDANANCE #46 – PROHIBITING THE INCORPORATION OF ANY AREA OF THE TOWN OF PAHRUMP THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ENTIRE AREA OF THE TOWN

Laurayne Murray read the title:

AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING THAT IF PETITION FOR INCOROPRATION OF ANY AREA WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED TOWN OF PAHRUMP IS FILED, SAID PETITION SHALL INCLUDE THE ENTIRE AREA OF THE TOWN AND MUST BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT IN A MANNER AS TO AFFORD THE OPPORTUNITY OF EVERY ELIGIBLE VOTER IN THE UNINCORPORATED TOWN OF PAHRUMP A VOTE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OR CERTIFICATION OF THE SAID PETITION BY THE PROPER AUTHORITY; PENALTIES; REPEAL OF CONFLICITING AND PRIOR ORDINANCES; SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; AND OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.

Ed Bishop Motioned to approve Pahrump Town Ordinance #46.  Paul Willis seconded the motion.  


Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

Laurayne Murray noted that she has some issues regarding the repeal process.  Ms. Murray said that having the Town Board vote to restrict itself from being able to repeal any of the ordinance is one of here issues.  The second being that she does not know if the Attorney has been asked for a position on the challenge that this ordinance may have constitutionally by passing an ordinance that is different than the NRS.  The third issue is that given the fact that the Town Board has already passed a resolution that states the same thing, stating the Town Boards’ decision in a very strong manner without putting the Town in jeopardy of the other restrictions of the ordinance.  Laurayne Murray suggested that the Board may reconsider if they want to make this an official statement before hearing from Counsel.  

Ed Bishop pointed out that the resolution is not binding and an ordinance is.

Paul Willis commented on the NRS aspect in that it actually puts it in the hands of the people and is in strict accordance with the NRS in stating that whoever wants to take this ordinance off the books is more than welcome to follow the process that is provided by the NRS to do so.

Cristina Hinds said she and Mr. Willis had discussions and noted that this particular issue has never been challenged in Nevada Law.  However, it is taking this issue and sending it to the voters which she believes the Town Board does have the power to do.  

Peggy Warner asked who wrote the ordinance.  Cristina Hinds replied that she did.  Ms. Warner asked if this ordinance could stand up in a court of law.  Ms. Hinds replied that she does but it should be kept in mind that the issue has never been challenged in the State of Nevada or any other jurisdiction that Ms. Hinds researched.  Cristina Hinds asked if she was referring to the repeal.  Ms. Warner replied yes and also the challenge of the $20,000 a person would have to put up.  Ms. Hinds replied that there are other statutes that require posting a bond.  The repeal would be the main issue Cristina Hinds commented and could only say it has never been litigated and there are other areas where a voting entity gives away rights to determine whether to vote on the issue and send it to the people.  Peggy Warner commented that this would be a bad precedence that the Town Board set that they cannot repeal their own ordinance.  If it should pass, Ms. Warner noted that the Town Board has always allowed repeal from one Board to the next and feels due consideration should be given to them.  

Vote passed 3 – 1.  Laurayne Murray voted nay.

SECOND READING OF PAHRUMP TOWN ORDINANCE #47 – ADOPTION OF INTERNATIONAL AND UNIFORM FIRE CODE – ORDINANCE #47

Lauryane Murray read the title:

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1997 UNIFORM FIRE CODE AND THE 2003 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE; SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; AND OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.
Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

There were no comments at this time.

SECOND READING OF PAHRUMP TOWN ORDINANCE #48 – CREATING FIRE INSPECTIONS FOR BUSINES

Laurayne Murray read the title as required:

AN ORDINANCE CREATING FIRE INSPECTIONS FOR EVERY BUSINESS LOCATION; PENALTIES; REPEAL OF CONFLICTING AND PRIOR ORDINANCES; SEVERABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE; AND OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.

There were no comments at this time.

Follow a short break, Mr. Billman asked that the following item be taken out of order.

DISCUSSION, ACTION AND DECISION REGARDING PAHRUMP SOCIAL POW WOW FUNDING GRANT OF $10,000

Ed Bishop Motioned to approve.  Laurayne Murray seconded the motion.

Ed Bishop pointed out that the Town has sponsored this group consistently for several years.  It does bring a fair amount of tourists to Pahrump.  It is unique and it is growing every year.  

Vote passed 4 – 0.  

DISCUSSION, ACTION AND DECISION REGARDING REQUEST FOR PROMOTION PACKAGE OR KWNR TO PROMOTE AND ATTEND THE PAHRUMP INVITATIONAL BULL RIDERS ONLY EVENT – COST $5,700

Ed Bishop Motioned to approve.  Paul Willis seconded the motion.

Steven Lee explained that this is a first time event for Pahrump and would be trying to bring back rodeo to Pahrump.  Mr. Lee provided the Board with his background in the rodeo promoting.  Steven Lee noted that this is their first annual event and stated that bull riding is the cream of the crop of rodeo.  With regard to the KWNR promotion, Mr. Lee said they are looking at reaching to more people outside of Pahrump and this is one good way to do this.  Advertising will be done outside Nevada as well through internet and flyers.  KWNR estimates they reach approximately 1.3 million listeners in their area.  Mr. Lee said they anticipate selling up to 3000 tickets including comp tickets.  Steven Lee noted that they have many sponsors within Pahrump and outside of Pahrump to aid in this event.  Mr. Lee said that without KWNR they would not be able to pull in the expected spectators.  

Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

Ed Bishop asked if they have contestants already lined up for the event.  Mr. Lee replied that they have 47 contestants already signed up and will be limited to 60 in total.  Mr. Bishop clarified that KWNR will be doing an onsite live appearance.  Mr. Lee replied affirmatively.  Ed Bishop asked about proceeds from the event.  Steven Lee responded that the proceeds will be going to the K Bar S Ranch which is a therapeutic equestrian ranch that works with handicap and disturbed children.  Mr. Bishop asked if it was a non-profit group.  Mr. Lee said it was.  

Ed Bishop noted that this was brought before the Tourism Advisory Board and was voted unanimously to approve.  

Vote passed 4 – 0.

DISCUSSION, ACTION AND DECISION REGARDING APPROVAL OF $25,000 FOR THE JULY 4TH PROGRAM FIEWORKS TOURISM BOARD GRANT

Ed Bishop Motioned to approve.  Laurayne Murray seconded the motion.

Ed Bishop stated that the contract is all inclusive and includes all the transportation, firing equipment, product insurance, permits, workers’ compensation, lodging, meals, etc.  Mr. Bishop said it was his impression that they will be hiring Mr. O’Brien, who has done the fireworks shows for years, and it will be at a minimum the equivalent of what last year’s program was.  

Dave Richards said it appears that Mr. Bishop has combined the next item (Item #23) with this item.  Mr. Richards explained that the current item is for approval of the grant from the Tourism Advisory Board.  Mr. Bishop said he misspoke and was referring to the grant rather than the contract.  

There was discussion whether to include both items together.

Ed Bishop amended his motion to approval of the grant for $25,000 for the fireworks display on the 4th of July 2005.  Paul Willis seconded the motion.

Paul Willis confirmed that this was for a grant for the fireworks.  Mr. Billman agreed that it was.  Mr. Willis asked if this has anything to do with the booths or who runs the booths.  Ed Bishop suggested that the discussion be held under the item concerning the contract.

Vote passed 4 – 0.

DISCUSSION, ACTION AND DECISION REGARDING ZAMBELLI FIREWORKS CONTRACT

Ed Bishop Motioned to approve the contact with Zambelli Fireworks International for $25,000 for the display of fireworks on July 4, 2005.  Laurayne Murray seconded the motion.
Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

Paul Willis asked Dave Richards to find out when was it conveyed that the proceeds from the festival go from the volunteer fire department to the IAFF and where do the proceeds go.  Mr. Richards said he would have to do some research to discover that information.  Richard Billman pointed out that Mr. Richards can provide the information to Mr. Willis as it does not fall under this contract.

Vote passed 4 – 0.  

DISCUSSION, ACTION AND DECISION REGARDING GRANT REQUEST FOR $3,000 FOR UNITED WAY’S CINCO de MAYO

Ed Bishop Motioned to approve.  Laurayne Murray seconded the motion.

Richard Billman noted that this has been done for several years.  

Ed Bishop stated that it was mentioned to him that there was a potential that United Way did not use much of the $3,000.  Mr. Bishop said he was curious if United Way returned what they did not use.   Ed Bishop asked if they submit actual invoices for what the money is spent on and held accountable for the money.

Karen Spalding replied that George Romero secures the entertainment and gets contract up front.  Ms. Spalding was unsure how the money is handled.  

Richard Billman said he recalls receiving an accounting of what was spent.  Ed Bishop said this really does apply to all of those grants that have been approved.  Mr. Bishop requested that an accounting of where the money goes be provided.  

Laurayne Murray commented that at a meeting she attended of the Tourism Advisory Board, they did revise their request for funding form and it is required that anyone receiving a grant to itemize and provide receipts and provides on the form it stipulates that they must refund any money not used.  

Vote passed 4 – 0.

DISCUSSION, ACTION AND DECISION REGARDING APPROVAL OF LETTER TO THE NYE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS IT CONCERNS PROPERTY FROM THE TOWN TO THE NCSD AND THE TOWN’S USE OF SCHOOL FIELDS AND PLAYGROUNDS

Ed Bishop commented that he has driven around and looked at the schools and facilities and stated that before making a decision on anything that the Board may do with the property that an appraisal be done on the property in question.  

Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

Mr. Bishop Motioned that this item be tabled until an appraisal from a licensed real estate agent on what these properties are worth be done.  Laurayne Murray seconded the motion.

Richard Billman asked Ms. Hinds if an agenda item is needed because they will be spending money to do so.  Cristina Hinds said she discussed this with Mr. Richards and they were unsure how much an appraisal would cost and how many appraisals the Board may want or if it would exceed the Town Manager’s spending authority.  Mr. Billman said the Town Manager can be directed to obtain a quote.  

Mr. Bishop noted that there were real estate agents present and asked what the cost might be to appraise four adjoining lots.  They are four one acre parcels that are adjoined.

Paula Glidden responded that the cost could be between $1,000 and $1,500 for the appraisal.  A single lot is usually appraised for approximately $350.

Mr. Billman then noted that the item would have to be put on an agenda.

Vote passed 4 - 0.  

Ed Bishop directed staff to place an item on the next agenda for an appraisal.  

DISCUSSION, ACTION AND DECISION REGARING AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE GRANT APPLICATION FOR 2005 FEMS ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTER PROGRAM

Ed Bishop Motioned to approve.  Laurayne Murray seconded the motion.

Ed Bishop asked why this is on the agenda as we have a Fire Chief that we pay good money to do things for the Town, the community and the department.  Mr. Bishop said he does not understand why he feels he must ask the Town Board for permission to apply for a grant.  Ed Bishop stated that he could understand it if it came down to a need for matching funds.

Dave Richards responded that he directed the Fire Chief to prepare a report for a grant in part because there is a match required and the Board needs to understand upfront before the application is made, that the Town Board is going to honor the match required.  In this case, Mr. Richards stated, he asked that the application be included but was told it could not be included.  The application would have detailed the grant items and also the amount and the amount of the match.  What the Board did get was a report rather than the application.  Dave Richards said that in the past there has been considerable discussion from the Town Board about whether grants have been applied for and whether we were successful.  Mr. Richards stated that this is an attempt to demonstrate there are grant applications being made, but more importantly, putting the Board on notice that there is a match.  

Pahrump Town Board Meeting
March 22, 2005

Ed Bishop asked what the match would be.  Dave Richards replied that the match would be 10% of the $40,000 being requested.  

Dave Richards recommended that the Board approve this request.

Vote passed 4 – 0.

DISCUSSION, ACTION AND DECISION REGARDING RESOLUTION #2005-11 – REQUESTING SUPPORT FROM ASSEMBLYMAN SHERER TO FACLITATE WATER RIGHTS TRANFER APPLICATION FOR PAHRUMP/NYE COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS

Due to an error in preparing the back up, the resolution was not in the back up.

Ed Bishop Motioned to table until the next meeting.  Laurayne Murray seconded the motion.

Vote passed 4 – 0.

DISCUSSION, ACTION AND DECISION REGARDING SIMKINS PARK IMPROVEMENTS BID REQUESTS

Dave Richards noted that this is just one element of the Simkins Park improvement project which include light poles, light fixtures.  Cost estimates are between $16,000 and $20,000.  This project was budgeted from Parks and Recreation PETT funds.  There are sufficient funds to cover the cost.  At this time the request is only for bidding the project.

Ed Bishop Motioned to approve.  Laurayne Murray seconded the motion.

Vote passed 4 – 0.

DISCUSSION, ACTION AND DECISION REGARDING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR COLLECTION SERVICES FOR AMBULANCE BILLING DELINQUENT ACCOUNT COLLECTIONS

Dave Richards said he was requesting authorization to request proposals for collection services.  The Town has one provider that has been the collection agent for one year and another has been an agent for five years.  Mr. Richards noted that two other agencies have revealed that we can benefit from lower fees from other agencies and it may b

 


Backup

There is no backup posted for this meeting.