Sunny Hills Ranchos
The Big Land Swap
Jed Margolin
|
If you got here from www.sunnyhillsranchos.org you should know that this web site is not owned or run by Sunny Hills Ranchos LLC. This Web Site is owned and run by me, Jed Margolin. I am not associated with Sunny Hills Ranchos LLC, which will become obvious if you continue reading.
|
Sunny Hills Ranchos is a company (along with Unitex Management Corp. and Intex Recreation Corp.) owned by Mr. Tien P. Zee of Long Beach, California.
Sunny Hills Ranchos and their minions used their influence to get the Nevada Legislature (and Governor Sandoval) to pass SB272 which will transfer about 1,201 acres in Storey County to Washoe County and about 619 acres in Washoe County to Storey County.
Sunny Hills Ranchos owns about 1,117 acres (of the 1,201 acres) of the property in Storey County.
Storey County Commissioner Lance Gilman (through the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center) controls 110,000 acres (172 sq miles) of the 168,268 acres (263 sq miles) of the property in Storey County.
According to Storey County Commissioner Bill Sjovangen the transfers of the Washoe County parcels and the Storey County parcels are completely separate and unlinked actions. I don’t know anyone who believes that BS.
The Storey County Board of Commissioners and the Washoe County Board of Commissioners are required to give their approval in order for this land swap (which is not a land swap) to happen.
Note that Sunny Hills Ranchos owns about 6,129 acres in Storey County (the 1,117 acres is part of that) and the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center owns about 110,000 acres in Storey County (this does not include the 322 acres in Washoe County).
Together, that is about 69% of Storey County.
Mr. Tien P. Zee doesn’t live here so he doesn’t get to vote in our elections.
Commissioner Lance Gilman gets one vote as a resident and one ginormous vote as a Commissioner. (We only have three Commissioners.)
This is a work in progress.
Jed Margolin
Virginia City Highlands, Nevada
This is the latest entry: R. July 20, 2015 - Where Thing Stand
Index
B. Who is Sunny Hills Ranchos ? (September 3, 2013)
C. Where is Sunny Hills Ranchos?
D. About the Proposed Transfer
F. Washoe County Parcels – Toot! Toot!
G. Notice of Sunny Hills Ranchos Meeting – Received November 15, 2013
H. February 4, 2014 – Storey County Commissioners; Washoe County Commissioners
J. April 19, 2014: Sunny Hills Ranchos Presentation at the March 25 HRPOA Meeting
K. April 23, 2014: The Meeting for Everyone (this time)
L. June 28, 2014: A Tardy Update
April 23, 2014 Sunny Hills Ranchos Meeting that was open to all
N. July 31, 2014 – The July 1 Meeting. What are they up to now?
P. March 31, 2015 - Sunny Hills Ranchos - The Empire Strikes Back
Q. April 29, 2015 - Red Alert - AB417
R. July 20, 2015 - Where Thing Stand
A. The Setup
1. April 3, 2013 Minutes of the Nevada Senate Committee on Government Affairs, Seventy-Seventh Session Click here for PDF.
The agenda of the meeting was to discuss five bills. One of them was Senate Bill 272: Provides for the revision of the boundary line between Storey County and Washoe County. (BDR 20-840)
For an html version of the discussion of SB272, click here.
The Players
The following people testified on SB272:
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Senator David R. Parks, Chair
Senator Pete Goicoechea
GUEST LEGISLATORS:
Senator Ben Kieckhefer, Senatorial District No. 16
OTHER PRESENT:
Garrett Gordon, Sunny Hills Ranchos
Vincent Griffith, P.E., President, Reno Engineering Corporation
Greg Hess, Storey County
Bill Sjovangen, Chair, Board of County Commissioners, Storey County
John J. Slaughter, Washoe County Commission
Juanita Cox, Citizens in Action
The first bill discussed was SB272.
After opening the meeting Chairman Senator David R. Parks turned it over to Senator Ben Kieckhefer (Senatorial District No. 16). For a map of Nevada Senatorial District 16 click here.
Storey County is in Senatorial District 17, and we are represented by Nevada Senator James A. Settelmeyer. (He was at the meeting but did not speak to SB272.) For a map of Senatorial District 17 click here.
Here are what I think are the highlights.
|
Senator Ben Kieckhefer (Senatorial District No. 16):
I am proposing an amendment (Exhibit C) to S.B. 272 prepared by the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. I will refer to proposed Amendment 7897 while testifying on the bill. This piece of legislation was brought to me by a constituent who owns property straddling the Washoe and Storey County boundary line in southeast Washoe County. The owner would like to develop the property in a mixed-use fashion that includes both residential and commercial uses. From a services prospective, it ties into the South Truckee Meadows area in the terms of municipal services. Washoe County would be the appropriate jurisdiction if commercial and residential developments occur on the property.
Following a discussion with representatives from Storey and Washoe Counties, there is some interest in seeing another piece of property move between the two counties that is also reflected in this bill. Senate Bill 272 allows the Board of Commissioners of Storey and Washoe Counties to make the decision regarding a change to their boundary lines. The counties need to reach an agreement and must do so within a couple of years. If the decision is not reached, the change cannot happen. The bill is enveloped in a cloud of neutrality so you should not hear a lot of opposition.
Garrett Gordon (Sunny Hills Ranchos):
Sunny Hills Ranchos, as owner of the piece of property located in Storey County, is requesting the property be moved into Washoe County. I have provided a map (Exhibit D) called the SB 272 color map. My client owns the property in the bottom left-hand corner of approximately 1,100 acres that we would like to see move into Washoe County. I have provided a second map (Exhibit E), an existing services map, and you can see the proximity of water infrastructure and sewer within a mile or 2 miles on the Washoe County side of the property; thus it would be more economically feasible to bring this property into Washoe County.
The intent of the bill is to give enabling authority to the counties to make this decision. Currently, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 243 identifies all county boundaries. The Legislature only has a right to amend those boundaries. The bill gives enabling authority to both pieces of property. They do not come in together; it can be one or the other. If S.B. 272 passes and one of the properties goes before the Washoe County Board of Commissioners and the other property goes before the Storey County Board of Commissioners and this is approved, then the boundary line adjustments become effective. The properties may come as a package or they may come separately, but it was important to both the Washoe County and Storey County Board of Commissioners that it be an either-or approval and not both.
Referencing the proposed amendment, Exhibit C, section 1 amends the legal description of the Washoe County boundary to add the Sunny Hills property. Section 1.5 amends the legal description of Storey County to include the property in the upper left-hand corner of Exhibit D, which is currently owned by the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, LLC. Section 2 confirms that the boundary change will not impact the outstanding obligations of either county unless specifically discharged by that county. Section 3 states the bill is effective upon passage. It was important to both counties that this issue did not continue for years, so a deadline date was set to get this exchange accomplished.
The deadline is June 30, 2015. We have approximately 2 years to obtain approvals from both Washoe and Storey Counties to move the boundary line. Section 3 also includes language that says when section 1 becomes effective, the Washoe County piece would legally be moved upon approval by Storey County and Washoe County. It also says that section 2 would be effective upon approval by Washoe County and Storey County. It was very important to both county boards that the properties be considered separately, voted upon independently and not have to do one without the other.
Chair Parks:
It probably seems strange to change county boundaries, but it is has been done in the past when the Clark County and Nye County border was moved for the purposes of a development. The concept is not entirely foreign. There was also a portion of Washoe County moved into Lyon County during a previous Legislative Session. This is a fairly common occurrence given development. Does Washoe County have a condition that it will not provide municipal services beyond its county borders?
Mr. Gordon:
Since that arose as one of the many questions on land use issues, such as water, transportation and access, we thought it was a good idea to move the local government discussion from the Legislature to the county level in order to negotiate those issues.
Vincent Griffith, P.E. (President, Reno Engineering Corporation):
For the past 13 years, we have been the project engineers and project managers for the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center. I am also the president of the water and sewer company serving the industrial park. The Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center is roughly a 167-square-mile project highlighted in the bottom left-hand corner of Exhibit D. For reference, the City of Reno city limits are roughly 106 square miles and the City of Las Vegas is 136 square miles.
The project has been underway for 13 years. Companies such as Toys “R” Us, PetSmart, Alcoa, James Hardie and others have located in the Park. We have constructed numerous and expensive state-of-the-art utility infrastructure to serve these Park customers that we have brought from outside the State. Over $50 million has been invested in the project. The sewer plant cleans 1.2 million gallons per day, and we have four water tanks with storage for over 5 million gallons of water. A tremendous amount of work has been done adjacent to and abutting the property in Washoe County.
We constructed a county complex for police and fire personnel on a portion of the project, so we have police and fire personnel on-site. We have been working with Washoe County staff over the last decade to anticipate the hurdles in bringing this parcel into the development. We found that we are unable to share utilities over county lines, so it makes more sense to adjust the county line.
We have a $4 million sewer plant that does not distribute water or effluent back to the Truckee River. If we were to stay in Washoe County, we would not be allowed to use the existing sewer plant and would be required to utilize a septic system and a leach field. To put it into perspective, a standard warehouse with 300 employees would be almost 13,000 gallons a day of effluent leaching into the groundwater. For expense and for efficiencies, the proposal of S.B. 272 just makes sense. It is very difficult to provide police and fire services from Washoe County at this location. From an efficiency standpoint, it makes sense to include this property in the adjacent county in order to take advantage of the utilities and infrastructure.
|
For SB272 as introduced click here.
For SB272 proposed amendment click here.
For SB272 as enrolled click here.
For Exhibit D showing the subject parcels click here.
[JM: Notice that, except for the Sunny Hill Ranchos property, Storey County is blank. Is that what Sunny Hills Ranchos thinks of us? Are we blank because we don’t matter?]
For Exhibit E showing the Sunny Hills Ranchos parcel click here.
[JM: In this map we are not blank, but notice the label “Virginia Highlands”. Who is that? Is it the Virginia City Highlands (the Ones)? Does it include the Highlands Ranches (the Tens)? What about the 40s? Does Sunny Hills Ranchos know anything about us?]
2. April 5, 2013 Minutes of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, Seventy-Seventh Session Click here for PDF.
This is where they approved SB272 with the Amendment.
|
Senate Committee on Government Affairs April 5, 2013 Page 24
Chair Parks:
The next bill is S.B. 272.
SENATE BILL 272: Provides for the revision of the boundary line between Storey County and Washoe County. (BDR 20-840)
Mr. Guinan:
Senate Bill 272 as sponsored by Senator Ben Kieckhefer was presented to the Committee on April 3. A mock-up of proposed Amendment 7897, making the local governments more comfortable with the bill, is included in the work session document (Exhibit I).
SENATOR MANENDO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AS AMENDED S.B. 272. SENATOR HAMMOND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
|
[JM: Senator Settlemeyer, who represents Storey County, wasn’t even there.]
3. April 25, 2013 Minutes of the MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Seventy-Seventh Session
This was a meeting of the Nevada Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. The agenda of the meeting was to discuss several bills. One of them was Senate Bill 272: Provides for the revision of the boundary line between Storey County and Washoe County. (BDR 20-840)
For an html version of the discussion of SB272 only, click here. For the minutes for all of the bills discussed click here.
In it, Senator Ben Kieckhefer, Senatorial District No. 16 says:
|
Before you today is Senate Bill 272 (1st Reprint), which is the product of a conversation I had with a landowner in Storey County who is adjacent to my district. This individual would like to bring the property that he owns into Washoe County from Storey County for the purposes of potential future development. It is property that probably more appropriately fits into the more urban and suburban land use that is afforded in Washoe County's planning right now. I told him I would bring the bill forward. It has been well negotiated to the point where the decision on this would be left to the two governing boards of Washoe County and Storey County. . . .
|
{Emphasis added}
|
[JM] I want to know who it was well negotiated by, don’t you?
|
B. Who is Sunny Hills Ranchos? (September 3, 2013)
1. According to the Nevada Secretary of State database (http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/) the president of Sunny Hills Ranchos is:
TIEN P ZEE
4001 VIA ORO AVE STE 210
LONG BEACH, CA 90810
Mr. Zee is also the Director.
William Smith is the Secretary and Josephine Dauz is the Treasurer. (Robert Koening was previously the Treasurer.)
For the saved page click here.
2. The Nevada Secretary of State Database shows the Mr. Zee is also the President and Director of Unitex Management Corp. The address is also 4001 Via Oro Ave, Ste 210, Long Beach, CA 90810. William Smith is also the Secretary and Josephine Dauz is also the Treasurer.
For the saved page click here.
On June 6, 2013 Sunny Hills Ranchos received a Special Use Permit from the Reno Planning Commission to put in a road.
For the SUP approval recorded with the Washoe County Recorder click here.
The document doesn’t say Reno Planning Commission, but that is who it is. The SUP application (LDC13-00057) was on the Reno City Planning Commission Agenda for the June 6, 2013 meeting. For the agenda click here.
The Planning Commission sent the good news to:
Unitex Management Corp
P.O. Box 1440
Long Beach, CA 90801
Thus, it can be assumed that Sunny Hills Ranchos and Unitex Management Corp are the same people, namely Mr. Zee.
|
[JM]
The SUP was for the following road:
The access road covers 18.5 acres of the 276 acre site and is located east of Rio Wrangler Parkway, 1650 feet north of the Rio Wrangler Parkway/Bucephalus Parkway intersection in the Damonte Ranch Residential PUD (Planned Unit Development) zone.
Where is this road going?
Is it for another section of the Damonte Ranch Residential PUD? If it is, is Sunny Hills Ranchos associated in some way with Damonte Ranch Residential PUD? If they are, exactly how are they associated?
Is the road going to the Sunny Hills Ranchos property in Storey County? If it is, it sounds like Mr. Zee is counting his chickens before they are hatched.
Or, maybe he knows something that we don’t know.
Maybe this is a done deal and the Storey County Commissioners have already (privately) given it their approval.
If so, then Storey County Commissioner Sjovangen’s statements about having a referendum are just for show.
|
3. There is something interesting in the Washoe County Planning Commission Minutes for January 16, 2007 (for the complete minutes click here);
Barron Caronite, Sierra Land Solutions, LLC, representing the Sunny Hills and Virginia Forties Properties, spoke of the anticipated move of the properties into the City of Reno’s jurisdiction. He indicated that should that request be successful, master planning of the areas would ensue.
Is there already a Sunny Hills and/or Virginia Forties in Washoe County or are they talking about the Sunny Hills and/or Virginia Forties in Storey County?
Have they been planning this going back since at least 2007?
4. Here is something interesting from the Minutes of the Reno Planning Commission for Wednesday, August 15, 2007 (for the complete Minutes click here):
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
LDC07-00375 (Damonte Ranch Village 10A) – This is a request for a tentative map to develop a 52 lot single family residential subdivision on a ±19.02 acre site located on the east side of Rio Wrangler Parkway, ±2,500 feet (±.47 miles) north of its intersection with Steamboat Parkway in the SPD (Specific Plan District) zone.
Claudia Hanson – Deputy Director, commented that the matter had been continued due to access issues and suggested that the public hearing go forward and then determine whether the matter should be continued to the September 19, 2007, meeting.
Chair Georgeson opened the public hearing.
Gabriel Wittler – Odyssey Engineering, representing Toll Brothers, concurred with the staff report and conditions noting that the applicant continues to work with and prefers to resolve access and utility issues that bisect the subject site before coming to the Planning Commission for approval.
Fred Turnier – Sierra Land Solution, representing Sunny Hills Ranchos, concurred with Mr. Wittler and the September 19, 2007 date.
Chair Georgeson closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Newberg, seconded by Commissioner Foster, to continue Case No. LDC-07-00375 (Damonte Ranch Village 10A until September 19, 2007. The motion carried unanimously.
{Emphasis added}
Fred Turnier of Sierra Land Solution[s] represented Sunny Hills Ranchos. Sadly, Sierra Land Solutions is defunct. Click Here.
What is Fred doing now?
On May 21, 2012 Federick Turnier became the Director of Community Development for the City of Reno.
I think that means he is the Reno equivalent of our own Dean Haymore. Or, maybe he is their Austin Osborne, International Man of Mystery and Planning.
But Fred is The Man Inside.
(For the complete Reno press release click here. For just the part about Fred click here.)
5. There are two more relationships to note.
a. Garret Gordon. He represented Sunny Hill Ranchos at the April 3, 2013 meeting of the Nevada Senate Committee on Government Affairs (discussion above).
From the Nevada List of Paid Lobbyists for the 77th Session (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/AppCF/Lobbyist/reports/ListLobbyists.cfm?Paid=1):
Gordon, Garrett
50 W. Liberty St., Ste. 410
Reno, NV 89501 (Phone No) 775-321-3420 (Email) ggordon@lrlaw.com
Garrett is a paid lobbyist for number of organizations. The two that stand out are:
Unitex Management Corp. Long Beach CA,
Washoe County Reno NV, 775-328-2000
Unitex Management Corp is Sunny Hills Ranchos. Washoe County is Washoe County.
He represents both of them.
I suppose it’s ok as long as Sunny Hills Ranchos and Washoe County have the same interests. Otherwise it could be a troublesome conflict.
Gordon is an attorney at Lewis & Roca (now Lewis Roca Rothgerber). He’s not just an attorney, he’s a Partner. (Click here)
Because he is an attorney, whatever Sunny Hills Ranchos tells him is protected by attorney-client privilege. And whatever Washoe County tells him is also protected by attorney-client privilege. What a deal. He is a protected conduit.
Garrett Gordon is The Man Between.
For the complete list of paid lobbyists for the Nevada 77th session click here. For just Garrett click here.
b. Also from the Nevada List of Paid Lobbyists for the 77th Session (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/AppCF/Lobbyist/reports/ListLobbyists.cfm?Paid=1):
Hess, Greg
Box 801
Virginia City, NV 89440
Organizations Represented
Storey County
Storey County School Disrict {sic}
At the April 3, 2013 meeting of the Nevada Senate Committee on Government Affairs (discussion above) he represented Storey County:
Greg Hess (Storey County):
The Storey County Board of County Commissioners had a meeting yesterday, and the vote was to remain neutral on this proposal. The Commissioners like the idea of being able to transfer one or the other properties in or out of Storey County and/or Washoe County. As long as that language remains in the bill, we are looking forward to moving along with this to allow the counties to make the decisions regarding these two properties.
But in the April 25, 2013 Meeting of the Nevada Assembly Committee on Government Affairs (discussed above) he represented both Storey County and TRI. Note sometimes we means Storey County, sometimes we means TRI. It’s not always clear who we is.
Greg "Bum" Hess, representing Storey County:
I am also speaking on behalf of the property owner in TRI, but as a friend, not on any other level. You have this bill in front of you. We are neutral on it from the county commission standpoint but in favor of working with Washoe County in this swap. We think it is going to be a huge economic boom one way or the other, especially with the industrial piece that we have down along the river right next to the nation's largest industrial park. We have 106,000 acres, which is roughly two-thirds of Storey County, that is owned by the TRI partners. This particular piece is in Washoe County. It is separated by a river. We have about $35 million of infrastructure sitting right at the edge of the river, which will probably not be developed as the land stands in Washoe County because of complications.
We look forward to working with Washoe County and trying to get this into Storey County to create a lot of jobs.
Hess is not listed as a paid lobbyist for TRI, but he is representing them all the same, along with Storey County.
He couldn’t do that unless the interests of TRI and Storey County were the same: Make the Land Swap.
The statement that the Storey County Commissioners have taken a “neutral stand” on the land swap is a transparent fiction.
Therefore, Greg “Bum” Hess is The Transparent Man.
6. A Google search for: 4001 VIA ORO AVE STE 210 LONG BEACH, CA produces a number of hits.
Here’s one: http://www.insideview.com/directory/intex-recreation-corp
Intex Recreation Corp.
4001 Via Oro Avenue Suite 210 , Long Beach , CA , 90810 , United States
www.intexcorp.com
Phone: +1 310 549 5400
Revenue: $98M
Industry: Sporting & Recreational Equipment Retail
Employees: 600
SIC: Sporting Goods And Bicycle Shops (5941)
NAICS: Sporting Goods Stores (451110)
Description: Intex Recreation Corp. engages in designing and producing indoor and outdoor recreation products. It offers above ground swimming pools, such as pools, as well as metal, and rectangular and round ultra frame pools with filter pumps, instructional DVDs for set-up, ladders, ground and pool covers, a surface skimmer for eliminating floating debris, a pool vacuum and skimmer net for pool cleaning, an auto vacuum for pool sweeping, and a salt water pool system. The company also provides camping airbeds are designed for adventures far from home, and home airbeds; pool boats with vinyl, secondary safety chambers, motor mount fittings, and grab ropes; marine boats with rock guards, inflatable seats, and rotating oar locks; inflatable toys, including tubes, swim rings, beach balls, baby floats, swim vests, and arm bands; and swim gear, including goggles, masks, snorkels, and fins for swimmers. It offers its products through stores around the world. Intex Recreation Corp. was founded in 1966 and is based in Long Beach, California.
2013-07-20 08:22:27
The California Secretary of State’s online database (http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/) does not give as much information as the Nevada Secretary of State’s. But it does say:
Entity Name: INTEX RECREATION CORP.
Entity Number: C0503602
Date Filed: 01/27/1966
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 4001 VIA ORO AVE STE 210
Entity City, State, Zip: LONG BEACH CA 90810
Agent for Service of Process: JOSEPHINE DAUZ
Agent Address: 4001 VIA ORO AVE STE 210
Agent City, State, Zip: LONG BEACH CA 90810
{Emphasis added}
For the saved page click here.
In addition to the same address they share Josephine Dauz. Indeed if you go to the California Secretary of State’s database http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/, in the box for Entity Name type: Intex. Then you must select Search Type: Corporation Name. (If you don’t, it will just sit there like a log.) Then click: Search.
There are a number of companies named Intex xxx that contain familiar names:
|
C0605958 |
08/25/1970 |
ACTIVE |
INTEX CORP. |
JOSEPHINE DAUZ |
|
C1226080 |
09/01/1983 |
MERGED OUT |
INTEX DEVELOPMENT CORP. |
W F SMITH |
|
C1661721 |
03/22/1990 |
ACTIVE |
INTEX GROUP |
JOSEPHINE DAUZ |
|
C1496517 |
05/02/1991 |
MERGED OUT |
INTEX MANAGEMENT CORP. |
WILLIAM F SMITH |
|
C0603165 |
07/17/1970 |
ACTIVE |
INTEX PLASTICS CORPORATION |
JOSEPHINE DAUZ |
|
C1496519 |
05/02/1991 |
MERGED OUT |
INTEX PROPERTIES CORONA FARMS CORP. |
WILLIAM F SMITH |
|
C1436896 |
05/18/1988 |
ACTIVE |
INTEX PROPERTIES CORP. |
JOSEPHINE DAUZ |
|
C1496521 |
05/02/1991 |
ACTIVE |
INTEX PROPERTIES INLAND EMPIRE CORP. |
JOSEPHINE DAUZ |
|
C1496522 |
05/02/1991 |
MERGED OUT |
INTEX PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT CORP. |
WILLIAM F SMITH |
|
C1496520 |
05/02/1991 |
ACTIVE |
INTEX PROPERTIES PERRIS VALLEY CORP. |
JOSEPHINE DAUZ |
|
C1496518 |
05/02/1991 |
ACTIVE |
INTEX PROPERTIES SOUTH BAY CORP. |
JOSEPHINE DAUZ |
|
C1618156 |
06/30/1988 |
ACTIVE |
INTEX REALTY CORP. |
JOSEPHINE DAUX |
|
C0503602 |
01/27/1966 |
ACTIVE |
INTEX RECREATION CORP. |
JOSEPHINE DAUZ |
If you have time you can investigate further by Googling the names of the companies.
So, who is Sunny Hills Ranchos?
Sunny Hills Ranchos is Mr. Tien P. Zee.
Mr. Zee is also Unitex Management Corp. (a Nevada Company).
Mr. Zee is also Intex Recreation Corp (a California company in Long Beach). They sell indoor and outdoor recreation products like above ground swimming pools. You can buy them at Walmart, like this one: http://www.walmart.com/ip/Intex-24-x-52-Metal-Frame-Swimming-Pool/22061254
Mr. Zee is also several other Intex xxx companies.
And, finally, a mystery is solved. This is from the Virginia City News report of one of the early Cordevista meetings. It was in the Highlands.
Although [Blake] Smith said at the Highlands' meeting that he didn't know where the western road would go to, at the meeting on Feb. 24, 2007 in Lockwood, he said it would come out at Damonte Ranch or Double Diamond in south Reno.
The land to the west of the development to the Washoe County line is level enough for development and is owned by a “Mr. Z” (no real name given) and is level enough for development. The westerly road would go through “Mr. Z's” property.
“Mr. Z” was actually {drum roll, pause} Mr. Zee.
C. Where is Sunny Hills Ranchos? September 10, 2013
The language in SB272 is what I will call “Surveyor’s Language”. For the enrolled version of SB272 click here.
It does not contain parcel numbers for the property.
In the April 3, 2013 meeting of the Nevada Senate Committee on Government Affairs, Seventy-Seventh Session, Sunny Hills Ranchos’ paid lobbyist, Garrett Gordon, submitted a map in Exhibit D. (For Exhibit D click here.)
As I have already noted, the rest of Storey County is blank. Apparently, either there is nothing else in Storey County or there is nothing else in Storey County worth anyone’s attention.
Also note that the property is labeled “89440.” The only thing I can think of is that is “89440” is Virginia City’s zip code. That zip code is only for Virginia City. The Post Office in Virginia City is only for Virginia City. The rest of us have different zip codes because our mail comes from different Post Offices. For example, the zip code for the Virginia City Highlands is “89521” because our mail comes from the Steamboat Post Office on McCabe Drive in Reno. Why did Gordon give the property a Virginia City zip code? Was he just careless? What else was he just careless about?
Unless a professional who is willing to be responsible for his/her work translates the Surveyor’s Language in SB272 to parcels, Gordon’s map is worthless.
If there is a discrepancy between the Gordon map and SB272 I expect SB272 will prevail. That is why it is necessary to derive the parcel map from the Surveyor Language in SB272.
Gordon already lied when he testified, “My client owns the property in the bottom left-hand corner of approximately 1,100 acres that we would like to see move into Washoe County.” For the Minutes of the meeting click here.
Sunny Hills Ranchos does not own all of the property in the block. There are two parcels that they do not own. (I will show you which ones shortly.) And the total property in the block comes to 1,201.63 acres.
It would have been accurate for Gordon to say that his client owns most of the property in the map. But that is not what he said. What he said was not strictly true. Perhaps his map is not strictly true, either.
But, for now, Gordon’s map is the only thing we have.
Here it is.
I have added the labels a – k to the parcels in Washoe County in order to match the area to Storey County.
The following parcel maps for Sunny Hills Ranchos are from:
http://storey.nv.reportallusa.com/map?owner=sunny+hills®ion=Storey%2C+Nevada&sr_page=95
You have to register for www.reportallusa.com. It’s free for a period of time. Then you have to pay for it. It’s $2.99 for a day’s access or $49.99 for a month.
The nice thing about reportallusa.com is that when you enter an owner’s name it brings up all of the parcels owned by the owner. And when you bring up the map it shows all of the parcels owned by the owner, highlighting the parcel you selected. There are some small glitches in the process:
1. For Storey County you have to click on the owner’s name next to the parcel. If you click on the parcel number it doesn’t work,
2. If you zoom out too far on the map it stops showing all of the parcels owned by the owner and just shows the one parcel.
Here is the area that corresponds to Gordon’s map.
Notice that there are two parcels that don’t have a (red) Southern border. These are the two parcels that Sunny Hills Ranchos doesn’t own.
In the next picture I have added a border and labels a-k to the corresponding parcels in Washoe County.
There are 1,201.63 total acres. Sunny Hills Ranchos owns 1,117.08 acres.
For a list of all of the parcels in the block click here.
It includes the listing of the two parcels not owned by Sunny Hills Ranchos. Have they signed up for the transfer to Washoe County? Do they even know about it?
Sunny Hills Ranchos owns 6,129.89 acres in Storey County. For a listing of the parcels click here.
The next picture shows all of the property that Sunny Hills Ranchos owns in Storey County. (Because of the problems noted above I had to stitch together two pictures.)
I added the white line to show the border of the block that Sunny Hills Ranchos wants to move to Washoe County.
Sunny Hills Ranchos also owns property right across the border in Washoe County.
The scales might not be exactly the same.
The two blocks fit in the corner but the Storey County parcels don’t go up as high. I added lines to point to the squiggle in the road where they meet in the corner. (My software is too crude to allow me to put both blocks together.)
Sunny Hills Ranchos owns lots and lots of lots and parcels in both Storey County and Washoe County.
About the Proposed Transfer
If the 1,201.63 acres are transferred to Washoe County, the same arguments can be made to transfer the remainder of the Sunny Hills Ranchos parcels.
1. Storey County is not able to provide services to the area.
The reason Storey County is not able to provide services to the area is because there are no real roads, just some trails.
The reason there are not real roads is because nobody lives there.
2. It is not feasible to provide utilities such as water and sewer across county borders.
Really?
Virginia City gets its water piped in from Marlette Lake: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlette_Lake_Water_System)
Marlette Lake is not in Storey County.
Indeed, it appears that Marlette Lake is in Washoe County. See:
http://www.eachtown.com/places/Marlette-Lake;860477.html
and
http://www.hookandbullet.com/fishing-marlette-lake-carson-city-nv/
And speaking of utilities, let’s talk about electricity.
Electricity knows no boundaries.
The power plants in the Northern part of Storey County provide electricity for Washoe County and Reno (and other places).
In fact, the power for the Virginia City Highlands goes from the Storey County power plants to Reno and then back up the mountain to the Highlands. Therefore, it crosses county borders twice.
Borders, indeed!
In any event, the same arguments that are being made to transfer the 1,201.63 acres to Washoe County apply to the remainder of the Sunny Hills Ranchos parcels in Storey County.
Note the following.
|
Storey County |
262.92 |
square miles |
168,268.80 |
acres |
(640 acres/square mile) |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tahoe Reno Industrial Center |
|
|
110,000.00 |
acres |
65.37 |
% |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land For the Rest of Us (LFRU) |
|
|
58,268.80 |
acres |
34.63 |
% |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunny Hills Ranchos - 1 |
|
|
1,201.63 |
acres |
0.71 |
% |
Total County |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.06 |
% |
LFRU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunny Hills Ranchos |
|
|
|
6,129.89 |
acres |
3.64 |
% |
Total County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.52 |
% |
LFRU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If all of Sunny Hills Ranchos were transferred to Washoe County, it would be 10.52 % of LFRU (land excluding TRI).
Actually, it’s worse than that.
Somehow, I forgot Cordevista.
The company that wanted to put in Cordevista was Virginia Highlands LLC, now Nevada Uplands.
They own 8,589.91 acres in Storey County. (For more details click here.)
Parcel No: 004-151-06 Total Acres: 1,445 (Old Aerojet Facilities)
Parcel No: 004-201-05 Total Acres: 5,322 (Special Industrial)
Parcel No: 004-211-06 Total Acres: 1,822.91
Parcels 004-151-06 (Old Aerojet) and 004-201-04 (Special Industrial) have to be lumped in the same category as TRI because it is not LFRU.
Parcel 004-211-06 (1,822.91 acres) is zoned Forestry, so that could be LFRU.
With this factored in:
|
Storey County |
262.92 |
square miles |
168,268.80 |
acres |
(640 acres/square mile) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tahoe Reno Industrial Center |
|
|
110,000.00 |
acres |
65.37 |
% |
|
|
Uplands - Aerojet |
|
|
1,445.00 |
acres |
0.86 |
% |
|
|
Uplands - Special Industrial |
|
|
5,322.00 |
acres |
3.16 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land For the Rest of Us (LFRU) |
|
|
51,501.80 |
acres |
30.61 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunny Hills Ranchos - 1 |
|
|
1,201.63 |
acres |
0.71 |
% |
Total County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.33 |
% |
LFRU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunny Hills Ranchos |
|
|
6,129.89 |
acres |
3.64 |
% |
Total County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.90 |
% |
LFRU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, if we take Coredevista’s Old Aerojet and Special Industrial property into account, if all of Sunny Hills Ranchos were transferred to Washoe County, it would be 11.90 % of LFRU (land excluding TRI).
Unfortunately, we are not done.
The Planning Commission had a meeting at the Highlands Firestation last week (9/5/2013).
http://www.storeycounty.org/Planning/Agendas/Agenda_&_Packet_09052013.pdf
I was there.
The purpose of the meeting was a Master Plan Workshop.
Austin (and his new associate Dessie) are working on revising the County’s Master Plan and they wanted our input. (“Our” means Highlands residents.)
Sunny Hills Ranchos came up (in a minor way) because the County’s Master Plan contains the goals of the County, and the goals of the County can be different for different areas of the County.
There were two guys sitting near me, and during a break we started talking.
They said they were engineers for Nevada Uplands.
I asked them if Fritz Duda still owned the company.
They were evasive about it but finally said that Mr. Duda was one of the investors.
That’s a red flag for me, when someone is evasive about answering a simple question.
So, I asked them (in a friendly way) why they were at the meeting.
They said they were at the meeting because they were looking at putting in a road from the Nevada Uplands property to the West.
That’s what brought back Cordevista to me. If you forget what Cordevista was (or never knew) it is all in my Cordevista blog at www.cordevistahoa.org .
This is the property that Nevada Uplands owns in Storey County. (Some of it is still recorded in the name of Virginia Highlands LLC.) It is a repeat of the information I have previously given.
Parcel No: 004-151-06 Total Acres: 1,445 (Old Aerojet Facilities)
Parcel No: 004-201-05 Total Acres: 5,322 (Special Industrial)
Parcel No: 004-211-06 Total Acres: 1,822.91
Total = 8,589.91 acres
For more information click here.
In particular, for the history of the Cordevista property go to www.cordevistahoa.org/index.html#T4
The most interesting part is the way it was put together. The property was put together in the 1950s by Curtiss-Wright. It was either to test missiles or for testing aircraft. The aircraft were to take off from Reno-Stead and fly to Storey County because it was a safe place for the aircraft to be tested, and maybe crash. See www.cordevistahoa.org/cwright.htm
Let’s look at Parcel 004-211-06 1,822.91 acres zoned Forestry.
For some reason (probably the size of the parcel) reportallusa split it into three parts.
Remember this is not the Old Aerojet or Special Industrial parcels. This is 1,822.91 acres zoned Forestry.
I wonder what is to the West?
The North East corner of Sunny Hills Ranchos touches the Nevada Uplands property.
Here is a closer view:
That might be a good place to put a road if the terrain isn’t too bad.
Otherwise, they would have to buy (or get an easement on) some property a little to the South:
Or, maybe they could make the trail connecting them into a real road.
It looks like the Western Edge of the Nevada Uplands property is Long Valley Creek and the section of trail is Long Valley Road.
Anyway, my purpose here was not to help Fritz Duda find a good place to put a road to the West.
It was to find out if Fritz Duda and Tien P. Zee (owner of Sunny Hills Ranchos) have a common purpose.
And they do.
Fritz Duda owns 8,589.91 acres in Storey County. That gives him some influence. It didn’t get Storey County to approve Cordevista but that was in 2007. Things are different now.
In the extreme, suppose Sunny Hills Ranchos gets all of their 6,129.89 acres in Storey County transferred to Washoe County.
Then, the same arguments apply to the Nevada Uplands property: Storey County cannot provide services and utilities to the property.
|
Storey County |
262.92 |
square miles |
168,268.80 |
acres |
(640 acres/square mile) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tahoe Reno Industrial Center |
|
|
110,000.00 |
acres |
65.37 |
% |
|
|
Uplands - Aerojet |
|
|
1,445.00 |
acres |
0.86 |
% |
|
|
Uplands - Special Industrial |
|
|
5,322.00 |
acres |
3.16 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land For the Rest of Us (LFRU) |
|
|
51,501.80 |
acres |
30.61 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunny Hills Ranchos - 1 |
|
|
1,201.63 |
acres |
0.71 |
% |
Total County |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.33 |
% |
LFRU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunny Hills Ranchos + Nevada Uplands (1,822.91) |
7,952.80 |
acres |
4.73 |
% |
Total County |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.44 |
% |
LFRU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That would represent 15.44% of LFRU.
I don’t think this last part is likely to happen.
I am concerned about Fritz Duda using his influence to make Sunny Hills Ranchos happen.
E. Relative Distances 9/12/2013
This is the relative distance between the lower right corner of the proposed Sunny Hills block and the intersection of Lousetown and Cartwright. Use Castle Peak as a reference.
This is the relative distance between the upper right corner of the proposed Sunny Hills block and Lockwood. Lockwood is just below the label “Lincoln Highway”.
This picture shows the shape of Lockwood more clearly.
F. Washoe County Parcels – Toot! Toot! (11/12/2013)
The Storey County Commissioners are pulling another fast one.
Today they posted the agenda for their 11/19/2013 meeting.
It contains this item:
|
11. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Robert Sader, Legal Counsel for the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center requesting Commission consideration of implementation of SB 272 of the 2013 Legislative Session. For further clarification, this request pertains only to Section 1.5 of SB 272 which is for property now in Washoe County north of the Centerline of the Truckee River and South of Interstate 80. This request does not pertain to Section 1 of SB 272 which involves an area of land currently situated in Storey County and more commonly known as "Sunny Hills".
|
You can download the complete Agenda with packets (there are two):
This is what I think.
1. Does anyone really believe the fiction that the Washoe County parcels and Storey County (Sunny Hills Ranchos) parcels are completely separate and unlinked actions?
2. Commissioner Sjovangen has promised that the Sunny Hills Ranchos action will be subject to some kind of a vote by Storey County residents. He wants to limit the vote to residents of the Highlands. This will give Sunny Hills Ranchos (Mr. Zee) a very good cause for legal action if (and when) the voters say no. Then the County (and the County’s insurance company) will say that, because the vote was flawed, the case is unwinnable and, in the best interests of the County, they have settled the case by giving Sunny Hills Ranchos what they want, which is to secede from Storey County.
The entire deal affects Storey County, and the entire deal should be voted on by the all of the Storey County voters.
3. The meeting of the Storey County Commissioners scheduled for Tuesday November 19, 2013 starting at 8 am at the Old Court House in Virginia City. If you can’t make it, you can email your comments to:
Commissioner Bill Sjovangen: bsjovangen@storeycounty.org
Commissioner Marshall McBride: mmcbride@storeycounty.org
Commissioner Lance Gilman: lgilman@storeycounty.org
Yes, Commissioner Lance Gilman is the same Lance Gilman who is the exclusive broker for the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center (TRIC) and owner of the Mustang Ranch Brothel. See http://lancegilman.com/ and http://www.tahoereno.com/ . (I’m sure you can find your own way to the Mustang Ranch.)
And, for good measure, here is Storey County District Attorney Bill Maddox: bmaddox@storeycounty.org
Now for the Data:
These are the Washoe County Parcels from SGA743D submitted by the Sunny Hills Ranchos lobbyist
(Note that SB272 does not contain parcel numbers. Everyone is trusting the Sunny Hills Ranchos lobbyist.)
This is from the MS Excel Spreadsheet I made with the data from the Washoe County Assessor’s Database: http://www.washoecounty.us/assessor/cama/search.php
|
|
|
|
|
acres |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
084-102-01 |
5.948 |
ac |
5.948 |
TRIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
084-102-03 |
25.871 |
ac |
25.871 |
TRIC |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
084-102-04 |
5.286 |
ac |
5.286 |
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY |
||||
|
4 |
084-102-06 |
6.515 |
ac |
6.515 |
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY |
||||
|
5 |
084-102-11 |
60,904 |
sf |
1.398 |
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
084-172-07 |
8.648 |
ac |
8.648 |
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY |
||||
|
7 |
084-172-09 |
9.706 |
ac |
9.706 |
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY |
||||
|
8 |
084-172-10 |
9.22 |
ac |
9.220 |
TRIC |
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
084-172-11 |
67.967 |
ac |
67.967 |
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
084-192-02 |
30.4 |
ac |
30.400 |
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY |
||||
|
11 |
084-192-11 |
35.663 |
ac |
35.663 |
TRIC |
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
084-192-12 |
2.824 |
ac |
2.824 |
TRIC |
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
084-192-13 |
103.941 |
ac |
103.941 |
TRIC |
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
084-192-16 |
46.77 |
ac |
46.770 |
NATURE CONSERVANCY |
|
|||
|
15 |
084-192-17 |
64.91 |
ac |
64.910 |
TRIC |
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
084-192-18 |
2.947 |
ac |
2.947 |
TRIC |
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
084-192-19 |
16.606 |
ac |
16.606 |
TRIC |
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
084-192-20 |
10.866 |
ac |
10.866 |
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
084-450-01 |
54.746 |
ac |
54.746 |
TRIC |
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
084-450-02 |
61.4 |
ac |
61.400 |
NATURE CONSERVANCY |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
084-710-03 |
47.8 |
ac |
47.800 |
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Acres |
|
|
619.432 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total TRIC Acres |
|
322.676 |
52.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Union Pacific Acres |
188.586 |
30.4 |
% |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Total Nature Conservancy Acres |
108.170 |
17.5 |
% |
|
619.432 |
check |
||
TRIC owns only 52.1% of the land they want to trade with Washoe County.
In any event, they want to trade 1201.63 acres in Storey County for 619.432 acres in Washoe County.
And isn’t all this land in the Truckee River Flood plain and subject to flooding? Well, except for the railroad tracks.
What railroad tracks?
It seems that some of the parcels contain the railroad tracks of the Union Pacific Railroad.
Was Union Pacific a party to the negotiation for the land swap?
Does Union Pacific know about the land swap?
What will it mean to Union Pacific to have its tracks in Storey County instead of Washoe County?
Will its property taxes stay the same? Go Up? Go Down? Does anyone know?
I am making the complete data for the Washoe County parcels (from the Washoe County Website) available in two forms: PDF and html. The PDF is large (12 Mbytes). The html version is much smaller.
G. Notice of Sunny Hills Ranchos Meeting (Received November 15, 2013)
I received a postcard in the mail. It was postmarked November 14, so I probably got it in today’s (Friday’s) mail.
|
Community Open House
Join us on November 22, 2013 at Virginia Highlands Fire Station #2 2610 Cartwright Road Reno, NV 89521 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm
You are invited to attend a community open house to hear background information about a Storey County boundary change that is being considered for an area approximately 5-miles north of the Virginia Highlands Fire Station #2. In 2013, the Nevada Legislature passed a bill that would move approximately 1,200 acres from Storey County into Washoe County with the approval of both County Commissions. A brief summary of the potential boundary change will be presented at the Virginia Highlands Fire Station #2 on November 22, 2013 from 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm. There will be time available to answer any questions.
If you are unable to attend but would like further information, please contact: Andy Durling | (775) 823-4068 | adurling@woodrodgers.com
|
The company’s Web site is http://www.woodrodgers.com
According to my calendar November 22, 2013 is Friday.
Note that the postcard doesn’t say Sunny Hills Ranchos.
Who is Mr. Durling representing?
I think I’ll go. I might have some more questions.
December 27, 2013
This update might be a little tardy.
I went to the meeting.
Although the notice was sent by Andy Durling of Wood Rodgers (and he was there), and Wood Rodgers represents Sunny Hills Ranchos, the meeting was run mostly by Garrett Gordon, who is Sunny Hills Ranchos’ attorney and lobbyist (and Washoe County’s lobbyist).
All three Storey County Commissioners were there: Lance Gilman, Bill Sjovangen, and Marshall McBride.
During the meeting Garrett didn’t give any details of the proposed development of Sunny Hills. He said the purpose of the meeting was so we could ask questions. Then they would find the answers and get back to us. Maybe they would set up a Web site.
One of the questions that was asked was, “Will Sunny Hills Ranchos build a road to the Highlands or to Lockwood?” (Most of us don’t want that.)
Garrett said No. Not Ever. Promise.
Commissioner Bill Sjovangen then said words to the effect, “Well, maybe a road for public safety vehicles.”
People were concerned that having a high density development so close to the Highlands would result in more people in their quads using Storey County as their playground. It’s already a problem with people from Reno coming up here and tearing around our private property in their quads. When stopped they say it’s all BLM land and they can do what they want here. (It isn’t BLM land. It’s private property.)
Someone asked very nakedly, “If we approve the land transfer, what’s in it for us?” The Sunny Hills Ranchos people dutifully wrote it down along with the other questions.
Before the meeting started I introduced myself to Garrett.
I told him my concern that SB272 describes the property transfer in Legal Language only (and not parcel numbers) and that Storey County told me that they are not interested in having parcel numbers produced from the Legal Language. Without parcel numbers no one actually knows what property Storey County would lose to Washoe County. (Maybe the Legal Language describes all of Sunny Hills Ranchos’ 6,129 acres.)
He said he would look into it and get back to me.
I asked him if he knew that two of the parcels that Sunny Hills Ranchos wants to transfer to Washoe County aren’t owned by Sunny Hills Ranchos.
He said no, he did not know, but he would look into it and get back to me.
After the Sunny Hills Ranchos’ people talked about setting up a Web site I told them that they should come up with an appropriate domain name and register it before someone else does.
Well, it has now been more than a month since the meeting.
Garret hasn’t gotten back to me and they haven’t registered an obvious domain name like www.sunnyhillsranchos.org.
So I did.
Now you can get to this Web site from:
or
www.jmargolin.com/sunny/index.html
H. February 4, 2014 – Storey County Cimmissioners; Washoe County Commissioners
The Storey County Commissioners had a meeting on November 19, 2013.
One of the items on the agenda was:
11. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Robert Sader, Legal Counsel for the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center requesting Commission consideration of implementation of SB 272 of the 2013 Legislative Session. For further clarification, this request pertains only to Section 1.5 of SB 272 which is for property now in Washoe County north of the Centerline of the Truckee River and South of Interstate 80. This request does not pertain to Section 1 of SB 272 which involves an area of land currently situated in Storey County and more commonly known as "Sunny Hills"
Afterwards, although it was an issue that many people are interested in, there seemed to be a news blackout on what happened.
Pat Whitten didn’t mention it in his Meeting Highlights. I guess the listing of new business licenses was more important. For his report click here.
The minutes of the November 19 meeting did not become available until the approval of the minutes was put on the agenda for the January 7, 2014 meeting. This is what they say.
|
(Item #11 moved up) DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Robert Sader, Legal Counsel for the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center requesting Commission consideration of implementation of SB 272 of the 2013 Legislative Session. For further clarification, this request pertains only to Section 1.5 of SB 272 which is for property now in Washoe County north of the Centerline of the Truckee River and South of Interstate 80. This request does not pertain to Section 1 of SB 272 which involves an area of land currently situated in Storey County and more commonly known as "Sunny Hills".
Commissioner Gilman removed himself from voting and joined the audience. Bob Sader, Legal Counsel for the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, LLC, requests that the commission consider action to approve the boundary adjustment of land that requires approval of both Washoe and Storey Counties before it is enacted. TRI believes it is in their best interest to make the change, but the request is that Storey County District Attorney and staff enter into discussions with Washoe County to determine if it is in the best interest to both counties. County Manager Pat Whitten clarified that section 1.5 is the area of concern and no other parcels. District Attorney, Bill Maddox emphasized that the land that is subject to a potential boundary change in the Highlands is in no way linked to the boundary change by the river. There is much more to consider concerning the boundary change in the Highlands and that process has hardly even begun. Pat Whitten clarified as well that there is no action requested on Section 1.0, the "Sunny Hills" piece. Bob Sader clarified that TRI has no interest in that Section 1.0 either.
Nicole Barde, Virginia City Highlands Resident would like to see any documented or interlocal agreement before it is signed. District Attorney, Bill Maddox assured her that any interlocal agreement would be brought before the commission publically before it was signed.
Motion. To request the District Attorney and staff to contact and discuss with their counterparts in Washoe County the advisability and feasibility of implementing the boundary line change of Section 1.5 of Senate Bill 272 of the 2013 Session of the Nevada State Legislature with the intent that Storey County representatives report back to the Commission with a recommendation on approval or disapproval and any terms, conditions or agreements advisable or necessary, Action: Approve Moved by Vice-Chairman McBride Seconded by Chairman Sjovangen.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=2) Commissioner Gilman abstained.
|
For the complete minutes of the November 19, 2013 meeting click here.
Notice that, according to the agenda, Sader wanted the Commissioners to approve Section 1.5 (for TRI), but at the meeting all they talked about was ordering County Staff to talk to their counterparts in Washoe County. That wasn’t on the agenda.
Also, notice that the meeting started at 8:00am.
The Commissioner’s meetings used to start at 2:00 pm, even when they were considering issues that people were interested in. Starting at 2 pm made it difficult for people with jobs to attend.
Apparently, too many members of the public came anyway, so they moved the meetings to 10:00 am.
Since the Sunny Hills Ranchos issue has stirred up the residents of the Highlands, they moved this meeting to 8:00 am.
By the time the minutes came out I had gotten a recording of the meeting.
I have extracted the audio and separated out the Sader section.
I am posting it in two formats. Different browsers handle media files differently. Sometimes different version of the same browser handle media files differently. Sometimes you can left-click on it and stream it. Sometimes you have to right-click on it and download it first.
storey_2013_1119.mp3 (10.8 Mbytes)
storey_2013_1119.wma (5.5 Mbytes)
Also notice that Bum Hess was there, representing TRI. He also represented TRI at the Nevada Senate committee hearings on SB272. Hess is a paid lobbyist for Storey County. Why is he representing TRI on an issue that the Commissioners swear they are neutral on?
As you listen to it, use your Spidey sense to tell you what is really going on.
Now the Washoe County Commissioners.
They had the following item on the agenda item for their January 14, 2014 meeting:
NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA
WASHOE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSION CHAMBERS - 1001 E. 9th Street, Reno, Nevada
January 14, 20l4
10:00 a.m.
.
.
.
17. Discussion and possible direction to staff to discuss with their counterparts in Storey County the advisability and feasibility of implementing the boundary line change between the counties provided in Section 1.5 of Senate SB 272 of the 2013 Session of the Nevada State Legislature, with the intent that Washoe County staff report back to the Board with recommendations on approval or disapproval and any terms, conditions or agreements advisable or necessary - Manager. (Commission District 4.)
Naturally, Sader and Hess were there, too. Sader forgot to mention that TRI owns only 52.1% of the property they want transferred to Storey County. (The remainder is owned by the Union Pacific and by the Nature Conservancy.)
I got a copy of that meeting, too, and separated out the Sader section.
washoe_shr_2014_0114.mp3 (21.5 Mbytes)
washoe_shr_2014_0114.wma (21.6 Mbytes)
The part I found especially interesting was where one of the Washoe County Commissioners says (starting at about 18:10 of this clip) that he doesn’t think Washoe County can provide services to the Sunny Hills property.
If you like, you can contact the Washoe County Commissioners at http://www.washoecounty.us/bcc/bios.html
The other thing you can do is contact the gun shops in Reno. Many people from Washoe County come into Storey County to the Sunny Hills property to shoot. It’s legal in that area. It might be trespassing except you are only trespassing if the property is properly posted.
If Sunny Hills Ranchos becomes part of Washoe County, and is developed, No More Shooting.
Who will the shooters vote for in the next election for the Washoe County Commissioners?
Early on January 28 the word went out that Sunny Hill Ranchos would be having a meeting that very night to answer the questions that people had asked at the November meeting. There hadn’t been a post card notification this time.
Many of us scrambled so we could go to the meeting.
The meeting turned out to be a Board Meeting of the Highland Ranches Property Owners Association (HRPOA, commonly called the Tens) and Sunny Hills Ranchos wasn’t there.
It appears that the announcement had been based on a flyer that someone had found in a bar in Virginia City.
At that point a number of people left the meeting.
The HRPOA took care of their Association business and then there was some discussion about Sunny Hills Ranchos.
One of the HRPOA Board members said that because the issue was going to be voted on in an election, Sunny Hills Ranchos would not be able to sue Storey County if the vote went against them. That is simply dead wrong. It has the effect of telling people that if they don’t want the Sunny Hills Ranchos property to be transferred to Washoe County they don’t have to do anything except vote.
Another of the HRPOA Board Members said that the Sunny Hills Ranchos deal was going to happen whether we wanted it to or not, so we should make the best deal we can with Sunny Hills Ranchos. This Board member was Troy Williams, President of the HRPOA. Mr. Williams is about to make another, more dramatic, appearance here.
__________________
On March 18 someone posted a message in the Yahoo Group for our community.
|
Today at the commissioners meeting Pat Whitten mentioned that there was going to be a meeting by and with the Sunny Hills folks in the Highlands on the 25th.
Does anyone know anything about it?
|
There was some discussion about it for a few days. Then, on March 20, John Schmoker posted a message on behalf of Troy Williams. (Apparently, Williams’ computer skills are not advanced enough for him to send an email by himself):
|
HRPOA members and concerned residents,
A representative of the Sunny Hills project has accepted invitation to come to a HRPOA board meeting and discuss the Sunny Hills project and to answer some questions from HRPOA residents in order to have a better understanding of their development plans. The Board meeting will be at the Storey County Fire House #2 in the rear building. The time and date is 6:30pm Tuesday the 25 of March. There is a meeting decorum and non-HRPOA residents are considered persona non grata and will be permitted to attend ONLY under a strictly enforced set of guidelines I will set forth at the meeting. This means as a non-HRPOA attendee you will not be afforded the opportunity to ask questions or participate or comment on any dialogue or aspects of the meeting in any way. Signs, banners, posters will not be allowed nor any other inciteful propaganda or behavior. Non-HRPOA residents will remain silent for entire meeting. Non-HRPOA attendees will not be recognized by the chairperson. If you wish to have dialog with the Sunny Hills representative it should occur through your respective Board, the County Commissioners members or anytime outside of the constructs of the HRPOA board meeting. This can all be found under NRS 116 and is therefore enforceable under Nevada law. Law enforcement representatives will be present to ensure compliance and that appropriate permits for any lawful protest or gathering other than our board meeting which is recognized, are present. There will be zero tolerance for any violation of my guidelines during the meeting and you will simply be asked to leave. I am opening attendance to non-HRPOA residents because the information is important and beneficial to the community as a whole. HRPOA members will be required to show ID, and be verified that they are in good standing (dues paid). ALL attendees will sign in regardless of affiliation. All residents attending will behave in a mature and respectful manner for the entire meeting.
We all need to have a better understanding of the project and what the developers are planning so that we can make an informed, educated decision and can vote on the ballot measure in November from a stand point of knowledge without the influence of uninformed opinion, biased rhetoric, vitriol or unsubstantiated commentary.
Regards,
Troy Williams President HRPOA
|
This was modified on March 21 with:
|
Per request I have updated the posting with;
Any and all HRPOA association members are allowed to attend and speak at HRPOA meetings. There will be no verification as to if they are in good standing.
|
Here are the high points of Troy’s posting:
1. There is a meeting decorum and non-HRPOA residents are considered persona non grata and will be permitted to attend ONLY under a strictly enforced set of guidelines I will set forth at the meeting.
2. This means as a non-HRPOA attendee you will not be afforded the opportunity to ask questions or participate or comment on any dialogue or aspects of the meeting in any way.
3. Signs, banners, posters will not be allowed nor any other inciteful propaganda or behavior.
4. Non-HRPOA residents will remain silent for entire meeting. Non-HRPOA attendees will not be recognized by the chairperson.
5. Law enforcement representatives will be present to ensure compliance and that appropriate permits for any lawful protest or gathering other than our board meeting which is recognized, are present.
6. There will be zero tolerance for any violation of my guidelines during the meeting and you will simply be asked to leave.
7. HRPOA members will be required to show ID, and be verified that they are in good standing (dues paid). ALL attendees will sign in regardless of affiliation. All residents attending will behave in a mature and respectful manner for the entire meeting.
8. We all need to have a better understanding of the project and what the developers are planning so that we can make an informed, educated decision and can vote on the ballot measure in November from a stand point of knowledge without the influence of uninformed opinion, biased rhetoric, vitriol or unsubstantiated commentary.
I don’t know what Williams was preparing for. The non-meeting on January 28 was very peaceful. No one had be arrested or even thrown out of the meeting. The people who left did so because they had been told that Sunny Hills Ranchos would be there, and they weren’t.
I didn’t go to the March 25 meeting because I don’t go to meetings where:
1. I am not allowed to ask questions;
2. I am going to be treated like a criminal.
There was some fallout from the way Williams handled this thing.
Someone in the Yahoo Group pointed out that Williams had
stated, “ non-HRPOA residents are considered persona non grata and will be
permitted to attend ONLY under a strictly enforced set of guidelines I will set
forth at the meeting. This means as a non-HRPOA attendee you will not be afforded
the opportunity to ask questions.”
She asked, “Is he calling us non 10 acre residents PERSONALLY UNACCEPTABLE?”
It was a reasonable question because that is what “persona non grata” means.
It sounded to me that it was exactly what Williams meant even if he doesn’t know the actual meaning of “persona non grata.”
And there is Williams’ statement that:
We all need to have a better understanding of the project and what the developers are planning so that we can make an informed, educated decision and can vote on the ballot measure in November from a stand point of knowledge without the influence of uninformed opinion, biased rhetoric, vitriol or unsubstantiated commentary.
He actually means that we should listen only to Sunny Hills Ranchos and not to someone who has done his homework on this issue and is asking Sunny Hills Ranchos questions they don’t want to answer.
J. April 19, 2014: Sunny Hills Ranchos Presentation at the March 25 HRPOA Meeting
The Sunny Hills Ranchos presentation has been made publicly available from a link in a posting on the Yahoo Group:
|
The following link (https://app.box.com/s/sxlxuq3tgz8glskivw4o) provides a copy of the presentation that we made to the Highland Ranches POA on March 25, 2014. We have added information to the original presentation to make it easier to understand for people that were not there. Also, the narrative information we have added begins to answer a lot of the most commonly asked questions from the original neighborhood meeting on November 22, 2013. While there are not answers to all of the questions we received in November, we feel it is a good start. We are diligently working on answering more of the detailed questions from the November at the meeting next Wednesday. Unfortunately, we are still working on that information and do not anticipate it being ready until we present it to the public on Wednesday night.
Please feel free to call if you have any question.
Thanks! Andy
Andrew D. Durling - AICP, LEED AP Principal - planning | urban design Wood Rodgers, Inc.
|
In the event that the link breaks at some time in the future I have mirrored the document.
Click on this: Sunny Hills Presentation to March 25, 2014 HRPOA.pdf
It should be called The Carrot and the Stick, except the carrot is another stick that is only disguised as a carrot.
|
STOREY COUNTY BALLOT QUESTION
There has been discussion among Storey County Commissioners recently of whether to place the question of the Boundary Line Adjustment on the November 2014 Ballot. In order to provide the Virginia City Highlands residents the assurances described on the previous slide, we believe it is in the best interest of the residents that the Commissioners not include the advisory question on the ballot.
If an advisory question is placed on the ballot, it would allow all of Storey County to vote “yes” or “no” on the Sunny Hills West boundary line adjustment but would not include the terms of the development agreement described on the previous slide. In effect, an advisory question would ask all of Storey County to make a decision of what is best for the Virginia City Highlands - rather than allowing the Virginia City Highlands to benefit and enhance their community with a legally binding development agreement.
We respectfully ask you to join us in requesting your Commissioners not include an advisory question on the ballot.
|
They are saying that if the advisory question is put on the ballot then Sunny Hills Ranchos will not be obligated to keep any of the promises it has made on the previous slide. That is a very naked threat because it has to be interpreted as “even if the question is approved.”
1. One of the promises they made on the previous slide was: All municipal water for Sunny Hills West will be provided from Washoe County.
(See PDF page 2.)
Note that SB272 doesn’t say anything about where the water for Sunny Hills Ranchos will come from.
If they get the water from the Truckee Meadows it will mean pumping it up about 1,500 feet. It takes electricity (and money) to do that.
It would probably be cheaper to drill a few large wells at Sunny Hills Ranchos and have a community water supply.
How much water are we taking about?
Sunny Hills Ranchos says they intend to build about 4,000 dwellings (PDF page 14) and they give examples of single family detached houses (PDF pages 19 and 20).
A typical family of four can use as much as 2 acre-feet of water per year, especially if they have a lawn and landscaping like their pictures show. They could also have large common areas that are landscaped and irrigated, so I will use a figure of 2 acre-feet per year per house. That comes to 8,000 acre-feet per year. (1 acre-foot = 325,851 gallons, so 8,000 acre-feet is 2,606,808,000 gallons. That is 2.6 billion gallons. Per Year.)
Compare that to what we have now. Storey County has a population of about 4,000 people. That’s people, not houses. The population of Virginia City is about 800 and they get their water from Marlette Lake, not from the ground.
That leaves a population of about 3,200 people. Should we use three people per household or four? I will be conservative and use three. That is 3,200/3 = 1066.666… households. I will round it up and use 1,067 households.
Very few people here have lawns, so I think 1-acre ft per year is more than what we use, but I will use 1 acre-ft per year. That gives a water use of about 1,067 acre-feet per year. (The Tahoe Reno Industrial Center also gets its water from wells. I don’t know how much water they use. Maybe Lance Gilman can tell us.)
Compare our 1,067 acre feet per year to an additional draw of 8,000 acre-feet per year.
I expect that most of the wells in the Highlands would go dry.
Most people up here are barely hanging on and would not be able to redrill their wells. It would destroy the Highlands.
Therefore, Sunny Hills Ranchos is telling us that if we even put the question on the ballot, they may destroy us.
2. Their promise (All municipal water for Sunny Hills West will be provided from Washoe County) may be a hollow promise. Once Sunny Hills Ranchos is in Washoe County they can drill wells and take the water from the ground because it will be in Washoe County.
3. Sunny Hills Ranchos promises to have a 1,500 foot buffer zone between the Sunny Hill Ranchos development and the Highlands. They say that this buffer zone will keep ATV’ers from coming into the Highlands.
Have these people ever been on an ATV? The fact is that a 1,500 foot buffer will attract ATV’ers unless it is a moat at least 50 feet deep and with nearly vertical sides. Or, how about a moat that is only 50 feet wide and 20 feet deep but filled with water. And crocodiles.
4. On PDF page 19 they show an example of one of the types of homes that they want to build. It is a nice looking house. Nice lawn, too.
On PDF page 20 they show another example. These homes are all scrunched together like all the ones in the Damonte Ranch and Toll Brothers developments. (They all have lawns, too.) They are all living in each others’ armpits.
Which houses do you think they are going to build the most of?
5. Sunny Hills Ranchos has still not addressed at least the following issues:
1. The language in SB272 does not contain parcel numbers and the only list of parcel numbers for the Sunny Hills Ranchos properties is the one I produced by inferring them from Garrett Gordon’s map.
2. The parcel numbers that I produced by inferring them from Gordon’s map contains two parcels that Sunny Hill Ranchos does not own:
003-201-009 SUNNY HILLS 40S LOT 44 UNIT 1 Callie Gilchrist Reno, NV
003-211-009 SUNNY HILLS 40S LOT 40 UNIT 1 Edward Muldoon III Manhattan Beach, CA
Note that the entire area is called “Sunny Hills”. The company Sunny Hills Ranchos owns most of it, but not these two parcels.
Go to the Storey County Assessor’s database: http://www.storeycountynv.org:1401/cgi-bin/tcw100p
When you enter parcel numbers you have to leave out the dashes, so they are 00320109 and 003211009.
You can also go to www.reportallusa.com . Unless they have upgraded their Storey County database since I used it last, the parcel number feature doesn’t work. The area is Storey, Nevada. Enter the name Gilchrist and then Muldoon. Then you can bring up a map showing where their parcels are.
At the November meeting I asked Garrett Gordon if he would have a reputable professional produce a list of parcel numbers from the language in SB272. Without that we have only Gordon’s word that his map shows what SB272 would transfer. Maybe it actually transfers all of the 6,129.89 acres that Sunny Hills Ranchos owns in Storey County.
Gordon said he would have someone look into it and get back to me.
I also asked him if he knew (based on the parcel numbers I derived from his map) that Sunny Hills Ranchos does not own two of the parcels they want transferred. He said he would have someone look into it and get back to me.
I don’t know if he had someone look into it but I know that no one has gotten back to me.
BTW, I also asked the County to have a reputable professional derive the parcel numbers from SB272. They County said “no” and that “they don’t care”.
6. Are you willing to trust Sunny Hills Ranchos to keep their promises? What if they sell the land to someone else? Why should the new owners keep promises that they didn’t make?
I think a firm “no” would benefit the Highlands (and Storey County) more than a backroom deal made with unenforceable promises.
April 23, 2014
The Meeting for Everyone (this time)
Sunny Hills Ranchos has scheduled a meeting for Wednesday, April 23 that includes the rest of us this time. I got a post card for this one. It says:
|
Community Open House
Join us on April 23, 2014 at Virginia Highands Fire Station #2 2610 Cartwright Road Reno, NV 89521 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm
You are invited to attend a community open house on April 23,2014 from 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm at the Virginia Highlands Fire Station #2. The Sunny Hills consulting team will present additional information regarding the proposed County boundary line adjustment, compiled from the questions that members of the community provided at the November 22, 2013 neighborhood meeting. There will be time available after the presentation for an additional question and answer period.
If you are unable to attend but would like further information, please contact: Andy Durling (775) 823-4068 adurling@woodrodgers.com
|
I am planning to go to this one.
L. June 28, 2014: A Tardy Update
April 23 Meeting at the Firestation
I went to the April 23, 2014 meeting.
1. Garrett Gordon gave me the map I have been asking for, which is a map showing the parcel numbers in the Sunny Hills Ranchos area they want to transfer to Washoe County. I will assume that Garrett’s map was derived from the language in SB272 and he did not simply copy the parcel numbers from my map.
2. Garret confirmed that two of the parcels do not belong to Sunny Hills Ranchos.
3. Garrett confirmed that if the Advisory Question goes on the Ballot then all of their promises go off the table.
4. There was some discussion about the possibility of negotiations between Sunny Hills Ranchos and community leaders from the Highlands. Maybe a Proposed Agreement could be worked out. The question was then about how the voters could access the Proposed Agreement.
5. I seem to remember some discussion of their proposed 1,500 foot buffer zone between the Sunny Hill Ranchos development and the Highlands to keep ATV’ers from coming into the Highlands. I don’t think anyone bought that.
And that was pretty much it.
May 6, 2014 meeting of the Board of Commissioners
At the May 6, 2014 meeting of the Board of Commissioners, the Commissioners approved putting the Sunny Hills Ranchos Advisory Question the November ballot.
From the Minutes:
|
14. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Resolution 14-397 of the Storey County Board of County Commissioners to place an advisory question on the ballot at the 2014 general election regarding a revision to the boundary between Storey County and Washoe County, in an area commonly known as “Sunny Hills.”
Deputy District Attorney Bob Morris explained the resolution and recommended approval. He proposed that two small changes be made to language not to change intent or operation. On first page “property is part of the Sunny Hills development” change to “property is part of what is known as Sunny Hills.” The next sentence, “The Sunny Hill property lies in both Washoe and Storey County.” He asked that the language, still being developed, be strict regarding the general name of the property as Sunny Hills rather than weather or not it is being developed. He has submitted the changes to the clerk for them to sign so they may go ahead and approve the resolution today.
He answered the question of if the board may remove the question from the ballot and the timeframe in which they may.
Vanessa Stephens, Storey County Clerk-Treasurer: A notice is prepared and ready to go into the paper advertising for these committees. People may come to her office and get a form to fill out and go on a list to be for or against and we will come back before the board at a later date to actually appoint these committees and we will begin writing the arguments.
Garrett Gordon, Land Use Counsel for Sunny Hills: Initially was going to ask for a continuance due to major revisions they want to make to the plan. Hearing that there is the opportunity to withdraw the question, he is now okay with the timeframe he has to get more of a consensus on what they are trying to do. He is happy with the language and will fill out a form to be on the “pro” list.
Mr. Whitten commended Mr. Gordon on getting the information to the public independent of the county process. He also explained that Mr. Morris has crafted this resolution strictly to deal with the parcels that are known as Sunny Hills that are situated and identified on the map and in the legal description, and that this is totally independent of any ongoing dialogues and actions on the other boundary line adjustment that was in that legislative bill as well in an area currently owned by Tahoe Reno Industrial Center.
Lance Gilman noted that the development in Washoe County will go forward with or without this property. This is a wonderful opportunity for the community to really examine what they may be walking away from. If this county comes together in a no vote, this development will go forward and the people in the Highlands will be left with no input on what happens with that property or with their neighborhood. He hopes everyone will truly vet the process and see what they are willing to give up, and be involved in, or not be involved in. He is committed to the voters and what they decide, but hopes they truly consider their options.
Nicole Barde, Virginia City Highlands Resident – asked if the two boundary changes are included together. Mr. Morris explained that the bill divides it into four different sections that separate them. Ms. Bard asked if the resolution is passed, if it is passed as written or if changes may be made to the boundary description by the developer. Mr. Morris said that the legislature set the boundaries and it would be up to them to make any changes.
Dale Beach, Storey County Resident – Clarified that everyone in the county may vote on this.
Motion: Approve resolution 14-397 of the Storey County Board of County Commissioners to place an advisory question on the ballot at the 2014 general election regarding a revision to the boundary between Storey County and Washoe County, in an area commonly known as “Sunny Hills.”,
Action: Approve Moved by Commissioner Sjovangen Seconded by Vice-Chairman Gilman Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=3)
|
You can listen to that section of the meeting yourself. Click here (3.3 Mbytes wma)
June 17, 2014 meeting of the Storey County Commissioners.
There was an item on the Agenda to approve Section 1.5 of SB272 to transfer the Washoe County properties to Storey County. (The Sunny Hills Ranchos properties are considered a separate issue.)
|
11. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approve Resolution 14-403 approving a boundary line adjustment (BLA) between Storey County and Washoe County pursuant to provisions in Senate Bill (SB) 272 of the 2013 Legislative Session. For clarification, this matter pertains only to Section 1.5 of SB 272 which is for property now in Washoe County north of the Centerline of the Truckee River and South of Interstate 80. This request does not pertain to Section 1 of SB 272 which involves an area of land currently situated in Storey County and more commonly known as "Sunny Hills". Implementation of the BLA shall be contingent upon similar approval by the Washoe County Board of Commissioners.
|
Apparently, it was approved. I will post the minutes of the meeting (and the recording) when I get them.
And, BTW, Troy Williams has resigned as HRPOA President. I was told by an HRPOA member that he had sent a letter to Mr. Williams strongly objecting to the way Williams had handled the March 25 meeting with Sunny Hills Ranchos, and that he hadn’t been the only one to do that. It appears that Mr. Williams’ response was to resign. His wife, also a member of the HRPOA Board, has also resigned.
Apparently, the Highlands are not as divided as Sunny Hills Ranchos would like us to be.
M. June 28, 2014: Agenda For the July 1, 2014 meeting of the County Commissioners. They want to take the Advisory Question Off the Ballot.
There are two items on the agenda for the July 1 meeting of the Board of Commissioners that trouble me greatly.
|
12. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Resolution 14-405 which determines that Storey County does not approve a boundary line adjustment between Storey County and Washoe County pursuant to provisions in Senate Bill (SB) 272 Sections 1 and 2(2). For further clarification, Section 1 of SB 272 pertains to property now situated in Storey County in an area more commonly referred to as “Sunny Hills”. This action does not involve the area referenced in Section 1.5 of SB 272 adjacent to the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center. Boundary line resolutions for Section 1.5 were approved by both the Storey County and Washoe County Boards of Commissioners on June 17, 2014 as provided for in Section 2 (3) of SB 272.
13. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Resolution 14-406 rescinding Resolution 14-397 which called for an advisory question to be placed on the November 2014 General Election ballot relative to a possible boundary line adjustment between Storey County and Washoe County in an area more commonly referred to as “Sunny Hills”. If Resolution 14-405 is passed, this action would eliminate any applicability of the results of a General Election advisory question. If approved, this resolution also provides notice to the clerk the ballot question is withdrawn.
|
The following is my opinion. Feel free to ignore it, but maybe you should go to the July 1 meeting anyway.
|
The County Commissioners want to cancel the Advisory Question on the Ballot and vote against the Sunny Hills Ranchos part of SB272 now.
Why do they want to do this? Why are they in such a hurry?
Here is my scenario.
1. Storey County votes against the Sunny Hills Ranchos part of SB272.
2. Sunny Hills Ranchos immediately sues the County.
3. The County turns the matter over to its insurance company (POOL Pact).
4. POOL Pact selects Brent Kolvert to represent the County.
5. Kolvert announces that the case is unwinnable and advises the County to “negotiate a settlement” with Sunny Hills Ranchos. If the County does not do that, he will lose the case and Sunny Hills Ranchos will get a judgment against the County for several million dollars. The County’s insurance will only cover $50K.
6. The County “negotiates a settlement” with Sunny Hills Ranchos giving them everything they want. Maybe more. Maybe the 1,200 acres will stay in Storey County but Sunny Hills Ranchos will get a Special Use Permit to do whatever they want. Maybe it will include their other 6,000+ acres, too. Maybe if they can’t get water from the Truckee Meadows they will drill a large well or two. Sunny Hills Ranchos has already spent a fair amount of money on their project and, if they don’t get it, there will be a large amount of money that they won’t make. There is no limit to the damage they can do.
7. The Commissioners (Sjovangen) will (sorrowfully) announce that they have acted in the best interests of the County.
This is exactly what Sjovangen did to allow Taormina to get his tower.
This will be Sjovangen’s parting gift to the Highlands for voting against him in the Primary.
Timeline:
May 6, 2014 – Storey County Commissioners approve the motion to put the Sunny Hills Ranchos question on the November ballot (as an advisory question).
June 10, 2014 – Sjovangen loses in the Primary.
July 1, 2014 - Agenda items are: Rescind putting Sunny Hills Ranchos question on the November ballot, vote now on whether to reject it instead of letting it expire on June 30, 2015 when Sjovangen will no longer be a County Commissioner.
|
June 29,2014
After I posted the above on the Yahoo Group for the Highlands, Gail asked:
> Why would Sunny Hills have a case to sue the county if the Commissioners vote against the boundary change? And are you implying that the selection of a specific attorney would influence the result of a court case? If you are, can you explain why?
I answered by first apologizing for naming the wrong attorney. (I had originally named one of Taormina’s attorneys in his cases.)
|
I am not an attorney but I have been involved in three lawsuits. One as a Defendant and two as a Plaintiff. One of those doesn’t really count because it was a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against NASA. I substantially prevailed because during the case NASA voluntarily handed over about 4,000 pages of documents that they had improperly withheld. I was awarded my costs of a few hundred dollars which NASA refused to pay until I tried to have the Space Shuttle Atlantis seized by Federal Marshals and sold at public auction (and to have NASA held in Contempt of Court).
To answer your question:
1. Anyone can sue Anyone Else for Anything. It doesn’t mean they will win. If the lawsuit is frivolous and malicious they can lose big time and end up having to pay the person they are suing.
2. You only get as much justice as you can afford to spend money on. If you run out of money before the case is over, your attorneys will generally leave you since they don’t like to work for free.
3. In the Taormina Tower cases, the County turned the cases over to their insurance company POOL Pact. When I talked to POOL Pact they said they had selected Brent Kolvert from a list of attorneys. Later, I learned that the list of attorneys was very small. It might be only Kolvert. Although Kolvert represented the County he was being paid by POOL Pact, whose only interest was in minimizing their costs. Do the math.
4. The County Commissioners promised that the Sunny Hills Ranchos issue would be put on the ballot as an advisory question. Originally, it was to be just for the Highlands voters, then it was expanded to the entire County as it should have been from the start. While the Commissioners did not promise to abide by the wishes of the County it would be political suicide to ignore the wishes of the voters either way.
That suggests the following strategy by Sunny Hills Ranchos. Go to the other parts of the County and promise to do things for them if they vote for Sunny Hills Ranchos. (That’s what the Cordevista people did.) They can also remind them why they hate the Highlands, suggest other reasons for hating the Highlands, and that by voting for Sunny Hills Ranchos they can “teach the Highlands a lesson.”
By taking the question off the ballot the County Commissioners are unfairly depriving Sunny Hills Ranchos of this opportunity to get what they want. That’s worth a lawsuit. They just have to dress it up a little.
There is another possibility. We know that in the past Sunny Hills Ranchos has said they don’t want the advisory question on the Ballot. Maybe they want the Sunny Hills Ranchos part of SB272 to die right now.
If the Sunny Hills Ranchos part of SB272 is declared dead now, they can have another bill introduced. That bill could move the Sunny Hills Ranchos properties moved into Washoe County without requiring the approval of the Storey County Commissioners. Assuming the transfer of the Lockwood properties is done by then, they can say that it is only fair that Washoe County get some property in return.
At the April 3, 2014 meeting of the Nevada Senate Committee on Government Affairs State Senator Kieckhefer (who introduced SB272) said,
"The bill is enveloped in a cloud of neutrality so you should not hear a lot of opposition."
If the Advisory Question is on the Ballot and the answer is “No” he won’t be able to say that next time.
Also, the next session (78th Session) of the Nevada Legislature begins on February 2, 2015 and lasts only 120 days. It will end on or about June 2, 2015. The deadline for approving SB272 is June 30, 2015. If it is not approved it will die on its own accord. If that happens it will be too late to introduce a new bill in the 78th Session. If SB272 is allowed to run out (June 30, 2015) the Legislative Session will be over by then.
The next Session after that (79th) does not happen until February 2017. (The Nevada Legislature meets only every two years.)
|
Gail also asked:
|
Can anyone tell me about how county commission resolutions are created? For instance, in the July 1 agenda Resolution 14-405 is disapproval of the Sunny Hills boundary change and 14-406 rescinds 14-397 which placed the question on the Nov. ballot. When were these resolutions drafted? There is nothing in the past two agendas relating to writing these resolutions, so who did it and when? I would think the CREATION of a resolution to disapprove something and one to rescind something else the Commission had done would be agenda items in themselves, rather than being presented as fait accompli in an agenda. NRS 241 requires that all deliberations, not just actions to be taken, be part of the public record. It appears a lot of stuff is being done off the record in Storey County.
|
Those are very good questions.
July 31, 2014 – The July 1 Meeting. What are they up to now?
I have a copy of the recording of the July 1, 2014 meeting of the Board of Commissioners
This is the meeting where there were two items on the Agenda for Sunny Hills Ranchos.
|
12. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Resolution 14-405 which determines that Storey County does not approve a boundary line adjustment between Storey County and Washoe County pursuant to provisions in Senate Bill (SB) 272 Sections 1 and 2(2). For further clarification, Section 1 of SB 272 pertains to property now situated in Storey County in an area more commonly referred to as “Sunny Hills”. This action does not involve the area referenced in Section 1.5 of SB 272 adjacent to the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center. Boundary line resolutions for Section 1.5 were approved by both the Storey County and Washoe County Boards of Commissioners on June 17, 2014 as provided for in Section 2 (3) of SB 272.
13. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Resolution 14-406 rescinding Resolution 14-397 which called for an advisory question to be placed on the November 2014 General Election ballot relative to a possible boundary line adjustment between Storey County and Washoe County in an area more commonly referred to as “Sunny Hills”. If Resolution 14-405 is passed, this action would eliminate any applicability of the results of a General Election advisory question. If approved, this resolution also provides notice to the clerk the ballot question is withdrawn.
|
They refer to Resolution 14-405, Resolution 14-406, and Resolution 14-397. Resolution 14-397 was the resolution to put the Sunny Hills Ranchos issue on the ballot as an advisory question. They approved it, now they want to unapprove it.
For the Resolutions click here. Note that Resolutions 14-405 and 14-406 are unsigned. Pat Whitten refused to say who wrote them.
The discussion took about 48 minutes.
The Commissioners voted against Resolution 14-405 which would have said “no” to SB272. Therefore, SB272 is still in play. Sunny Hills Ranchos still has until June 30, 2015 to get the Commissioners to approve it.
The Commissioners then approved Resolution 14-406 which took the Sunny Hills Ranchos issue off the ballot as an advisory question.
Everyone talked about having a survey done but since it is not part of any motion approved by the Commissioners there is no requirement that it be done.
Here’s the thing about a survey. Who is going to write the questions? You can formulate the questions to get whatever answer you want. At the very least you can take an issue that 90% of the people are against, and by asking the right questions “prove” that it’s really only 50/50.
For the discussion:
WMA: shr_scc_2014_0701.wma 9.8 Mbytes 0:48:18
MP3: shr_scc_2014_0701.mp3 8.5 Mbytes 0:48:18
(As DA Maddox points out at the end of the meeting, in several places Resolution 14-406 refers to Resolution 14-397 as “14-395”.)
Here are the draft minutes of the meeting: click here.
Garrett Gordon says he is going back to the Legislature and will have a new bill passed. I can’t wait to see it.
I have to admit, Garrett Gordon is a strategic and tactical genius.
March 31, 2015
O. March 31, 2015 - Gilman gets his property transferred to Storey County. The rest of us will pay for it
From the minutes of the Washoe County Board of Commissioners June 17, 2014 (washoe_BCC_2014_0617.pdf):
14-537 AGENDA ITEM 40 - TRUCKEE MEADOWS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Agenda Subject: "Discussion and possible action on Amendment to Cooperative Agreement between Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District and Storey County to provide for cooperative use of fire protection capital assets and automatic aid service; and possible adoption of a resolution to change the boundary line between Washoe and Storey Counties in the area of the Truckee River and the Tahoe Reno Industrial Park authorized by SB 272 of the 2013 Nevada Legislature and as described in Section 1.5 of the bill."
This agenda item was heard by the Board of Fire Commissioners and the Board of County Commissioners during the Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District/Sierra Fire Protection District (TMFPD/SFPD) meeting of June 17, 2014, Agenda Item 9. All discussion could be found on the June 17, 2014 TMFPD/SFPD minutes.
The minutes of the June 17, 2014 meeting of the TMFPD/SFPD are here: washoe_TMFPD_2014_0617.pdf .
Here is an html version of Agenda Item 9 from those minutes: washoe_sb272_tric.htm
In a nutshell:
1. The original plan was to do revenue sharing of the property tax of the transferred property. (This is the Washoe County property transferred to Storey County for the benefit of Lance Gilman.)
2. Washoe County Legal Counsel Paul Lipparelli said that counties can only do what the Legislature said a county can do, and the Legislature has not said counties can share revenue.
There was no prohibition against it, but if Storey County were to reneg on the agreement Washoe County would have to sue, with uncertain results.
3. Instead, he recommended some kind of interlocal agreement for exchanging services because such agreements were enforceable.
4. They decided to amend the Cooperative Agreement between the TMFPD and Storey County to provide for cooperative use of fire protection capital assets and automatic aid service;.
5. Chairman Humke inquired on a quantification of value that Washoe County would receive from Storey County's physical facilities such as the Fire Station. Mr. Slaughter replied there was not a dollar amount attached.
You can bet that he knew exactly what the deal was worth to Washoe County and that it was a great deal more than the proposed revenue sharing. The proposed revenue sharing was mice nuts:
Mr. Slaughter said the area currently generated property tax revenue of approximately $27,455 per year with about $1,500 sent to the State. He said the TMFPD collected about $4,500, Washoe County collected about $12,000 and the Washoe County School District collected about $9,600. If the area was moved out of Washoe County, he said those property taxes would no longer be collected by Washoe County.
That means the rest of us in Storey County are paying for it, just like we are paying for TRIC’s roads and other infrastructure..
By an amazing coincidence the same item was on the Agenda for the Storey County Board of Commissioners meeting held on the very same day.
Nicole Barde called them on it. [Converted to text using OCR]
|
Nicole Barde, Storey County Resident: I would like to read my statement into the record and request that the packet that I am handing to the commissioners and clerk be included in the minutes of this meeting.
I am here today, as I have been on so many occasions over the years, as a citizen and taxpayer of Storey County. As in the past, I am raising an issue that I believe affects all of our citizens.
The attached is from Washoe County's County Manager, John Slaughter. It is the Washoe County staff report regarding the same agenda items as are on our agenda (#11 and #13). This staff report is related to the amended cooperative agreement between Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District (TMFPD) and Storey County Fire Protection District (SCFPD) and the proposed boundary line adjustment (BLA) involving 19 parcels 9 which are owned by TRI and 9 parcels which are owned by others. This topic is also on the Washoe County agenda for today, The Washoe staff report clearly presents all the data, relevant facts, fiscal impact, benefits to Washoe County citizens and explains how the two agenda items are related.
The Storey County staff report does not contain any fiscal impact statement or cost benefit analysis. Unlike the Washoe County packet the Storey County Packet does not define the costs or benefits for Storey County citizens. Although the relationship between the these two agenda items is hiding in plain sight it is not brought to the forefront as it is done in the Washoe document so that citizens can understand the relationship of items #11 an d#13. My comments here are NOT directed at the staff since I believe that they would provide whatever is asked for by their management.
There are several items of interest in the Washoe staff report.
First, Mr. Slaughter references that there had been revenue share discussions and that they were deemed to have no legal basis in statute. He then explained that the amendment to the co-operative agreement between the fire districts are the terms and conditions under which the Washoe commission would agree to move the boundary line. Essentially the initial revenue share idea was replaced with the amended cooperative fire service agreement to "facilitate interest" by Washoe County to approve the BLA. This clarity is missing from the Storey County report.
A further review of Mr. Slaughters report shows that Washoe has a fiscal impact statement pertaining to both the boundary line adjustment and the fire protection agreement which I find lacking in the Storey County report published as part of this agenda packet. Essentially Washoe loses $27k per year in taxes and saves a great deal of money by shifting the burden of fire protection to SCFPD to support parts of Washoe County,
Additionally, he states in the staff report that "no decision to jointly staff the station is implied; further, the decision to provide TMFPD personnel to Storey County's station 75 for the purpose of joint staffing is entirely TMFPD's decision," So we can expect to be responsible for fully staffing station #75. The amendment also has other stipulations such as not paying for SCFPD services (assistance for hire) in the defined Washoe portion of the coverage area regardless of how long we are there. How much is this going to cost?
When I look at what Storey is having to do and potentially pay to get these 15 parcels I am extremely concerned as to what Storey County and its residents get out of this deal. It looks to be nothing in the foreseeable future. The TRI portion of these parcels is 9 out of the 18 parcels. It is questionable if the other 9 can or would ever be developed at all.
It is very clear how TRI will benefit. They will get a fire station that reduces their insurance rates and they will get property that they can develop a lot cheaper and easier in Storey than in Washoe County. TRI derives a huge benefit from this since they will have to pay less in fees and be able to build quicker here than if the land is in Washoe. TRI also saves on property tax since it is lower in Storey County.
I think the citizens of Storey County deserve answers to the following questions before these items are discussed let alone voted on:
How does this benefit all of us?
Do we know how much this will cost and when?
Is this the best use of our money at this time?
I suggest a couple options given the Washoe analysis and the lack of analysis/transparency from Storey County.
1. Kill this thing now because there is no apparent benefit to the tax payers at this time.
2. Hold on any action until Storey County does it's proper and due diligence- and makes the information public.
3. Give TRI and the other property owners of the 18 parcels an opportunity to make a proposal as part of this agreement that brings appropriate value to the Storey County tax payers and offsets our costs.
4. Put this on the ballot as it should be with the SHR issue with all pertinent pros and cons.
Regardless of which of these options you chose there is not enough information present here today to have this discussion and I request that you remove both items from the agenda until there is sufficient accurate information presented to the taxpayers.
|
Kay Dean added:
|
Kay Dean, Highlands resident: The lack of fiscal information and cost affects all taxpayers. It is fiscally irresponsible to go forward without it and I urge you to delay this.
|
The Commissioners declined to remove the items from the Agenda so that Nicole’s questions could be answered.
The Motion to approve the Agenda (with the Washoe County transfer still in it) was approved. Gilman voted yes.
|
Motion: Approve agenda for June 17, 2014, Action: Approve Moved by Commissioner Sjovangen Seconded by Vice-Chairman Gilman Vote: Motion carried by unanimous vote (summary: Yes=3)
|
When the item came up for discussion, there certainly was some but to no avail. The Commissioners voted to approve it. (Gilman did not take part in the discussion or the vote.)
You can hear the entire meeting on my Archive: http://www.savestoreycounty.org/archive/index.html#b20140617
March 31, 2015
P. Sunny Hills Ranchos - The Empire Strikes Back
Last year, at the May 6, 2014 meeting of the Board of Commissioners, the Commissioners approved putting the Sunny Hills Ranchos Advisory Question on the November ballot.
Then there were two items on the agenda for the July 1, 2014 meeting of the Board of Commissioners.
|
12. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Resolution 14-405 which determines that Storey County does not approve a boundary line adjustment between Storey County and Washoe County pursuant to provisions in Senate Bill (SB) 272 Sections 1 and 2(2). For further clarification, Section 1 of SB 272 pertains to property now situated in Storey County in an area more commonly referred to as “Sunny Hills”. This action does not involve the area referenced in Section 1.5 of SB 272 adjacent to the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center. Boundary line resolutions for Section 1.5 were approved by both the Storey County and Washoe County Boards of Commissioners on June 17, 2014 as provided for in Section 2 (3) of SB 272.
13. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION: Approval of Resolution 14-406 rescinding Resolution 14-397 which called for an advisory question to be placed on the November 2014 General Election ballot relative to a possible boundary line adjustment between Storey County and Washoe County in an area more commonly referred to as “Sunny Hills”. If Resolution 14-405 is passed, this action would eliminate any applicability of the results of a General Election advisory question. If approved, this resolution also provides notice to the clerk the ballot question is withdrawn. |
Sunny Hills Ranchos attorney Garrett Gordon persuaded the Commissioners to vote against Resolution 14-405 which would have said “no” to SB272 and to vote yes to Resolution 14-406 which took the Sunny Hills Ranchos issue off the ballot as an advisory question.
Garret Gordon promised to have a survey done and to meet with Community leaders to negotiate an agreement that both parties could live with. Then he would have a bill introduced in the Nevada Legislature to reflect the agreement.
Has there been a survey?
No.
Has Garret Gordon met with Community leaders to negotiate an agreement?
Not that I have heard of.
What we have gotten is AB417 which was introduced in the Nevada Assembly on Friday March 20, 2015 to extend the time for approving SB272 to June 30, 2017. The deadline had been June 30, 2015.
See AB417: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/78th2015/Bill/2070/Overview
It was introduced by the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs, whose members are:
John Ellison - Chair District: 33 County: Elko, Eureka, Lincoln (Part), White Pine
John Moore - Vice Chair District: 8 County: Clark (Part)
Victoria A. Dooling District: 41 County: Clark (Part)
Shelly M. Shelton District: 10 County: Clark (Part)
Lynn D. Stewart District: 22 County: Clark (Part)
Glenn E. Trowbridge District: 37 County: Clark (Part)
Stephen H. Silberkraus District: 29 County: Clark (Part)
Melissa Woodbury District: 23 County: Clark (Part)
Richard Carrillo District: 18 County: Clark (Part)
Edgar Flores District: 28 County: Clark (Part)
Amber Joiner District: 24 County: Washoe (Part)
Harvey J. Munford District: 6 County: Clark (Part)
Dina Neal District: 7 County: Clark (Part)
Ellen B. Spiegel District: 20 County: Clark (Part)
Notice that of the 14 members, 12 are from Clark County, one is from Elko, and one is from Washoe County. There is no one on the committee to represent the interests of Storey County.
According to public records, Storey County has five paid lobbyists for Session 78 (2105).
(See https://leg.state.nv.us/AppCF/Lobbyist/reports/ListLobbyists.cfm?Paid=1&Session=78)
Hess, Greg
PO Box 801
Virginia City, NV 89440
(Phone No) 775-848-1198
(Cell Phone) 775-848-1198
(Fax) 775-847-0949
(Email) ghess@storeycounty.org
Lowther, Margaret (Maggie)
PO Box 349
Virginia City, NV 89440
(Phone No) 775-847-0563
(Cell Phone) 775-230-4288
Walker, Mary
661 Genoa Lane
Minden, NV 89423
(Phone No) 775-771-5964
(Cell Phone) 775-771-5964
(Email) marywalker@gbis.com
Walker, Steve
661 Genoa Lane
Minden, NV 89423
(Phone No) 775-771-6323
(Cell Phone) 775-771-6323
(Email) stevewalker@gbis.com
Whitten, Patrick
PO Box 176
Virginia City, NV 89440
(Phone No) 775-847-0968
(Cell Phone) 775-721-7001
(Fax) 775-847-0949
(Email) pwhitten@storeycounty.org
Have any of these paid lobbyists told the County Commissioners about AB417?
If they haven’t, then they are not doing their job and they should be fired.
If they have told the County Commissioners about AB417, why haven’t the County Commissioners told us about it?
Also, SB272 was introduced by State Senator Ben Kieckhefer [Senatorial District: No. 16; County: Carson City, Washoe (Part)]
Why didn’t Senator Kieckhefer introduce the bill to extend SB272?
Why did Garret Gordon have to have his friends in Clark County do it?
Two of the three County Commissioners seats are up for re-election in November 2016.
By extending the deadline until June 30, 2017 Garret Gordon (Sunny Hills Ranchos) has the opportunity to make sure that whoever gets elected:
1. Will approve Section 1 of SB272.
2. Will not allow the residents of Storey County to have a say in the matter, an issue that will carve up Storey County and wreck the Highlands.
April 29, 2015
Q. Red Alert - AB417
On March 31 I posted an alert about AB417 on our community group.
One of our community leaders (Gail B.) immediately went into action and contacted Jim Wheeler, our Assemblyman.
Assemblyman Wheeler also immediately went into action.
Gail posted this email from him (I have redacted Gail’s last name to protect her privacy):
-------- Original message --------
From: "Wheeler, Jim Assemblyman"
Date:04/01/2015 07:38 (GMT-08:00)
To: Gail Bxxx , VCH@xxx.xxx, mmcbride@...
Subject: RE: [VCH] Sunny Hills Ranchos - The Empire Strikes Back #county
FYI. I have asked the Chairman of Govt. Affairs to kill this bill. He agreed. It will not even be heard.
Jim
Jim Wheeler
Assemblyman District 39
Transportation Committee Chairman
401 South Carson Street, Room 3119
Carson City, NV 89701-4747
Phone: (775) 684-8843
Fax: (775) 684-8533
The latest entry for AB417 is dated April 11, 2015 and says (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/78th2015/Bill/2070/Overview):
Apr 11, 2015 (Pursuant to Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3.1, no further action allowed.)
Joint Standing Rule 14.3.1 says (I am reproducing all of Joint Standing Rule 14.3):
|
Rule No. 14.3. Final Dates for Action by Standing Committees and Houses.
Except as otherwise provided in Joint Standing Rules Nos. 14.4, 14.5 and 14.6:
1. The final standing committee to which a bill or joint resolution is referred in its House of origin may only take action on the bill or joint resolution on or before the 68th calendar day of the legislative session. A bill may be re-referred after that date only to the Senate Committee on Finance or the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and only if the bill is exempt pursuant to subsection 1 of Joint Standing Rule No. 14.6.
2. Final action on a bill or joint resolution may only be taken by the House of origin on or before the 79th calendar day of the legislative session.
3. The final standing committee to which a bill or joint resolution is referred in the second House may only take action on the bill or joint resolution on or before the 103rd calendar day of the legislative session. A bill may be re-referred after that date only to the Senate Committee on Finance or the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and only if the bill is exempt pursuant to subsection 1 of Joint Standing Rule No. 14.6.
4. Final action on a bill or joint resolution may only be taken by the second House on or before the 110th calendar day of the legislative session.
[Statutes of Nevada 1999, 3857, 3913, 4007; A 2001, 3319; 2003, 3592; 2005, 2963; 2011, 3764, 3858; 2013, 3891]
|
The 2015 legislative session started on February 2, 2015. When you add 68 days to that you get April 11, 2015.
Therefore, AB417 should be dead.
But not completely. It could be resurrected.
There is:
Rule No. 14.4. Emergency Requests. (Helping Mr. Zee make more money doesn’t look like an emergency to me)
Rule No. 14.5. Waivers. (That looks doable)
Rule No. 14.6. Exemptions. (Doesn’t look like AB417 is eligible for an exemption.)
|
Rule No. 14.4. Emergency Requests.
1. After a legislative session has convened:
(a) The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the Assembly may each submit to the Legislative Counsel, on his or her own behalf or on the behalf of another Legislator or a standing committee of the Senate or Assembly, not more than five requests for the drafting of a bill or resolution.
(b) The Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the Assembly may each submit to the Legislative Counsel, on his or her own behalf or on the behalf of another Legislator or a standing committee of the Senate or Assembly, not more than two requests for the drafting of a bill or resolution.
2. A request submitted pursuant to subsection 1:
(a) May be submitted at any time during the legislative session and is not subject to any of the provisions of subsection 1 of Joint Standing Rule No. 14, Joint Standing Rule No. 14.1, subsection 1 of Joint Standing Rule No. 14.2 and Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3.
(b) Is in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other requests for the drafting of a bill or resolution that are authorized to be submitted to the Legislative Counsel by the Majority Leader of the Senate, Speaker of the Assembly, Minority Leader of the Senate or Minority Leader of the Assembly.
3. The list of requests for the preparation of legislative measures prepared pursuant to NRS 218D.130 must include the phrase “EMERGENCY REQUEST OF” and state the title of the person who requested each bill or resolution pursuant to this Rule. If the request was made on behalf of another Legislator or a standing committee, the list must also include the name of the Legislator or standing committee on whose behalf the bill or resolution was requested.
4. The Legislative Counsel shall cause to be printed on the face of the introductory copy and all reprints of each bill or resolution requested pursuant to this Rule the phrase “EMERGENCY REQUEST OF” and state the title of the person who requested the bill or resolution.
[Statutes of Nevada 1999, 3857, 3914; A 2001, 3320; 2011, 3764; Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 1 of the 2015 Session (File No. 7)]
|
|
Rule No. 14.5. Waivers.
1. At the request of a Legislator or a standing or select committee of the Senate or Assembly, subsection 1 of Joint Standing Rule No. 14, subsection 1 of Joint Standing Rule No. 14.2 or any of the provisions of Joint Standing Rules Nos. 14.1 and 14.3, or any combination thereof, may be waived by the Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the Assembly, acting jointly, at any time during a legislative session. A request for a waiver submitted by a committee must be approved by a majority of all members appointed to the committee before the request is submitted to the Majority Leader and the Speaker.
2. A waiver granted pursuant to subsection 1:
(a) Must be in writing, executed on a form provided by the Legislative Counsel, and signed by the Majority Leader and the Speaker.
(b) Must indicate the date on which the waiver is granted.
(c) Must indicate the Legislator or committee on whose behalf the waiver is being granted.
(d) Must include the bill number for which the waiver is granted or indicate that the Legislative Counsel is authorized to accept and honor a request for a new bill or resolution.
(e) Must indicate the provisions to which the waiver applies.
(f) May include the conditions under which the bill for which the waiver is being granted must be introduced and processed.
3. The Legislative Counsel shall not honor a request for the drafting of a new bill or resolution for which a waiver is granted pursuant to this Rule unless information which is sufficient in detail to allow for complete drafting of the bill or resolution is submitted to the Legislative Counsel within 2 calendar days after the date on which the waiver is granted.
4. Upon the receipt of a written waiver granted pursuant to this Rule, the Legislative Counsel shall transmit a copy of the waiver to the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the Assembly. The notice that a waiver has been granted for an existing bill must be read on the floor and entered in the Journal, and a notation that the waiver was granted must be included as a part of the history of the bill on the next practicable legislative day. A notation that a waiver was granted authorizing a new bill or resolution must be included as a part of the history of the bill or resolution after introduction.
5. The Legislative Counsel shall secure the original copy of the waiver to the official cover of the bill or resolution.
[Statutes of Nevada 1999, 3858, 3914, 4007; A 2001, 3320; 2003, 3593; 2011, 3765; Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 1 of the 2015 Session (File No. 7)]
|
|
Rule No. 14.6. Exemptions.
1. Upon request of the draft by or referral to the Senate Committee on Finance or the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, a bill which:
(a) Contains an appropriation; or
(b) Has been determined by the Fiscal Analysis Division to:
(1) Authorize the expenditure by a state agency of sums not appropriated from the State General Fund or the State Highway Fund;
(2) Create or increase any significant fiscal liability of the State;
(3) Implement a budget decision; or
(4) Significantly decrease any revenue of the State,
Ê is exempt from the provisions of subsection 1 of Joint Standing Rule No. 14, Joint Standing Rule No. 14.1, subsection 1 of Joint Standing Rule No. 14.2 and Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3. The Fiscal Analysis Division shall give notice to the Legislative Counsel to cause to be printed on the face of the bill the term “exempt” for any bills requested by the Senate Committee on Finance or Assembly Committee on Ways and Means that have been determined to be exempt and shall give written notice to the Legislative Counsel, Secretary of the Senate and Chief Clerk of the Assembly of any bill which is determined to be exempt or eligible for exemption after it is printed. When a bill is determined to be exempt or eligible for an exemption after the bill was printed, a notation must be included as a part of the history of the bill on the next practicable legislative day. The term “exempt” must be printed on the face of all reprints of the bill after the bill becomes exempt.
2. Unless exempt pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection 1, all of the provisions of Joint Standing Rules Nos. 14, 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3 apply to a bill until the bill becomes exempt pursuant to subsection 1. A bill that has become exempt does not lose the exemption regardless of subsequent actions taken by the Legislature.
3. A cumulative list of all bills determined by the Fiscal Analysis Division pursuant to subsection 1 to be exempt or eligible for exemption after being printed must be maintained and printed in the back of the list of requests for the preparation of legislative measures prepared pursuant to NRS 218D.130.
4. The provisions of subsection 1 of Joint Standing Rule No. 14, Joint Standing Rule No. 14.1, subsection 1 of Joint Standing Rule No. 14.2 and Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3 do not apply to:
(a) A measure that primarily relates to carrying out the business of the Legislature.
(b) A bill returned from enrollment for a technical correction.
(c) A bill that was previously enrolled but, upon request of the Legislature, has been returned from the Governor for further consideration.
(d) A bill draft or measure requested pursuant to subsection 1 of Joint Standing Rule No. 13.3.
[Statutes of Nevada 1999, 3859, 3915, 4008; A 2001, 3321; 2003, 3594; 2005, 2964; 2011, 3766; 2013, 3893; Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 1 of the 2015 Session (File No. 7)]
|
They might be able to avoid the extra work (and exposure) of getting a Rule 14.5 Waiver by adding the provisions of AB417 to an existing bill that did make it out of its committee in time.
That means reading every action on every bill that has made it out of its committee. Maybe Storey County’s paid lobbyists should do that.
The next step in finally putting Sunny Hills Ranchos to bed (at least until the 2017 legislative session) is for the Storey County Commissioners to let SB272 Part 1 expire at the end of June 2015 without approving it.
Fortunately, the Storey County Commissioners seem inclined to do that.
Listen to Part 1 of the Storey County Board of Commissioners meeting for April 7, 2015, from 0:24:20 to 0:36:55. It lasts about three minutes.
Recording: Filename Size Length
2015_0407_1_09h57m26s.wma 15.1 Mbytes 1:14:55
2015_0407_1_09h57m26s.mp3 13.2 Mbytes 1:14:52
(Note that according to the published Agenda no public comment was to be allowed on the issue. During the meeting they decided to allow public comment. Of course, if the reason you decided not to go to the meeting was because the Agenda said that you would not be allowed to speak, then you were SOL. )
My Storey County Archive starts at http://www.savestoreycounty.org/archive
We’ll have to wait until July 1 to find out how this chapter of Sunny Hills Ranchos (Not Just For Breakfast Anymore) turns out.
July 20, 2015
R. Where Things Stand
1. The Storey County Board of Commissioners had not approved SB-272 Part 1 by the June 30, 2015 deadline (Good). This would have transferred the Sunny Hills Ranchos property in Storey County to Washoe County (Bad).
2. The status of AB-417 has not changed. The latest entry for AB417 is dated April 11, 2015 and says (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/78th2015/Bill/2070/Overview):
Apr 11, 2015 (Pursuant to Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3.1, no further action allowed.)
3. AB-417 has not been revived under any of these rules:
Rule No. 14.4. Emergency Requests
Rule No. 14.5. Waivers.
Rule No. 14.6. Exemptions.
4. The question is whether the language of AB-417 was incorporated into another bill, a bill that was passed.
The first meeting of the Storey County Board of Commissioners after the June 30 deadline was on July 7, 2015.
Of particular interest was Agenda Item 10.
10. DISCUSSION ONLY (No Action): 2015 Legislative Session review by Walker & Associates, Bum Hess and Maggie Lowther.
I get a copy of the recording every meeting of the Storey County Board of Commissioners. Because the files are in wmv format and very large, I extract the audio, transcode it, do some dynamic range compression, and post them on my Web site at www.savestoreycounty.org/archive.
I culled out the section of the meeting for Item 10.
2015_0707_lsr.wma 4.8 Mbytes 0:30:34
2015_0707_lsr.mp3 5.4 Mbytes 0:30:34
The Storey County lobbyists spent about 50% of their time listing bills they had helped get passed and bills they had gotten killed. One was AB417 which would have extended the time to approve SB272 (the Sunny Hills Ranchos land transfer to Washoe County) for another two years.
However, those of us who were opposed to SB272 were concerned that the provisions of AB417 could have been added to another bill (a bill that had been approved). The Storey County Lobbyists did not address that issue and the Storey County Commissioners did not ask.
The Storey County Lobbyists spent the other 50% of their time commending each other for the fine work that they and the County Commissioners had done and the County Commissioners agreed with them on both counts.
That sucks, doesn’t it?
1. Was the language of AB-417 snuck into another bill, a bill that was passed and signed into law?
2. Was the property transfer itself snuck into another bill that was passed and signed into law?
The Nevada Legislature has a Web page that allows you to do a word search of all of the bills: http://search.leg.state.nv.us/78th2015/Bills/78th2015_Bills.html
When I used “storey” as a search term it produced 88 hits in 31 documents. For the results click here.
We know about AB-417.
What about the other ones?
I don’t see any bills that have incorporated the AB-417 language or which have made the transfer.
Assuming the Legislature’s search engine has found all the places where “storey” is mentioned we are safe for now. (Unless, or course, they were able to do the deed without mentioning Storey County.)
What about the future?
The Nevada Legislature meets only every two years.
The next session will be the 79th (2017) Session. The election in November 2016 will elect all the members of the Assembly and some of the members of the Senate.
The next Nevada Legislature will probably have a lot of new faces.
In 2015 the Legislature passed (and the Governor signed into law) the largest tax increase in the history of Nevada. Many of these legislators had run on the platform that they would not raises taxes.
Many Nevada citizens are very pissed off. If the legislators think that, by the time of the next election, people will have forgotten, I think they will be proven wrong.
If Garret Gordon wants to get the Sunny Hills Ranchos property transferred to Washoe County he needs to start now by recruiting friendly new faces to run for the legislature.
And, in Storey County, the Storey County Commissioners are elected to a four-year term and two of the three Storey County Commissioners are up for re-election in November 2016. (Lance Gilman and Marshall McBride were elected in November 2012. Jack McGuffey was elected in November 2014.)
Garret would need to find and fund people friendly to him to run against the two Commissioners.
And that’s where things stand as of now.
Jed Margolin
Virginia City Highlands, NV
August 10, 2013
9/3/2013 9/10/2013 9/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/15/2013 12/27/2013 2/4/2014
4/19/2014 4/20/2014 6/28/2014 6/29/2014 7/31/2014 3/31/2015 4/29/2015
7/20/2015