Some observations regarding Park Cattle plan

Having waded through the package made available by the county, I hope you and your colleagues will find the following observations useful:

1. Water. The Park Ranch Specific Plan does not consider impact on water availability, merely on pumping capacity: bigger pumps don't increase water resources, they merely increase the speed with which we exhaust the aquifers. No calculation is made of the increase in Douglas County total pumpage, how near will it get to, or even exceed, replenishment. Apart from Park Ranch, various other projects approved but not yet implemented (e.g., Clear Creek) will further strain this limited resource.

2. Money. That I can see, in no case does Park Ranch promise it will pay for anything, and the capital requirements alone (excluded from the fiscal impact analysis) would be substantial. The analysis says these requirements would be included in a public facilities plan: no such plan published. The plan mentions various possible sources of finance, (with no commitment of any kind) but no estimated sums or times of need are given. The analysis gives no time-frame, and jumps straight to build-out, at an unspecified date. Time-frame is important, because capital has to be invested before revenue can start to flow, which means interest (and possibly amortization) has to be borne by someone in the interim, as would any shortfall in projected revenues during development or after "build-out." By the current residents? Page 2, "Fiscal Responsibility..." last item, sounds good, but to use that old phrase, "where's the beef?" Analysis presumes that some maintenance expenses (roads, parks, landscapes, weeds) will be met by homeowners' or property-owners' associations. No estimate is made of these costs; no mention of these associations is made in the program, neither is it included in the market study. If Park really wanted to ensure no financial burden on existing inhabitants, they'd propose an impact fee (NRS 278B).

3. Building Permits. My impression is that Park Cattle is pretty good at avoiding solid commitments but they certainly wants to receive a very specific one for 4,995 building permits (9.2, item 22, p. 103). Responsibility remains ambiguous: who is/are the Developer(s)? The electorate approved a popular initiative limiting building permits to 280 a year. After a long and acrimonious struggle, a compromise was reached last year which would be completely negated by this clause.

Two further comments. On page 17 give the make-up of the east dwelling units for which they wish this cast-iron guarantee, but also has a column, "maximum units," totalling 6,869 dwelling units, foot-noted "PRE shall not exceed 4905 except as allowed by applicable county."

RA densities (after the 2006 amendment) can go to 25 dwelling units per acre. Future wriggle-room?

4. Dedication of open space. This is unclear. Page 4 of the Anderson report (the master plan amendment) indicates some of the transferred development rights needed will come on-site but others need to be acquired. Page 14 indicates 4,155 further rights will be needed "to support the requested density." Acquired by whom, from whom and who pays?

This casts doubts on 1.1E, page 1, of the Park Ranch plan.

5. Basic question: The Park Ranch plan undoubtedly benefits Park Cattle, who can reasonably expect to make very handsome profits (nothing wrong with that), but how does it benefit the present inhabitants, to and for whom you are responsible?

A further significant strain on water supplies; a probable financial strain; and an unquantifiable effect on the style and quality of life. Incorporating the east plan into Minden (as Park Ranch plan suggests) increases Minden's population from 3,321 to 15,151 (their figures), 456 percent.

All the extra facilities suggested (financed by whom?) go to serve the increased population, as does the employment increase. No large increase in population, no need for large increase in facilities. The temporary, construction employment, increase of 15,000 doesn't mean much to the present population, With a total of some 50,000 inhabitants in the entire county, there isn't much slack for them to provide 15,000 construction workers, is there?

Hope this isn't too long, but it's a lot shorter than the Park Ranch Plan master plan amendment.

n D.H.E. Dicconson is a Gardnerville resident.