Questions about the Park project proposal

I feel the Park Cattle proposal has to be addressed in two parts, the application for a zoning change and the approval process.

The application:

I was very impressed with the sales pitch made by Mr. Anderson, of Anderson Engineering, and Mr. Nelson, of Park Cattle, to the Minden Town Board in seeking the board's advisory approval.

They presented many features in their presentation seeking a zoning change, but it is my understanding a zoning change cannot be made with any conditions attached to it.

I feel a number of the features they presented raise many questions.

1. Jobs

How do you create 7,000 new jobs by adding 4,900 homes?

What kind of jobs?

How many will be paid via the taxpayer's expense?

Individuals and companies have not relocated to the area citing housing costs, poor schools and lack of a viable labor force.

Recently most of those that could afford to move into the area are either retired or semi-retired and add little to the labor force.

2. Dedicated areas for fire, school and community facilities

They may be dedicated areas, but what will they cost the taxpayers?

The county, with Minden, is interested in the Seeman property for public facilities, including a community center with senior facilities. It might also accommodate additional fire fighting and police facilities. This geographical location might be better than a location further out on the Park property.

All this might be accomplished with Question 1 funds, which might be more economical for the taxpayers.

3. Infrastructure

The use of special improvement districts has been mentioned as a means for paying for the required infrastructure but who will be responsible for overseeing the districts?

Who will be responsible for any liabilities of a SID should it default in any manner?

I understand the Minden-Gardnerville Sanitation District will need to expand their facilities as they do not have sufficient addition capacity to handle the expected increase. What kind of bond issue might be needed to handle this addition to their facility and who will be paying for it?

4. Trails and walk ways

Sounds nice, but who will pay for the property, the construction and maintenance?

The county wants to develop three parks on property they own along the river.

I have heard rumors that Park Cattle wants to convert some of their Lake Tahoe property into condominiums. How will our current parks and recreation department funding be impacted if they lose the room tax funds due to this conversion?

County Manager T. Michael Brown feels a property tax increase could help pay for currently needed health, safety and welfare problems

5. Construction

Mr. Nelson has stated about 80 percent of the contractors and builders will be local contractors and builders. This does not mean they will get 80 percent of the required work.

The majority of the work could go to contractors and builders from outside of the area.

7. Annexation

While annexation into Minden and Gardnerville would be desirable since it would offer better insurance and water rates, what impact could it have on Minden, Gardnerville and the County? The Minden and Gardnerville current status is as "towns" but would it change to "city" if their population goes over 7,500? What impact would this have on everyone in the towns and county?

What kind of system do we have when all kinds of features can be presented in applying for a zoning change, but they can not be made part of the conditions for granting approval?

The only one benefiting from the change in zoning is Park Cattle ... the market value of their property will be greatly increased and there is nothing to stop them from parceling any or all of the property and selling it with the new zoning in place.

The approval:

The Gardnerville Town Board, in an advisory capacity, voted against approval of the zoning change.

The Minden Town Board, in an advisory capacity, voted 3-2 for approval when the number of units permitted was reduced per Mr. Chichester's request. Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Jacobsen voted in favor due to the visionary appeal of the presentation.

I understand at the County Staff level a number of them are opposed to the zoning change.

The Planning Commission, an advisory group appointed by the County Commissioners, voted 6-1 against the zoning change request.

Commissioners, Baushke, Kite and McDermid have asked for a continuance seeking additional input.

With the majority of the advisory people voting against the zoning change, why do the three Commissioners want additional input? Will this additional input be passed back through the Planning Commission or is the request simply a ploy allowing the three Commissioners to vote in favor of the zoning change citing addition information?

Will the final vote be based on logic, emotions or politics?

Logically, the majority of the advisory groups are opposed so one would think the commissioners would agree with their advisers.

Emotions should not be a basis for any zoning change approval.

Why do I include politics? I have lived in the county for 15 years. During that time the vast majority of the elected and appointed officials in the county have been heavily supported by the developer/contractor/builder community. While the elected officials have been elected by a majority of the voters, they have not supported the wishes of the majority of the voters once they have gotten into office.

Personally I feel that any commissioner that votes against the input of all the advisory groups, especially one they have appointed, should be considered for recall.

n Sanford E. Deyo is a Minden resident.