AGRICULTURE
PRESERVATION WORKING GROUP
MEETING NOTES
November 16, 2006 August 17, 2006 cancelled
July 20, 2006
June 15, 2006
May 18,
2006
April 20, 2006
March 16, 2006
February 23, 2006
February 13, 2006
February 2, 2006
January 26, 2006
January 19, 2006 January
12, 2006 December 15, 2005
November
17, 2005 October 20, 2005
September 15, 2005
August 18, 2005
July 21, 2005
June 16, 2005
May
19, 2005
April 21,
2005
___________________________________________________________________
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
July 20, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Elbert Mills
Jeannette Dahl
Ray Hendrix
John Mencier
Brad Goetsch
Ed Rybold
LVEA Staff Attending:
Erica Behimer, Director
REVIEW / ACCEPT PREVIOUS MEETING NOTES
Notes from the previous meeting will be reviewed at next meeting
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
UPDATE ON PROGRESS
OF THE TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHT DOCUMENT
The working group members received update on the current applications that
are being processed in the TDR program. The
County Commissioners have appointed a Sending Site Review Committee and they
have made their first recommendations for the TDR program.
The TDR application forms are complete and landowners are may now apply
to sell TDRs.
REVIEW WORKING
GROUP SUMMARY DOCUMENTThe strategies that are currently activated by the
county were discussed and recommendations made (see attached, updated summary
document). The updated
summary document will be sent out electronically to Ag Preservation W.G. members
to review and send comments back by the next meeting set for August 17, 2006.
DISCUSS UPDATING
THE CHURCHILL COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
The plan will be sent out electronically for review and comment. Comments
due by August 17, 2006.
DISCUSS ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT RESOLUTION
The resolution was review and will be sent out electronically for comments,
due by next meeting August 17, 2006.
NEXT MEETING DATE
/ AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be August 17, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., at the
Churchill County Administrative Building, Room 102.
The
following will be included on the August 17th agenda:
·
Endangered Species Act Resolution comments, acceptance and
recommendation to LVEA
Board
·
Review and accept final Summary Document and recommendation to
submit to LVEA Board
·
Open Space Plan
acceptance and recommendation to LVEA Board
· Agriculture Preservation Working Group meeting set
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
June 15, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Elbert Mills
Lorraine Griffin
Terri Pereira
Grant Mills
Edith Isidoro-Mills
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
REVIEW / ACCEPT PREVIOUS MEETING NOTES
Notes from the previous meeting were accepted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Concern was expressed for the continued loss of agricultural land due to
development and the loss of agriculture
support services.
Appreciation was expressed that farming areas were being designated by the
county.
It was explained that
the county commissioners can not turn down developments if the development
follows the county
code. Due to county code, PUDs can
only be developed in the designated area.
It was stated that
the county is trying to redirect growth and preserve farming.
UPDATE ON PROGRESS
OF THE TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHT DOCUMENT
The working group members received copies of the final TDR ordinance.
The County Commissioners will appoint the
Sending Site Review Committee at the June 21st Commissioners meeting.
The TDR application forms are almost complete
and landowners are waiting to apply to sell TDRs.
REVIEW WORKING
GROUP SUMMARY DOCUMENTThe strategies that are currently activated by the
county were discussed and recommendations made (see attached).
Strategies that could
be initiated were discussed (see attached).
DISCUSS UPDATING
THE CHURCHILL COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
Updating of the Open Space Plan was table until the next meeting.
NEXT MEETING DATE
/ AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be July 20, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., at the Churchill
County Administrative Building, Room 102.
The
following will be included on the June 15th agenda:
·
Transfer Development Rights ordinance status.
·
Review Summary Document.
·
Discuss Open Space Plan update.
·
Discuss Future of the Agriculture Preservation Working Group
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
May 18, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Gina Peraldo, Churchill County Farm Bureau
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
Erica Behimer
REVIEW / ACCEPT PREVIOUS
MEETING NOTES
Notes from the previous meeting will be addresses at the June 15, 2006
meeting.
PUBLIC
COMMENT
There was no public comment.
UPDATE
ON PROGRESS OF THE TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHT DOCUMENT
The Transfer Development Rights Ordinance has had it’s first and second
reading by the Churchill County Commissioners and there will be a public hearing
June 1, 2006. Mario Peraldo, Ed
Rybold and Jeannette Dahl will give a presentation on the ordinance at the
public hearing.
A
concern was expressed regarding developer’s interest due to a quieting housing
market. There was group discussion of a strong farmer interest in the ordnance.
DISCUSS
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS WORKSHOP
The Transfer of Development Rights Workshop, that was held April 27th,
was discussed. The same
presentation given to the Churchill County Planning Commission was used but in
more detail. Mario Peraldo, Ed Rybold
and Jeannette Dahl gave the presentation followed by a question and answer
period. Approximately 70 people
attended the workshop. Good
comments were received regarding the workshop.
REVIEW
WORKING GROUP SUMMARY DOCUMENT
Current agriculture strategies being utilized to preserve agriculture;
native plant center, agriculture tourism, Farmer’s Market, goat farm,
dairy’s, grapes, direct marketing, AG in the Classroom.
Recommendations:
·
Continued diversification
·
Continued educational programs
·
Leave ditches unlined
·
Not selling water outside the
Lahontan Valley to preserve the general benefit of the community
·
Define Lahontan Valley water use
·
Relevant projects like welcome
signs into the Valley
·
Agriculture education programs
·
Realtor awareness of Agriculture
practices for new buyers into the Valley
·
County ordinance to incorporate
planning and maintaining farms in and about residential areas.
·
Community education on recharge and
value of water in the area to sustain the quality of life
·
Development on non-water righted
land only.
·
There was group discussion of the
value of having a fresh quality of life survey due to the current survey being
over 10 years old.
·
Dixie Valley water could be issued
for Municipal/Industrial use and river water could continue for agricultural
use.
·
Diversify Agriculture
DISCUSS
UPDATING THE CHURCHILL COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
Recommendations for updating the open space plan were discussed.
NEXT
MEETING DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be June 15, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., at the Churchill
County Administrative Building, Room 102.
The following will be included on the June 15th agenda:
·
Transfer Development Rights
ordinance status.
·
Add/Delete and prioritize
recommendations in the summary document.
·
Discuss format of the Open Space
Plan update project.
·
Discuss Open Space Plan update.
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
April 20, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Grant Mills
Edith Isidoro-Mills
Terri Pereira, Churchill County Planning Department
Ray Hendrix
Susan Savala
Shelly French
Emaline French
Melissa Devera
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
REVIEW / ACCEPT PREVIOUS
MEETING NOTES
Notes from the previous meeting were accepted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
UPDATE
ON PROGRESS OF THE TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHT DOCUMENT
It was explained that the Churchill County Commissioners at their April 19th
meeting completed the first reading of the Transfer of Development Right
Ordinance. On May 4, 2006 the
Churchill County Commissioners will hold the second reading of the TDR
ordinance. A public hearing on the
TDR ordinance will be held on May 17, 2006.
The
Commissioners had several questions, concerns and recommendations regarding the
TDR ordinance (see attached exhibit). These
recommendations were addressed by the working group (see attached exhibit of
amended TDR ordinance). The working
groups recommended changes will be forwarded to the Churchill County Planning
Director.
The
working group was asked by the Planning Department to develop documents for the
implementation of the ordinance. These
documents include the TDR Agreement, TDR Certification Letter, TDR
Retirement/Extinguishment Document, and Clarification on what should be included
in the Sending Site Review Committee report. The LVEA Director provided the working group with samples of
the before mentioned documents taken from the Snohomish County Planning
Department. Terri Pereira will take
these samples to Rusty Jardine, Assistant District Attorney, for his review and
recommendation.
DISCUSS
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS WORKSHOP
The Transfer of Development Rights Workshop, that will be held April 27th,
was discussed. The same
presentation given to the Churchill County Planning Commission will be used but
in more detail. Marion Peraldo, Ed
Rybod and Jeannette Dahl will give the presentation followed by a question and
answer period. All working group
members were encouraged to come and participate.
It
was suggested that it might be helpful to have an appraiser, an accountant and a
lawyer in attendance to help answer questions.
There was concern that questions pertinent to individual situations would
be asked rather than questions concerning the ordinance in general.
Ed Rybold will look into the possibilities.
The
need to emphasis the importance of each individual obtaining professional advise
from their lawyer and accountant was stated. The fact that this is a voluntary program should also be
stress as well as the fact that the sale of TDRs can be a landowner to developer
agreement. In that case, the County
would act only as a recorder of the transaction. It will also be important to stress that the entire family
should be involved in the decision to sell TDRs.
Once the TDR ordinance is in place, appraisals should increase in value
for agricultural land.
REVIEW
WORKING GROUP SUMMARY DOCUMENT
The review of the working group summary document was table until the next
meeting.
DISCUSS
UPDATING THE CHURCHILL COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
The updating of the Churchill County Open Space Plan was tabled until the
next meeting.
NEXT
MEETING DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be May 18, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., at the Churchill
County Administrative Building, Room 102.
The
following will be included on the May 18th agenda:
Review the Agriculture Preservation Summary document.
Discuss the update of the Churchill County Open Space Plan.
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
March 16, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Paul Ortiz, Lahontan Valley Environmental Alliance
Grant Mills
Edith Isidoro-Mills
Bill Card
Roy Risi
Terri Pereira, Churchill County Planning Department
Rick Lattin
Ray Hendrix
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
REVIEW / ACCEPT PREVIOUS
MEETING NOTES
Notes from the previous meeting were accepted.
Terri Pereira commented that
the Churchill County Planning Department recommends not changing the
zoning name when a conservation easement is place on a parcel as the
meeting notes indicate.
PUBLIC
COMMENT
There was no public comment.
UPDATE
ON PROGRESS OF THE TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHT DOCUMENT
It was explained that the TDR document is being reviewed by the Churchill
County Planning Department and language changed to coordinate with ordinance
language and the Master Plan.
The Planning Department’s questions and concerns were addressed. Changes and
clarifications were made to the document.
The
TDR document will go before the Churchill County Planning Commission at the
April 12th meeting. The
Planning Commission will forward the document to the Churchill County
Commissioners with their recommendation. The
County Commissioners will hold a public hearing and if they approve the
document, it will become an ordinance.
DISCUSS
UPDATING THE CHURCHILL COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
Churchill County Planning Department has asked LVEA to help in the update of
the Churchill County Open
Space Plan. The targeted completion
date is July 1, 2006.
Paul
Ortiz will research open space plans from other counties and will meet with the
LVEA Director to develop
a document to come before the Agriculture Preservation Working Group for review
and input. All working group
members interested in working on this project were invited to participate.
REVIEW
WORKING GROUP SUMMARY DOCUMENT
The working group’s summary document was discussed.
A recommendation was made to include Farmers Market in the Summary Document.
It
was reported that Churchill Economic Development Authority has received a grant
for $12,000 from USDA to promote direct marketing of agricultural products.
Also
available is a grant for $30,000 for farmers markets, setting up buy-local food
programs, and for developing another farmers market in Reno.
NEXT
MEETING DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be April 20, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., at the Churchill
County Administrative Building, Room 102.
The Agriculture Preservation Summary document will be reviewed.
Recommendations and priorities will be addressed.
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
February 23, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Gina Peraldo
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Paul Ortiz, Lahontan Valley Environmental Alliance
Stuart Richardson, Lahontan Valley Land & Water Alliance
Demar Dahl
Grant Mills
Beulah Testolin
Ynette Carey
Ernie Schank
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
REVIEW / ACCEPT PREVIOUS MEETING NOTES
Notes from the previous meeting were accepted.
PUBLIC
COMMENT
There was no public comment.
REVIEW
TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS DOCUMENT
The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program was discussed.
Comments from the group included the following:
·
The question as to what would
happen to the conservation easements if the county decided that they could no
longer hold the easements was asked.
·
The need for a safeguard in case
the county could no longer hold the conservation easements was discussed.
·
It was recommended that the zone
name of the parcel with a conservation easement be changed (example A-10 to
A-10/CE).
The
Transfer of Development Rights document was reviewed and the final edit
completed.
The
TDR document will go before the LVEA Board February 27th and the
Planning Commission Workshop February 28th.
REVIEW WORKING GROUP SUMMARY DOCUMENT
Tabled until the next meeting.
NEXT
MEETING DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be March 16, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., at the Churchill
County Administrative Building, Room 102.
The Agriculture Preservation Summary document will be reviewed.
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
February 13, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Brad Goestch, Churchill County Manager
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Ray Hendrix
Paul Ortiz, Lahontan Valley Environmental Alliance
Stuart Richardson, Lahontan Valley Land & Water Alliance
Demar Dahl
Mick Casey
Grant Mills
Edith Isidoro-Mills
Jesse Hernandez
Beulah Testolin
Allan Carey
Jay Davison
Ernie Schank
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
REVIEW / ACCEPT PREVIOUS
MEETING NOTES
Notes from the previous meeting were accepted.
PUBLIC
COMMENT
There was no public comment.
REVIEW
TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS DOCUMENT
The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program was discussed.
Comments from the group included the following:
·
The Transfer Development Rights
ordinance may be one of Churchill County’s most important ordinances.
·
It will be very difficult for
conservation easements to work in this area without the TDR program due to the
low appraised value of the farmland.
·
There have been some comments from
landowners that development may be their best option if TDR value remains low.
·
By law, land must be appraised as
it is zoned. Appraisals do not keep
up with inflation.
·
As soon as TDRs begin to sell, the
appraised value of land will increase.
·
Developers are saying they will
wait and see what the TDR value will become.
·
Developers may buy from the County
at a lower price rather than purchase higher priced TDRs directly from
landowners.
·
At this time there are potential
sellers and buyers at $7,000 per TDR.
·
With paper lots worth $27,000, a
TDR price of $7,000 may be too low to encourage buyers.
It is anticipated that TDR prices will increase as the program moves
forward.
The
Transfer of Development Rights document was reviewed and edited.
Group members were asked to review the remainder of the TDR document and send
comments to LVEA by Friday, February 17th. Comments will then be compiled for review at the next
meeting.
REVIEW
WORKING GROUP SUMMARY DOCUMENT
Tabled until the next meeting.
NEXT
MEETING DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be February 23, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., at the
Churchill County Administrative Building, Room 102.
The review of the TDR document will continue.
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
February 2, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Brad Goestch, Churchill County Manager
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Dennis Mills
Ray Hendrix
Paul Ortiz, Lahontan Valley Environmental Alliance
Stuart Richardson, Lahontan Valley Land & Water Alliance
Demar Dahl
Mick Casey
Jay Lannen
Grant Mills
Beulah Testolin
Allan Carey
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
REVIEW / ACCEPT PREVIOUS
MEETING NOTES
Notes from the previous meeting were accepted.
PUBLIC
COMMENT
There was no public comment.
REVIEW
TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS DOCUMENT
The Transfer of Development Rights program was discussed.
·
The TDR program converts
development rights to TDR certificates.
·
There was a question as to how, or
if, TDRs would be taxed. It was
believed that they would not be taxed but will be looked into.
·
The county will provide funds to
start the TDR program but the program must then become self- supporting.
·
The Navy and Lahontan Valley Land
& Water Alliance are considering a partnership where by LVLWA would hold the
TDRs and the Navy would have the conservation easement.
·
Ed Rybold will develop a flow chart
that will include the steps necessary to participate in the TDR program.
·
The importance of the market
dictating the price of TDRs was restated.
·
The importance of maintaining the
need to show beneficial use of water was stated.
The
Transfer of Development Rights document was reviewed and edited.
NEXT
MEETING DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be February 13, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., at the
Churchill County Administrative Building, Room 102.
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
January 26, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
Fallon, Nevada
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Brad Goestch, Churchill County Manager
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Dennis Mills, Farmer
Ray Hendrix, Rancher
Paul Ortiz, Lahontan Valley Environmental Alliance
Stuart Richardson-Lahontan Valley Land & Water Alliance
Demar Dahl, Rancher/Developer
Mick Casey, Rancher/Developer
Jay Lannen, Realtor
Edith Isidoro-Mills, Farmer
Grant Mills, Farmer
Dan Kaffer, Western Nevada Resource Conservation and Development
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
REVIEW / ACCEPT PREVIOUS MEETING NOTES
Notes from the previous meeting were accepted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Dan Kaffer, Western Nevada Resource Conservation and Development, reported
that the livestock marketing group that meets in Douglas County is applying for
grants to do feasibility studies. The
group has received approval from University of Nevada Reno Wolf Pack Meats to
work with the members of the livestock marketing group.
Wolf Pack Meats will butcher, grade and package one animal for each
member of the group. This will
include USDA inspection. The owner may then market this meat. The next meeting of the livestock marketing group will be
February 27th in Minden.
REVIEW TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS DOCUMENT
The Transfer of Development Rights document was discussed.
· Receiving sites were discussed. It was suggested that since development in E1 zoning will eventually encroach upon the A10 and A5 zones, it might be worthwhile to use TDRs to change A10 zoning to A5 zoning. This would increase the TDR market and value. It was suggested that County Planning could choose certain locations to change from A10 to A 5. This will be looked into by the county.
· It was noted that it would be better to have five acre developed parcels in the north west quadrant rather than have ten acre developed parcels in the farming area. The farmer may rather sell ten-acre lots so as to make more money than sell TDRs.
· It was mentioned that the initial sale of TDRs may be slow but will increase with time.
· It was suggested that when A5 zones are changed to E1 zones, developers should have to bring TDR with them rather than get increased density automatically. That will be written into the TDR document.
· If a farmer applies to sell TDRs and qualifies, he is then the owner of those equivalent dwelling units (EDU) and his land is in a conservation easement even if he can not sell the EDUs. The EDUs can be identified as an asset.
· Funding from NAS Fallon should be available in thirty days.
·
The appraiser will set the TDR value during the NAS
Fallon/Churchill County appraisals.
The Transfer of Development Rights
document was reviewed and edited.
REVIEW WORKING GROUP SUMMARY
DOCUMENT
Review of the summary document was tabled.
NEXT MEETING DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be February 2, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., at the
Churchill County Administrative Building, Room 102.
The Transfer Development Rights document will continue to be reviewed and
edited.
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
January 19, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
Fallon, Nevada
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Dennis Mills
Ray Hendrix
Paul Ortiz
Jay Davison, Cooperative Extension
Beulah Testolin
Stuart Richardson-Lahontan Valley Land & Water Alliance
Elbert Mills
Linda Mertens
Demar Dahl
Rusty Jardine, Churchill County Deputy District Attorney
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
REVIEW / ACCEPT PREVIOUS MEETING NOTES
Notes from the previous meeting were accepted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Local Livestock Marketing Group’s (LLMG), January 23rd meeting was
discussed. The LVEA Director
explained that the University of Nevada Wolf Pack Meets program has agreed to
work with the LLMG in the processing of their product.
REVIEW TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS DOCUMENT
· Chairman Peraldo gave an overview of the transfer of development rights program and conservation easements.
· Rusty Jardine explained that even though conservation easements are written in perpetuity changed uses, such as loss of the availability of water, may make it possible to change the conservation easement.
· It was also explained that even though a conservation easement would devalue the property by taking away the development value, the land maintains it’s agricultural value and may increase in value as development continues and agricultural lands diminish.
· It may be possible for the County to look at specific cases and award bonus point if community benefit is shown even if the property is zoned E1. Mr. Jardine will look into this but believes the transfer of development rights document has the necessary flexibility.
· The TDR document will be county code and can be ammended at any time.
· There were questions regarding the anticipated price paid to landowners and if it will be sufficient to encourage them to continue farming rather than selling for development.
·
The working group continued to edit the transfer of development
rights document.
NEXT MEETING DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be January 26, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., at the
Churchill County Administrative Building, Room 102.
The Transfer Development Rights document will continue to be reviewed and
edited.
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
January 12, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
Fallon, Nevada
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Edith Isidoro-Mills
Grant Mills
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Dennis Mills
Ray Hendrix
Paul Ortiz
Brad Goetsch, Churchill County Manager
Jay Davison, Cooperative Extension
Beulah Testolin
Alan Carey
Ernie Schank, Truckee-Carson Irrigation District
Stuart Richardson-Lahontan Valley Land & Water Alliance
Elbert Mills
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
REVIEW / ACCEPT PREVIOUS MEETING NOTES
Notes from the previous meeting were accepted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
REVIEW TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS DOCUMENT
Transfer Development Rights Discussion
Brad Goetsch, Churchill County
Manager, reviewed the purpose of the Transfer Develop Rights (TDR) program. He
explained that the program would provide funds for farmers to help them continue
farming in exchange for giving up the ability to develop the land.
In the development of the TDR document, other programs were researched, the best
were used as a template and this community’s needs were added.
The goal of the County is to preserve agriculture and open space as well as to tie the water to the land.
The TDR contracts will be handled locally.
The Navy will partner with the County in the funding of conservation easements/TDRs in the Navy buffer zone. The soon to be completed appraisals will determine the conservation easement and TDR values.
Review and Edit of Transfer
Development Rights Document
The TDR document was reviewed by the working group and changes made.
It was decided that a page of definitions would be added.
NEXT MEETING
DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be January 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., at the
Churchill County Administrative Building, Room 102.
The Transfer Development Rights document will continue to be reviewed and
edited.
The following meeting will be held January 26, 7:00 pm, at the Churchill County
Administrative Building.
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
December 15, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
Fallon, Nevada
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Edith Isidoro-Mills
Grant Mills
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Dennis Mills
Gina Peraldo
Dan Kaffer, Nevada Resource Conservation Service
Rick Lattin
Ray Hendrix
John Mincer
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
PUBLIC COMMENT
Dan Kaffer, Nevada Resource Conservation Service and Western Nevada Resource
Conservation and Development, pointed out the importance of groups such as this
working group sending letters to Congressmen encouraging the use of Southern
Nevada Public Land Management Act money to preserve working lands and farms.
This would benefit all counties in preserving farmland.
DISCUSS NEW IDEAS
The Nevada Grown program and direct marketing of farm products was
discussed.
·
It was suggested that state dollars could be used for a marketing
program modeled after the California
Placer
Grown program.
·
It was pointed out that the Reno/Carson City area now has a
population of approximately 600,000
people.
·
This is an untapped market for local, fresh, organic type
products.
·
At this time, California is doing a good job of competing in the
Nevada market.
·
The direct sale of meat products is difficult since there is no
federally licensed facility to process small
numbers of
animals in Nevada.
·
A Gardnerville group is working on a $135,000 grant to do a
feasibility study for direction marketing and
mobile processing
of meat. Steve Lewis is the contact
person on this project.
·
Wolf Pack Meats is a federally inspected facility but they are in
competition with ranchers and not assisting
them.
Need to make the legislature aware of the lack of assistance through the
University.
·
Farmers need more value added products.
·
Farmers need to develop working relationships with government.
·
Possible funding: Churchill Economic Development, Churchill
County, TDR money.
·
John Minser has a contact for direct marketing information as it
is done in Europe. He might help
set up a
system.
REVIEW TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS DOCUMENT
·
The summary document was reviewed and changes made.
·
There was concern about how the water will be attached to the land
and the ability to sell water rights off
of the land.
·
There was also the concern regarding the ability to move conserved
water rights to other locations.
·
The decision was made to meet twice in January.
The first meeting will be to review and edit the Draft
Transfer
Development Rights document. The second meeting will be a regular meeting.
DISCUSS WORKING GROUP’S SUMMARY
DOCUMENT
The Agriculture Preservation Working Group Summary Document was passed out.
The group was asked to review the document and be prepared to comment at
the January 26th meeting.
NEXT MEETING
DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be January 12, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., at the
Churchill County Administrative Building to review and edit the Transfer
Development Rights document only. The
second meeting will be a regular meeting held January 26, 7:00 p.m, at the
Churchill County Administrative Building.
The agenda for the January 12th meeting will include:
Review of the Transfer Development Rights program only.
The agenda for the January 26th meeting will include:
Review/acceptance of the Draft Transfer Development document.
Review and edit of the Agriculture Preservation Summary document.
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
November 17, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
Fallon, Nevada
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Stuart Richardson, Lahontan Valley Land & Water Alliance
Edith Isidoro-Mills
Grant Mills
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
LaVern Albaugh
Paul Ortiz-LVEA
Ernie Schank-TCID
Elbert Mills
Chris Utter
Mick Casey
Terri Pereira, Churchill County Planning Department
Demar Dahl
Jay Davison
Dennis Mills
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
PUBLIC COMMENT
· Terri Pereira, Churchill County Planning Department, explained that parcel maps are required to contain reference to the Right To Farm ordinance and a disclaimer regarding the Navy noise.
· It was further explained that many homebuyers do not see the parcel maps but that it is the realtor’s responsibility to inform the buyer of these conditions.
· Developments with CC&Rs, in some cases, include reference to the Right To Farm ordinance.
·
Realtor disclosure is an important issue that may need to be
researched.
DISCUSS NEW IDEAS
· It could be possible for the county to pass an ordinance requiring a document to be signed that would indicate that the buyer of the property understands there is a Right To Farm ordinance in Churchill County.
· In coordination with the Carson River Corridor presentation given by Ed James, Carson Water Subconservancy District, at a previous meeting, members of the working group were asked to complete a questionnaire containing two questions regarding the Carson River Corridor. These questions were: 1. What is the most important variable or value that must be used to determine river corridor width? 2. Describe the one most realistic or practical incentive or way to keep river corridor lands free from development? These questionnaires will be used to develop strategies to keep farming along the river.
· During the 1955 flood, 22,000 cfs coming into Lahontan Reservoir filled it in five days.
· During the 1983 flood, Charlie Gomes flew the river during the peak flooding and took pictures. Mert Mickelson may have this information.
· During the 1997 flood, 17,000 cfs took out Weeks Bridge. During this flood, the reservoir filled in seven days.
DEVELOP STRATEGIES
Transfer Development Rights (TDR)
· Brad Goetsch, Churchill County Manager, explained that TDRs have been researched for some time.
· After the Agriculture Preservation Working Group reviews the draft TDR ordinance, the county staff will have months of work before the program will begin. Changes will have to be made in the Churchill County Master Plan.
· Importance of agriculture to wildlife was discussed. Ernie Schank will get information on this issue (Pat O’Toole, Family Farm Alliance President, university study) for the December meeting. There is also information on the importance of agriculture to wildlife in the Ruby Valley Wildlife Study (Cliff Gardner).
· TDR’s are a type of conservation easement where development ability is not lost.
· Cluster Developments are a type of conservation easement where development ability is concentrated leaving remainder of acreage open for farming.
· 3.2 houses per acre is the base density in Churchill County. To increase density, the developer must offer some additional public benefit such as TDRs.
· At this time the Churchill County Master Plan identifies TDR receiving sites as the area north of Sheckler and Wilder Roads and west of Harrigan Road and extending north. Hazen could also be a receiving site. A variance for receiving sites outside the identified sites may be a consideration.
· If there were areas within receiving sites that needed to be protected, they could be incentivized.
· A broad sending area and a focused receiving area is needed.
· The Navy buffer zone will be the first area to use the TDR program.
· Churchill County will partner (50%) with the Navy on the TDRs. The County will bank the TDRs for future sale to developers. The County TDR program will be self-sustaining.
· The Draft TDR ordinance was reviewed to section D-2. See attached document with changes indicated.
· The working group was asked to review the remainder of the document and sent comments to Lahontan Valley Environmental Alliance.
· The Draft TDR document will continue to be reviewed at the December meeting.
· It was explained that there are landowners waiting for this program to go into effect so there is an element of urgency.
· It was pointed out that this document would have a lot of power if it comes from the Agriculture Preservation Working Group since the group is made up of people from the community.
· It was also pointed out that this document would make a great deal of work for the County.
NEXT MEETING DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting
date will be December 15, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., at the Churchill County
Administrative Building.
The agenda for the November meeting will include:
Review of the Transfer Development Rights program.
Value of agriculture for wildlife (Pat O’Toole, university study).
Summary document.
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
October 20, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
Fallon, Nevada
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Stuart Richardson, Lahontan Valley Land & Water Alliance
Edith Isidoro-Mills
Grant Mills
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Ray Hendrix
Gina Peraldo, Churchill County Farm Bureau
Carmen Bell
Norris Albough
LaVern Albough
Buelah Testolin
Alan Carey
Paul Ortiz-LVEA
Susan Savala
Michael Goddard-US Fish & Wildlife Service
Dale Hendrick
Calvin Moffitt
Heather Olsen-CCHS
Justin Sligar-CCHS
Shellie Dalluge-CCHS
Christina Withers-CCHS
Marian Erquiaga-CCHS
Angie Hendrix-CCHS
Blake Merbs-CCHS
Cortney Dahl-CCHS
Ernie Schank-TCID
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
DISCUSS NEW IDEAS
Cortney Dahl, Churchill County High School, and his students from the
Agriculture Department gave a presentation concerning agriculture from their
viewpoint.
· Decisions implemented today affect these students in the future.
· 1/32 of the earth’s mass is agriculture ground.
· Agriculture in the Lahontan Valley is rich in heritage due to the fertility and opportunity.
· Farmers may not want to continue in the Lahontan Valley due to increased residential and decreased farmland.
· Some farmers are willing to sell only if land is going to agriculture rather than development.
· Should not pave over the prime farmland.
· Remodel and sell homes that are not being used rather than building more.
· Build in areas where the land is not productive.
· Should not build on land that has water delivered to it.
· The only reason we live here is because of the water.
· Floyd Lamb – “I would rather have a poor water right at the head of the ditch than a good water right at the end of the ditch.”
· We are at the end of the ditch – everyone wants our water.
· People come here because they like the rural atmosphere, they come here to hunt – it is all due to the water and the agriculture.
· The average farmer 50 years ago could feed himself and 11 other people – today the average farmer can feed himself and 136 other people.
· Lahontan Valley use to be a place farming filtered into – now it is a place farming filters out of.
· Farmers can make it - even if it is hard they would stick it out.
· Some feel farmers can work around new development – some don’t think that will work.
· If water can be kept on the land and farmers can get a little money in the form of incentives, farmers will stay in farming.
· It is believed that the Dairy industry in this area will continue to grow amongst the development.
·
It is encouraging to see young people who want to stay in
agriculture.
Wildlife and how it relates to farming was discussed.
· Farming originally came at a price to wildlife.
· There is common ground between farming and wildlife.
· Houses do not have any advantages to farming or wildlife.
· There is a need for more water for the refuge.
· There are some areas where farming and wildlife could work together.
· There are possibilities of farmers temporarily leasing water to the refuge when they are not using it.
· There may be an opportunity to include provisions in the TDR’s for seasonal wetlands-wetlands might be rotated with farming.
· Agriculture has a benefit to wildlife by making feed and shelter available.
· Some wetlands sustain noxious weeds.
· Farmers are not getting enough credit for their contribution to wetlands and wildlife.
· Wetlands in this area were originally larger than what they are today.
· As long as water flows through this area it is in common and helpful to both agriculture and the refuge.
Development and agriculture working together was discussed.
Agriculture next to developments works best if crops are being grown rather than livestock.
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, study indicates that agricultural land is more valuable to a community than housing developments.
Agricultural land pays its own way while housing development does not.
Albuquerque is similar to this area in climate and crops.
DISCUSS ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES
Working Group Name
· It was decide to use the name of Agriculture Preservation Working Group since the group is close to finishing its tasks.
·
Subsequent groups may come out of this group and want to use a
different name.
Working Group Guidelines
·
There were no comments on the proposed guidelines so they will be
used by the working group in the finalization of the Agriculture Preservation
document.
Other Organizational Issues
· All viewpoints will be addressed in the document that is submitted to the LVEA Board.
· All Agriculture Working Group members will have an opportunity to comment on the final document.
· Any Agriculture Preservation Working Group member can attend and comment at the presentation of the document at the LVEA Board meeting.
· It is hoped that the final document will be ready for submittal by the first of the year.
DEVELOP STRATEGIES
Transfer Development Rights
· The current draft transfer development rights document was distributed.
· The group was asked to review the draft and prepare to make comment or send comment to LVEA in preparation for the November meeting.
Conservation Easements
· An article warning of the importance of knowing what is in a conservation easement contract and not inadvertently giving up your property rights was discussed.
· It was explained that it is important for a conservation easement to be written correctly and not in a way that lets the court system fill in the blanks.
· As surrounding lands develops, lands with conservation easements becomes more valuable.
Navy Conservation Easement Program
· To maintain a buffer zone around the base the Navy in cooperation with Churchill County will be budgeting money for the purchase of conservation easements on various parcels.
· The Navy wants the land in remain in agriculture.
· 5% of the land can be used to support agriculture (barns, etc.).
· All the Navy is buying is the deed restriction.
· Since the value of the land will remain as agriculture value, young people wanting to get into agriculture will have a better opportunity to purchase land as opposed to land being valued for development.
· The Navy doe not want to take the land off of the tax rolls.
· The Navy would like to see the water tied to the land.
· If water were no longer available for whatever reason, the land would be revegetated with native plants.
· The bases for the land value will come from an appraisal.
· The Navy will pay fair market value but the details of the sale will be kept private.
· The Navy is in the appraisal process now.
Other Comments
· It was reported that the Pershing County Agriculture Preservation District requires a disclosure to be included on all parcel maps for property in the District. The disclosure reads: “These parcels are located in an agricultural area and as such may be subject to irrigation, flooding, odors, dust, noise, insects and other inconveniences associated with ongoing agricultural procedures. Agricultural areas may include feedlots and dairy farms."
· It was suggested that the “Right to Farm” ordinance be referred to on parcel maps.
· The possibility of extra water being available for lease to US Fish & Wildlife from farmers in a short water year was discussed. The possibility of this being written in to the TDR’s was discussed.
· The possibility of a disclaimer on parcel maps for noise from the Navy base, much like the agriculture disclaimer, was discussed.
· It was suggested that the dairy industry is a strong economic engine that is paying competitive wages to its workers.
· If the dairy industry is going to remain, local hay and corn will be needed.
· Alfalfa is self-supported through the dairy industry.
· 80% of the fluid milk in northern Nevada comes from this area.
· It was suggested that farmers need to look at alternative crops and ag tourism.
NEXT MEETING DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting
date will be November 17, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., at the Churchill County
Administrative Building.
The agenda for the November meeting will include:
Review of the Transfer Development Rights program
September 15, 2005
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
September 15, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
Fallon, Nevada
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Stuart Richardson, Lahontan Valley Land & Water Alliance
Edith Isidoro-Mills
Grant Mills
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Brad Goetsch, Churchill County
Mic Casey
Ray Hendrix
Dan Kaffer, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Craig McKnight, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Gina Peraldo, Churchill County Farm Bureau
Floyd Rathbun
Jennifer Lumos, Lumos & Associates
Steve Moon, Lumos & Associates
Carmen Bell
Kevin Gartlond, Navy
Norris Albough
Bob Getto, Ferguson & Getto Realty
Bob Erickson, City of Fallon
Buelah Testolin
Alan Carey
John Cristich
Dennis Mills
Tim Tucker
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
DISCUSS NEW IDEAS
River Corridor Presentation
·
Ed James, Carson Water Subconservancy District (CWSD), gave a
presentation concerning the protection
of the Carson River
corridor and flood plain.
·
The presentation pointed out the need to preserve agriculture in
the river corridor.
·
The concept of private management for profit was discussed which
included long- term lease of farmlands
for flood diversion.
·
Funding is available to purchase easements through Question 1
Grant Program. Transfer Develop
Rights
programs are also
being used.
·
CWSD is also looking into the possibility of creating a model that
would show the results of build out on
the Carson River and how
down stream owners would be affected in time of flood.
·
The 1987 flood in Churchill County could be used as a model of
what could happen but since there has
been so much building
along the river this might not be accurate.
·
No cumulative analysis has been made of what problems upstream
development is causing down stream
users.
·
Agriculture is a compatible use of the river corridor that will
protect downstream users.
Transfer Development Rights
· The market will dictate the value of the Transfer Development Rights.
· It is hoped that the TDR value will amount to 30% - 80% of the actual value of the property.
· The County will develop a TDR Bank to hold TDR’s for future purchase and to hold developers funds for future TDR purchase.
· The developer can go straight to the farmer to purchase TDR’s or to the County.
· The sale of the TDR’s will be placed on the deed and recorded by the County.
Compatibility of Residential and
Agricultural users
· Everyone wants to live adjacent to agricultural areas until they find out the farmer bales hay at 3:00 am. There is a need to educate new people to the community.
· Many farmers do not want development near them.
· The first thing ¾ of the homebuyers talk about is the agriculture of the area.
· It is of great importance to keep the water on the land and in Churchill County for recharge.
· How do we prove the importance of agriculture and of keeping the water on the land to the developer?
· There may be a need in the future to consider buying water rights from upstream sources for Lahontan Valley.
· It was mentioned that if there were too much agriculture and not a balance of development the land would loose its value.
· It was suggested that the County might have to take an active part in amending ordinances to fit the situation at hand.
· Locals are not buying real estate due to high prices – out of state folks are due to low prices in comparison to where they came from.
· Developers have the ability to act quickly on their projects. Government and farming interest move more slowly.
· How can development be shifted away from paved roads and high quality land and into less valuable, non-farmed ground? The county is doing this through the Master Plan and the Land Use Plan.
· According to engineers, it is more desirable to build on sandy ground and in areas of more concentration.
· Realtors may be able to explain the right to farm law to new homes buyers. May be able to include right to farm information in the escrow papers.
Cluster Development
· At this time water on the cluster must be dedicated to the county.
· A suggestion was made to consider changing that dedication and leaving the water on the land.
· A suggestion was made to consider the possibility of moving the cluster to another parcel of land having a different zoning.
· At this time the farmers are monitoring the cluster developments for the county.
Conservation Easements
· It was suggested that a partnership with The Natures Conservancy (TNC) and like organizations is undesirable since the land could more easily end up in government ownership.
· It was also suggested that TNC and Land Trusts are not the way to go and that the county is not looking in that direction.
· It was suggested that even if a conservation easement is held by an agriculturally based land trust, another entity could bring suit against the easement holder for not upholding the easement restrictions and possibly gain the easement for themselves.
Navy Conservation Program
· The Navy is trying to maintain agricultural ground around the base for a buffer zone.
· They wish to keep the land in farming, keep the water on the land, and have no high-rise building present.
· There would be no restrictions as to they way the farmer used the land.
· The Navy will work directly with the County.
· The County will hold the TDR’s.
· By October 1st the Navy should know how much funding will be available and when it will be available.
Other Comments
· It is important that a partnership is formed with the County, Navy, Tribe, US Fish & Wildlife to keep the water in Lahontan Valley.
· In the month of July, five farms on Swingle Bench were sold totally a loss of 81,000 acres of water at 4.5 duty that now will go to Lyon County.
· Churchill County is looking toward updating the county water plan.
· Ed James explained that the water supply in Lahontan Valley is limited. The perennial yield is 25,000 acre-feet and so if there was no recharge from agriculture we would soon be mining water.
· Ed James also explained there is one watershed and limited resources so it would be advantageous to develop a regional water plan.
· Lahontan Valley is developing a regional water plan within its own area with the County, Navy, Tribe and US Fish & Wildlife.
· It was suggested that we are taking our limited agricultural water and using it for development and so are feeding off of ourselves.
· A comprehensive water study and water plan is being developed. CWSD will provide $30,000 and Churchill County $30,000.
· The County is working on a new dust ordinance. Agriculture is exempt, the Navy is exempt but the County is not exempt.
· Taxes were discussed including the idea of a view tax.
· It was stated that private property rights must be upheld.
· It was explained that NRCS has a variety of funding programs available.
·
It was stated that we need the “Big D” (Development) and we
need the “Big F” (Farming)
DISCUSS ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES
Comments regarding the working group guidelines were requested.
There were no comments.
This agenda item was tabled until the October meeting due to time constraints.
NEXT MEETING
DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be October 20, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., at the
Churchill County Administrative Building.
The agenda for the October meeting will include:
Discuss Working Group Name
Discuss Working Group Guidelines
Discuss Transfer Development Rights
Discuss Conservation Easements
Discuss NAS Fallon Proposal
Discuss Coordination of Planning Document
Discuss Education/Getting the word out
August 18, 2005
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
August 18, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
Fallon, Nevada
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Stuart Richardson, Lahontan Valley Land & Water Alliance
Edith Isidoro-Mills
Grant Mills
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Brad Goetsch, Churchill County
Elbert Mills
Mick Casey
Paul Ortiz, Lahontan Valley Environmental Alliance
Ray Hendrix
Susan Savala
Ryan Campbell
Dan Kaffer, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Jay Davidson, University of Nevada Reno Cooperative Extension
Rick Behimer
Rachel Wright
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
PUBLIC COMMENT
The July meeting notes were reviewed. Dan
Kaffer pointed out that funding for terminal lake projects was $200 million
rather than $2 million as indicated in the meeting notes.
REVIEW POSSIBLE STRATEGIES FROM
PRIOR MEETINGS
For those new to the group, Jeannette Dahl reviewed the working groups
origin, discussed the purpose of the group and pointed out some of the
strategies for the preservation of agriculture that the group had been
addressing.
DISCUSS NEW IDEAS
· Dan Kaffer, Western Nevada Resource and Conservation District, explained that he looks for regional solutions to agriculture related problems and can provide technical, financial and political support to help solve these problems.
·
Every landowner is different and has a different tolerance for
what they would like to see happen to their land and so every conservation
easement (CE) is different.
· The working group should create a toolbox containing as many different options as possible and include everyone in the decision making process.
· Douglas County has a transfer development rights (TDR) program where they retire development rights but have no funding mechanism.
· Possible partners include Terra Firma, Nevada Land Conservancy, Trust For Public Lands, Lahontan Valley Land and Water Alliance, and Ranch Open Space of Nevada.
· Developments that are built using TDRs are usually higher end homes due to the amount developers pay for TDRs.
· TDR programs in Nevada have been positive. Out of state problems have stemmed from lack of consideration for detailed restrictions in the documents.
· TDRs and CEs are not always in perpetuity. In some cases development rights may be set-aside for short terms such as 10 or 30 years. In most cases, those funding TDRs or CEs will not consider purchase if they are not held in perpetuity.
· It may be possible for the County to hold TDRs until landowner is ready to sell and/or to hold funds until the developer is ready to buy.
· 5% to 10% of the gross value of the sale of easements usually goes to the entity setting up the CE.
· Churchill County supports TDRs and CEs. Now the final mechanism must be written and recovery areas and sending areas must be identified.
· Agriculture can fit into developments but it all comes down to cost of TDRs and profit/loss for the developer.
· Spot zoning of receiving areas may be considered.
· TCID water delivery and efficiency must be considered.
· Trophy homes were discussed. An easement could be placed on the land and TDRs around the farms perimeter sold to develop homes. These homeowners would purchase a recreational easement from the landowner that would allow them to use the farm, or portions of it, for recreational purposes while farming continues.
· The county will set a formula for quantifying TDRs.
· The market will set the price for TDRs.
· It is important that TDRs come from agricultural land that we are trying to protect.
· There is a need to insure that best management practices (BMP) continue on the lands that sell TDRs and that the water remains on the land.
· There may not be a great advantage to increasing density in developments. There may be more value in larger houses on larger lots. This may cause a lack of market for TDRs but would depend on the number of people coming into the area and the amount of land available.
· Farmers may never be able to generate same amount of income from crops as can from selling to development but if there is security in land and water, the farmer may want to continue to farm.
· To help farmers continue to farm we must increase income generated from property by growing more valued crops, make it easier on the farmer by using things such as tax incentives, and provide water stability.
· Water law needs to be changed so farmers are not penalized for conserving water and so their water is not at risk when they do conserve.
· Marketing expertise for value added crops is needed.
· The majority of the farmers are very committed to farming.
· As economics get worse “teaching moments” increase. People are more willing to learn and change during these times.
· There is a market for Ag Tourism in our area.
· The general public must be convinced that agriculture is important and provides many things such as open space but that there is an associated cost. Support from the community must be developed.
· The value of open space and agriculture in the area need to be determined. That value must be converted the dollars in the farmers pocket.
· The dairy industry is of great value to our area but do not lend themselves to inclusion in residential areas. Dairies must have the necessary forage corps close by and a place to dispose of wastes to survive in the area.
· There may be the possibility of setting up a revolving fund so there would be a mechanism to fund appraisals for TDRs and CEs.
· From a developers point of view, TDRs and CEs will make the community more desirable.
·
There is a possibility that farmland could be used for the 20%
open space required for PUDs.
DISCUSS ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES
This agenda item was tabled until the September meeting due to time
constraints.
DEVELOP STRATEGIES
This agenda item was tabled until the September meeting due to time
constraints.
NEXT MEETING
DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be September 15, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., at the
Churchill County Administrative Building.
The agenda for the September meeting will include:
Discuss Working Group Name
Discuss Working Group Guidelines
Discuss Transfer Development Rights
Discuss Conservation Easements
Discuss NAS Fallon Proposal
Discuss Coordination of Planning Document
Discuss Education/Getting the word out
July 21, 2005
LAHONTAN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
July 21, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
Fallon, Nevada
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Stuart Richardson, Lahontan Valley Land & Water Alliance
Gina Peraldo, Churchill County Farm Bureau
Edith Isidoro-Mills
Grant Mills
Scott Ryder, NAS Fallon
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Brad Goetsch, Churchill County
Elbert Mills
Mick Casey
Charles Frey
Paul Ortiz, Lahontan Valley Environmental Alliance
Ray Hendrix
Tom Riggin
Susan Savala
Rachel Dahl, Fallon Star Press
Jamie Mills, Newlands Water Protective Association
Ernie Schank, Truckee-Carson Irrigation District
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
REVIEW /
MODIFY / APPROVE AGENDA
The agenda was approved.
REVIEW/ACCEPT NOTES OF LAST
MEETING
The notes of the last meeting were accepted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The need for long-term goals as well as short-term goals was expressed.
Transfer Development Rights and Conservation Easements may work in the
short term but there is a need to make changes in farming methods and crops
grown.
It was suggested that sources of funding such as the $200 million available for
terminal lakes be researched. It
might be possible to capture a portion of that money to help cover the risk of
farmers changing over to more profitable crops that used less water. This process might require that the water saved be sent
to Pyramid Lake.
The native plant center and the
possibility of growing native plants for seed were discussed.
It will take research and time before native seed crops will make money
for the farmer but they would be a water saving crop.
The possibility of different water
duties for different crops, drip irrigation and strip irrigation were discussed.
This would allow farmers to used saved water to expand their operations.
Lands that have had their water removed could be put back into
production. Some thought if farmers
tried to develop new agricultural lands there might be some negative political
pressure and opposition from the Pyramid Tribe.
The increasing need for water up
stream on the Carson River and the possible regional water system is a concern.
It was pointed out that in the Napa
area, older homes are being removed to make way for vineyards because they are
much more profitable than development. Prices
in the $80,000 to $90,000 per acre range are being paid for vineyard land.
It was stressed that we must make
agriculture profitable. Farmers
need to grow more profitable crops. Some
farmers feel that hay and grain operations are not financially justifiable
especially if you have to buy new equipment.
DISCUSS ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES
Working Group Name
According to the last census, less than 10% of the population is involved in
agriculture. Thus it may be
beneficial to include “Drinking Water” in the group’s name.
“Drinking Water and Agricultural Conservation Working Group” was
suggested as a name.
The difference between preservation
and conservation was discussed. It
was stated that 55% of the new residences are from California and these people
have an interest in conservation and recreation but not necessarily in farming.
“Drinking Water and Land Conservancy” was also suggested as a name.
The group was asked to bring their
suggestions for name to the next working group meeting and the group would
decide upon a name. The name will
be important if we are requesting funding from various sources.
Working Group Charter/Action Plan
The proposed working group charter was discussed.
A decision was made to change the word “charter” to “Guidelines”.
It was decided to eliminate the confidentiality paragraph.
Ed Rybold will amend the guidelines and present the document for the group to
review at the next working group meeting.
DISCUSS STRATEGIES
Transfer Development Rights (TDR)
Brad Goetsch discussed the Draft Transfer Develop Right Working Paper.
Concern was expressed as to what
would happen if the farmer, after selling his TDRs went bankrupt or did not pay
his operation and maintenance fees with Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID).
Kings County, Washington, Douglas
County, Nevada and Boulder County, Colorado may be good examples of the use to
TDRs. Programs have started selling
TDRs in the $4,000 to $5,000 range and have gone up to $50,000 to $60,000 per
TDR in some areas. We hope we can
learn from others programs so we do not have to make their mistakes.
It is important that the TDR program last for 50 to 100 years.
The draft outline of a proposed TDR program was discussed. There was concern that the 5% allotted for owner development (fences, roads, trees, ditches, buildings) may not be enough but it was explained that this 5% allotment would be after the TDRs were sold. The attempt is to get the farmer 50% of what his land is worth if sold for development. In many cases the water is worth more than the land.
There was concern that there would
be enough land available for the TDR program if it had to be unencumbered land.
“Unencumbered” needs to be defined.
There was also concern regarding the suggested 40-acre or more
requirement. Some believed the
requirement should be that there be enough acreage to be a viable farm.
Others believed that even 5 acres would be worthwhile since it would keep
the water on the land and would create recharge.
It was suggested that water in higher areas such as Soda Lake area should
be kept on the land. Efficiency of
TCID delivery is also important.
It was explained that the TDR
receiving area in the north/west quadrant of the county was chosen because of
the soil quality and the proximity to the water and sewer treatment plants.
The county is encouraging sustained rather than rapid development.
Conservation Easements
Stuart Richards made handouts available to the working group regarding
monitoring and drafting conservation easements and discussed conservation
easements.
It was stressed that a conservation
easement is a negative easement that pays the landowner to give up a portion of
the property rights he holds.
It may be difficult to find someone
other than the government that will pay the landowner for a conservation
easement. Some landowners are
concerned about the strings that are attached to governmental purchases.
If a land trust holds the easement, there are fewer restrictive
requirements.
Conservation easements can be
drafted to avoid the pit falls. The
landowner can take part in the monitoring of the conservation easement in many
cases. Lahontan Valley Land and
Water Trust helps draft conservation easement documents to the farmer’s
advantage.
It was suggested that the aerial
photos taken every three-years by the county could be useful in the monitoring
of conservation easements.
The Navy will not be in the business
of conservation easement management although they may be able to share in the
funding of some conservation easements.
NAS Fallon Proposal
Scott Ryder and Ed Rybold explained the NAS Fallon Proposal.
The concern of the Navy is that growth may impede training.
Funding may be available for TDRs and conservation easements to keep
lands in the buffer zone in agriculture and to keep the water on the land.
This funding will be available soon.
The Navy is working in partnership with Churchill County and the Lahontan
Valley Land and Water Alliance.
It was pointed out that this program
keeps the water in the valley and not up stream. It takes the leverage away from the US government to move the
water out of the valley as they could if the Navy owned the water.
Other Strategies
Jamie Mills explained that Newlands Water Protective Association was
developed to help fight legal battles and preserve water in the valley.
It was stressed that we must hurry if we are going to preserve the water and
farming in this area. There is a
great need to encourage young people to stay in farming.
It was pointed out that the thing
that helps farmers stay in farming is quality of life that includes security,
lack of assault and lack of uncertainty. The
message from upstream is that farming is going away anyway but it does not have
to if we do not want it to. It is
important that the public know about this group and what it is attempting to do.
Attitudes can be turned around but
we must remember that everyone has a price.
If we can give the farmers some security they will stay.
It was said that market driven TDRs
will be much more palatable to farmers rather than government driven TDRs.
Security is the most important thing
farmers can be given.
Strategies that are now in place
include:
·
Amended County Masterplan.
·
Navy Base Buffer Zone.
·
Navy funding for conservation easements.
·
Code modification for development.
·
¼ cent sales tax for water.
The next step is the first TDR
purchase. It is hoped that the TDR
program will be completed by October.
There was concern that there is a
need for an olive branch to offer upstream or they will conspire to block our
efforts by out bidding on TDRs and Navy proposal. This olive branch may be something to benefit the US Fish
& Wildlife Service.
We must look at the Carson River
situation and the Regional Water Plan. There
is already a conjunctive use plan and multiple wells on the Carson River.
AquiTrac is working on a underground
pipeline down I80 from Pershing, Churchill counties for upstream use that would
handle 100,000 to 200,000 acre-feet of water.
It was suggested Dixie Valley water needs to be considered.
DISCUSS HOW TO PROCEED
Working group members will develop suggestions for a working group name to
be presented at the August meeting.
Ed Rybold will update the working
group guidelines and present them for the review of the working group at the
August meeting.
A committee including Brad Goetsch,
Paul Ortiz, Edith Isadoro-Mills and Stuart Richardson will research TDR in other
counties gathering information to use in the development of a TDR ordinance for
Churchill County and present an amended TDR document at the August meeting.
Stuart Richardson will develop a
conservation easement document, using the conservation easement handout he made
available to the working group at this meeting, to be reviewed by the working
group at the August meeting.
Needed definitions identified:
TDRs
Define “unencumbered”.
Define
the number of acres to be eligible for the TDR program.
Define
the amount of support for farming in the receiving area.
NEXT MEETING
DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be August 18, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., at the
Churchill County Administrative Building.
The agenda for the August meeting will include:
Discuss Working Group Name
Discuss Working Group Guidelines
Discuss Transfer Development Rights
Discuss Conservation Easements
Discuss NAS Fallon Proposal
Discuss Coordination of Planning Document
Discuss Education/Getting the word out
June 16, 2005
LAHONTAN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
June 16, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
Fallon, Nevada
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Mario Peraldo, Chairman
Stuart Richardson, Lahontan Valley Land & Water Alliance
Gina Peraldo
Edith Isidoro-Mills
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Brad Goestch, Churchill County
Elbert Mills
Steve Kramer, NAS Fallon
Charles Frey
Demar Dahl
Grant Mills
Sue Frey
Norm Frey
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
REVIEW /
MODIFY / APPROVE AGENDA
The agenda was approved.
REVIEW/ACCEPT NOTES OF LAST
MEETING
The notes of the last meeting were accepted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Lahontan Valley Environmental Alliance Director reported that the LVEA
Board appointed Mario Peraldo chairman of the Agriculture Preservation Working
Group.
DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT ACTION
PLAN
The overall benefit of agriculture to the community was discussed.
The important role agriculture plays in maintaining water in the
community for municipal/industrial purposes, recharge of aquifers and providing
a rural atmosphere was pointed out
The needs of farmers, to enable them
to continue farming, were discussed. It
is important to make sure the farmer retains his economic ability to continue
farming. The negative impacts on
the entire community from the loss of farming can already be seen.
The importance of diversification of
crops was discussed. Farmers may
have to look for other sources of income in connection with their current
farming practice. It was suggested
that the bottom line is money.
The importance of agriculture was
pointed out using the dairy industry as an example. It was mentioned that eighteen to nineteen tankers go out of
the Lahontan Valley daily containing 6,500 gallons of milk per tanker.
Income in regard to the milk is $16-$17 per cwt.
Most of the dairy hay used to produce this milk comes from the Lahontan
Valley.
The importance of keeping the water
on the land was brought up. The
division of large farms into several smaller farms still keeps the water on the
land.
It was suggested that ground not
suitable for farming should be developed first leaving the better ground for
farming.
Representatives from NAS Fallon
expressed their interest in preserving agriculture, especially in the buffer
zone area, and their desire for a long-term solution to the possible
encroachment problem.
It was pointed out that not just one
strategy would work to preserve agriculture.
The point was also made that we want to see agriculture preserved not
just for the farmer but also for the community. We must put our water to use or we may loose it.
We must keep water on the land for recharge or may loose the
community’s drinking water.
The farmer is helping to maintain
recharge, open space, drinking water, wildlife as well the rural atmosphere that
so many of the new people come to this community to enjoy.
Transfer Development Rights (TDR)
were discussed. It may be possible
for farmers in the Lahontan Valley to generate 200 to 300 million dollars over a
20 to 30 year period through the sale of transfer development rights.
These development rights could be sold as one unit or a few at a time.
As well as generating money from the sale of TDR’s, the farmer would
also receive a tax break.
The sale of these development rights
would allow developers to build with greater density than 3.2 equivalent density
units (EDU’s) per acre. Since
this would be a voluntary program, it must be attractive to the developer as
well as the farmer. TDR’s could
be sold only from producing farms in the sending area and could be used for
development only in the receiving area of the county. The Churchill County
Master Plan and County Code would reflect these sending and receiving areas.
Participation would be voluntary. A
bonus could be given for TDR’s from large sections of land, and river corridor
land. The TDR agreement would be
between the farmer and the developer.
It was pointed out that free enterprise would have to drive
the TDR program. If the market is
not working the county, through public funding, could also bank TDRs.
This could ensure the protection of drinking water in Churchill County.
The TDR program could put pressure
on the surface water. Development
would use ground water first then will have to go to surface water.
It was pointed out that although
water rights are private property, water it self is a public resource and that
preservation of drinking water and open space go hand in hand with the
preservation of agriculture.
It is believed that there is a five
to ten year window to preserve agriculture before the money offered to farmers
is so great that the farmer will have to sell.
Conservation easements were
discussed. It was said that in many
cases, when seeking grants for conservation easements, the landowner is required
to give up more property rights than just the development rights since the focus
of most groups that hold conservation easements is environmental.
It was also pointed out that conservation easements also require the
farmer to take on a partner in his business (the holder of the conservation
easement). It was suggested that, if written correctly and
in certain situations, a conservation easement could be a great benefit to the
landowner.
Strip irrigation, which is now being
used in conjunction with the vineyards in the area, was discussed.
One-foot rows where the grapes are planted are water righted.
Eight-foot rows between the grapes are not water/righted. The unused
water can then be used for other purposes in other locations.
The State Engineer has allowed this method.
This process will also allow recharge to continue.
It was noted that, in order to
protect the county water resources, the current Churchill County policy is to
protest any sale that would move water outside of the basin.
The NAS Fallon representative
explained that Washington D. C. understands the importance of NAS Fallon and
would like to preserve agriculture by keeping property in the buffer area in
agriculture for perpetuity. It was
suggested that there is a need for a mechanism to pool funding resources so that
conservation easements or TDR’s can be purchased.
The Navy will have some funding available for such projects.
DISCUSS HOW TO PROCEED
It was suggested that farmers close to urbanized areas and the Navy base be
invited to a Barbeque to discuss the opportunities for agriculture preservation.
The County Manager will provide LVEA
with a TDR outline. LVEA will
forward the outline to the working group members for review and input at the
next working group meeting.
The County Manager will contact
developers to discuss the TDR concept and report at the next working group
meeting.
LVEA Director will prepare
information on Question 1 Grant program as it relates to agriculture
preservation.
The president of Lahontan Valley
Land & Water Alliance will be invited to speak regarding their organizations
involvement in conservation easements.
The LVEA Director will distribute
the suggested Charter and Action Plan, for the working groups review, prior to
the next meeting.
These questions were asked and need answers:
· What will keep farmers farming?
·
Does the rest of the community want to keep agriculture in the
Lahontan Valley?
NEXT MEETING DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be July 21, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.,
at the Churchill County Administrative Building.
The agenda for the July meeting will include:
Discuss Working Group Name
Discuss Transfer Development Rights
Discuss Conservation Easements
Discuss NAS Fallon Proposal
Discuss Workshop
Discuss Working Group Charter and Action Plan
LAHONTAN
VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
May 19, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
Fallon, Nevada
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Susan Savala
Stuart Richardson, Lahontan Valley Land & Water Alliance
Mario Peraldo
Lynn Peraldo
Edith Isidoro-Mills
Terrance McGown, Churchill County Farm Bureau
Paul Ortiz
Dennis Hellwinkel, Nevada Farm Bureau
Ed Rybold, NAS Fallon
Gary Cottle, NAS Fallon
Brad Goestch, Churchill County
Capt. Scott Ryder, NAS Fallon
Elbert Mills
Rick Lattin
Ernie Schank, Truckee-Carson Irrigation District
Stephanie Licht, Nevada Farm Bureau
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
REVIEW /
MODIFY / APPROVE AGENDA
The agenda was approved.
REVIEW/ACCEPT NOTES OF LAST
MEETING
The notes of the last meeting were accepted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT ACTION
PLAN
The working group was updated regarding the Churchill County Master Plan
The efforts the county is making in developing a transfer development
rights (TDR) program were also discussed. Receiving
areas must be designated as well as transfer areas.
An explanation was given as to the way a TDR program might work.
On the positive side, TDR’s would
help keep farming viable, increase the value of agriculture land and generate
income for the landowner. On the
negative side, TDR’s would not allow the landowner the income that might be
received from a sale to developers. It
was explained that private money would be creating conservation easements
through the use of TDR’s and that those who are impacting the community would
be paying for this impact.
Development is being encouraged in the north/west quadrant of the county while
agriculture is being encouraged in the south portion of the county.
In the north/east and south/east portion of the county, farming overlaps
the Navy base buffer area.
It is important that water rights be
given value and kept on the land as they are needed for agriculture and
recharge.
Captain Scott Ryder, NAS Fallon,
explained the Operation Assurance Plan. The
Navy is interested in partnering with groups interested in preserving open space
and agriculture land. The Navy has
great interest in assuring the consistency in operational areas.
The designated buffer area is north and east of the base as well as south
and west. The current density is acceptable to the operation of the
base. The Navy may have funds
available in 2006 for conservation easements.
It was suggested that the community
needs to decide what it wants to look like in 100 years then plan and work
toward that goal. Some believe the
population could build out at 75,000 to 100,000 but developers have indicated
they believe 2 to 3 million people could reside in the Lahontan Valley.
There is a need to identify private
lands and project what build out would be.
By getting public lands for public benefit, pressure could be taken off
private lands. There is however,
still land that landowners want to sell to developers. To obtain public lands for developers, legislation would be
needed.
Developers are being encouraged to
purchase water rights from the county rather than from private landowners as a
means of preventing water from leaving agricultural lands.
Farmers will have a hard time turning down the large amounts of money
developers are willing to pay for water rights.
A suggestion was made that non-water righted lands be developed rather
than the water righted lands.
At some later date the county may
look into consolidating checkerboard lands.
Concern was expressed that land and
water right purchasers would target Lahontan Valley buying out 40% or more of
the water/land and use that for justification to shut off the Truckee Canal and
keep the water rights up stream. Approximately
30% of the water in Lahontan Valley comes from the Truckee River.
It is believed that, due to up
stream development, there is not as much water coming to Lahontan Reservoir and
that recharge is being impacted.
The idea of a Regional Water System
was discussed. It was also pointed
out that if the pipeline planned by the Southern Nevada Water Authority was
swung in the direction of the Lahontan Valley rather than Ely, it would reach
Churchill County and Dixie Valley. There
is a possibility of working in cooperation with NAS Fallon on the development of
Dixie Valley water. Churchill
County has filed behind the Navy on the Dixie Valley Water.
It is hoped that the City of Fallon has filed third.
There is concern that Southern Nevada Water Authority may also file.
The Alpine Decree segmented the Carson River and Lahontan Valley is in the last segment. Due to upstream pressures, less water is coming down stream to Lahontan. It was pointed out that many upstream water rights have priority dates prior to the Newlands Project and so could have an affect on our area.
Churchill County recently passed the
Water Resource Policy that will allow the county to challenge up stream water
activities. It was emphasized that
all area partners must work together to protect ourselves from upstream users.
Strategies now being used were
discussed. They include:
Division of large farms into smaller farms; cluster developments;
conservation easements.
The difference in Agriculture
Conservation and Agriculture Preservation was discussed. We
may need a mix of these.
It was reported that US Fish &
Wildlife Service and the City of Fernley is working closely with Truckee-Carson
Irrigation District on water issues.
The potential of Dixie Valley water and possible partners in its development were discussed.
DISCUSS HOW TO PROCEED
Answers to these questions are needed:
§ If build out were complete in the north/west quadrant what would the population be?
§ What lands are private water righted lands and what lands are private non-water righted lands?
§ What will keep farmer farming?
§
What are the available strategies and what is their priority?
NEXT MEETING DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The working group
agreed to make a standing date of the third Thursday of each month for the
Agriculture Preservation Working Group.
The next meeting date will be June 16, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.,
at the Churchill County Administrative Building.
The agenda for the June meeting will include:
April 21, 2005
LAHONTAN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIANCE
Agriculture Preservation Working Group
Meeting Notes
April 21, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
Churchill County Administration Building, Room 102
Fallon, Nevada
INTRODUCTIONS
Those present were:
Terri Pereira, Churchill County Planning Department
Susan Savala
Steve Kramer, NAS Fallon
Stuart Richardson, Lahontan Valley Land & Water Alliance
Mario Peraldo
Lynn Peraldo
Gina Peraldo, Churchill County Farm Bureau
Grant Mills
Edith Isidoro-Mills
Terrance McGown, Churchill County Farm Bureau
Rachel Dahl
LVEA Staff Attending:
Jeannette Dahl, Director
REVIEW /
MODIFY / APPROVE AGENDA
The agenda was approved.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
DISCUSSION OF EFFORTS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY FOR AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION
Stuart Richardson representing Lahontan Valley Land and Water Alliance explained the purpose of the organization and discussed the things they were doing to preserve agriculture including:
§ Purchase and management of Agricultural Conservation Easements
§ Lifetime Inheritable Lease Program
§ Churchill County Agricultural Conservation Easement and Farmland Protection Program
§ Farm Viability Enhancement Program
§
Encouraging cooperation and coordination with other agencies and
entities
Terri Pereira, Churchill County
Planning Department, discussed the zoning efforts of the Planning Department and
explained that growth is encouraged in the northwest portion of the county where
the water and sewer systems will be located. Agriculture is encouraged in the area south of Sheckler Road.
She discussed the new code that would prohibit PUDs in areas zoned for
agriculture. It was explained that Churchill County holds eight
conservation easements that include cluster developments.
Steve Kramer, NAS Fallon - Natural Resources, discussed the impact encroachment
might have on the training mission of the Navy.
The Question 1 Resource Conservation
grant program was discussed.
DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT ACTION
PLAN
Section 2 of the Draft Action Plan was discussed.
Stakeholders to be added to the list are:
§ Farm Bureau
§ FFA-Churchill County High School
§ Chamber of Commerce
§ CEDA/Small Business Development
The working group was encouraged to review the Draft Action
Plan in preparation for the next meeting.
DISCUSS HOW TO PROCEED
The working group discussed the need
to keep farm ground in production as development continues.
Property rights as well as responsibility to the community were
discussed.
Questions that need to be answered include:
§ What does agriculture provide to the community in terms of dollars and other values?
§ How can the public be educated as to the value of agriculture and what would be lost if agriculture no longer existed?
§ What are the temporary stopgap measures that could be used until more detailed strategies are developed?
§ How can agriculture sell it self to the general public?
§
How can the media involvement be increased in regard to the
importance of agriculture in the community?
The working group was encouraged to
read the Churchill County Open Space Plan and Master Plan located on Churchill
Counties web site.
NEXT MEETING
DATE / AGENDA ITEMS
The next meeting date will be May 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., at the Churchill
County Administrative Building.
The agenda for the April meeting will include: