Page 1 Pursuant to NRS a joint meeting of the Nye County Board of Commissioners, Nye County Board of Highway Commissioners, Nye County Licensing and Liquor Board, and the Governing Body of the Unincorporated Towns of Beaffy, Belmont, Gabbs, Manhattan, Pahrump and Railroad Valley was held at 1:00 p.m. in the Commissioner Chambers, 2100 E. Walt Williams Drive, Pahrump, Nevada 89048. Lorinda Wichman, Chair Frank Carbone, Vice Chair Butch Borasky, Commissioner Dan Schinhofen, Commissioner Donna Cox, Commissioner Sandra L. Merlino, Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board Angela Bello, District Attorney Sharon Wehrly, Sheriff Pam Webster, County Manager Also present: Kelly Sidman, Deputy Clerk; Maria Ziotek, Chief Deputy District Attorney; Vance Payne, Emergency Services Director Not Present: Lorinda Wichman, Chair; Sandra L. Merlino, Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board; Sharon Wehrly, Sheriff Commissioner Carbone assumed the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners. 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge was recited. 2. Approval of the Agenda for. Pam Webster stated there were no changes to the agenda. 3. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (Three-minute time limit per person.) Action will not be taken on the matters considered during this period until specifically included on an agenda as an action item (first). Andrew Alberti responded to Commissioner Schinhofen s comments in the Pahrump Valley Times regarding the County seat. Mr. Alberti said he and Cles Saunders were heading this effort, not Tom Waters. The truth was the Commissioners had the ability to put this issue on the agenda and the power to place a referendum on the ballot. There was plenty of time to evaluate it and have a fully informed electorate judge the issue. Mr. Aiberti asked that this issue be placed on the ballot as a referendum for the 2016 general election. Commissioner Wichman was present.
Page 2 August24, 2015 3. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (Three-minute time limit per person.) Action will not be taken on the matters considered during this period until specifically included on an agenda as an action item (first).-cont d. Richard Goldstein thanked the three Commissioners that attended last Friday s informal groundbreaking for the veterans clinic. Commissioner Wichman assumed the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Carbone expressed his preference to not hold people to the three minute time limit during the public heating. Commissioner Wichman suggested people could borrow three minutes from those who had not spoken as she would like to adhere to the three minute rule. SITTING AS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS amend and adopt, or reject Nye County Bill 201 5-08: A Bill proposing to amend Title 6 of the Nye County Code by removing Chapters 6.05.030 Appeal of Animal Control Decisions, Chapter 6.06.010 Dogs and Cats License, 6.06.020 Term, 6.06.050 Pet Dog, Pet Cat Fancier, 6.06.060 Multi-pet Permits, 6.06.070 Commercial Kennel Permits, 6.06.080 Animals Running at Large, 6.06.090 Impoundment for Violations of this Code, 6.06.095 Impoundment of Animal for Protective Custody, 6.06.100 Release of Impounded Animals, 6.06.120 Reporting of Found Animals, 6.06.130 Animal Waste and Odor, Chapter 6.07 Cruelty to Animals, 6.20.010 Excessive Noise Unlawful, 6.20.030 Vicious and Dangerous Dogs, 6.20.040 Exceptions, 6.20.050 Requirements for Possession of a Dangerous Dog, 6.20.060 Registration of Dangerous Dog, 6.20.070 Confiscation and Disposition of a Dangerous Dog, 6.20.1 00 Releasing Animal of Another, Chapter 6.25 Animal Advisory Committee, and other matters properly relating thereto; and 2) Set an effective date. Commissioner Wichman opened the public heating. Dave Stevens said the Commissioners needed to keep the shelter open no matter what it cost. Amy Nelson said she had a couple of issues with this bill. One red flag was the term the Board shall promulgate, meaning they could command, instruct or direct the citizens on any of the codes and they could change them at will. Commissioner Schinhofen advised they could not change codes without a public heating. They could only promulgate fees and fines.
Page 3 amend and adopt, or reject Nye County Bill 2015-08-Cont d. Ms. Nelson stated she was not comfortable with the Board having all of that authority. If the Commissioners were going to be in charge of creating codes for safety then they should not be responsible for judging permits, fees or appeals regarding the codes they created. Angela Bello said the concern seemed to be that if there was an alleged violation and Ms. Nelson came before the Board they could change those rules and make them stricter, which would be to her disadvantage. She advised the Board could not apply changes retroactively. Mike Cottingim, Amargosa Valley Town Administrator, requested Amargosa Valley be excluded from the changes until they could have their own special meeting and come up with their own guidelines. Julia Musall asked why these changes were being made. Commissioner Schinhofen explained most of the codes were being addressed because the County could not fund an animal shelter and without an animal shelter a lot of the codes would not apply. Commissioner Schinhofen thought a $10.00 per parcel fee would generate enough funds for a shelter and the Animal Control Officers. Ms. Musall did not think the codes should be cut because people would start doing things on their own. Commissioner Carbone clarified this was a County issue, not a town issue. Some of the rules and laws were being changed and combined, but they were not trying to eliminate everything the County was doing regarding Animal Control. Peggy Sanders said one of the concerns she had from a former accounting background was how this would affect the economy as pets brought in businesses. Her research indicated the sales tax revenue was at least a half a million dollars per year from the pet industry, If the laws were so prohibitive then people would not want to move here and start businesses. Christian Sanders objected to the section regarding dogs in the park. His four year old had a service dog and would not be able to handle her dog on a leash with this law because she was under 18. There were no exceptions for service dogs in the bill. He thought that may violate the ADA because it was a public place she must have access to. Mr. Sanders also had concerns with the capture or kill clause and the permit revocation process. Scott Shoemaker, Chairman of the Animal Advisory Committee, said he understood taking out the Animal Advisory Committee, but wanted the Board to realize by doing that
Page 4 amend and adopt, or reject Nyc County Bill 201 5-08-Cont d. they also took out the appeal process for permits and dangerous and vicious dogs so all those animals would be held in custody which would be an additional cost. As far as removing the licensing, Mr. Shoemaker pointed out the primary reason for dog and cat licensing was for rabies control and the fees could go to support an animal shelter. On the permit limits, that was basically a de facto ban, which would also mean no more rescues or boarding facilities, and anybody who had over five dogs and cats had no way to become legal. Regarding the requirement for the owner of special conditions animals to maintain liability insurance, Mr. Shoemaker stated a blanket liability requirement could not be placed on all such animals unless the Board wanted to have hearings on each one. He also questioned why only special condition animal permits required a background criminal check. In Section 6.13.060, primary enclosures generally, the language regarding not stacking on top of another primary enclosure was removed, but that was in the NRS so Mr. Shoemaker said that statement had to come back in. He pointed out the conflict between Section 6.20.030, which said it was unlawful for any person to keep, harbor or own any vicious or dangerous dog as defined by County ordinance, and Section 6.20.050, which outlined the requirements for possession of a vicious or dangerous dog. Regarding Section 6.20.130, separating a dog or cat from its mother, Mr. Shoemaker stated this was duplicative in a way and unenforceable. Steven A. Benson, a member of the Animal Advisory Committee, pointed out if the County let the State take a lot of these ordinances and collect the funds then the County would not get them. He did not understand why an Animal Control Officer had to spend their time to write ordinances for the State. Lauren Cutsuvitis said she had a wolf dog and should this moratorium pass her ability to obtain any type of conditional use permit as a condition of purchasing a home would be gone. She also doubted the enforceability. Janice Wulfkuhle said she saw the changes to Title 6 as a town that did not want to deal with it so they were making it terribly restrictive. She felt there needed to be a shelter, preferably a no-kill. Jennings Wulfkuhle questioned reducing the fees for extra dog permits to $25.00 and not putting that toward animal care and shelters. He did not think the Animal Advisory Committee should be gone if they were to take care of appeals. Bradley Berthold agreed with the additions to special conditions as he felt those more detailed regulations were long overdue. He objected to changes made to Sections 6.07, 6.20.030, and the removal of the Animal Advisory Committee. Regarding primary enclosures, Mr. Berthold requested the NRS that stated an animal had to be let out of its enclosure after 14 hours be added to prevent animals from being kept for their lives in caged environments where they only had room to sit, stand and turn around.
Page 5 amend and adopt, or reject Nye County Bill 201 5-08-Cont d. Helen Schneider did not think someone had to be 18 years old before they could handle a dog. As far as the advisory board, she thought they were trying as hard as they could. She asked the Board to reconsider the animal shelter instead of just saying it was over with. Patricia Hegland asked what people were to do with stray dogs on their property if there was no shelter. She noted if the County stopped addressing dog attacks it would become responsible, there would be lawsuits, and mote money would be lost than if the shelter was kept open. She also did not understand not wanting to license as it was a source of revenue and proof of ownership for dogs so they could be held accountable. Suzanne Zervantian said to her this ordinance appeared to be for further clarification and elimination of obsolete or redundant items. She was also a member of the Animal Advisory Committee and thought they served a valuable role in developing Title 6. She advised against deleting the dogs and cats licensing requirement because of rabies control and felt that in order to make this a safe place for the citizens and animals of the community there needed to be a functioning animal shelter. Donna Cooper stated closing the animal shelter was a big mistake. She discussed the trap, spay/neuter and release program for feral cats she had been involved with in the community since 1998. She would like to see the spaying and neutering continue. Philip Harbach said the one issue he saw was expanding the powers of Animal Control. He agreed with Animal Control being able to do their job, but he would like to see properly trained people working those positions as well as an oversight committee for the protection of the citizens and those officers. Lynnette Sandquist said she felt bullied by some of the Animal Control Officers when she moved to Pah rump with her animals. Hal Long, an Animal Advisory Committee member but speaking as a private citizen, strongly disagreed with getting rid of the animal shelter as welt as limiting the number of licenses for people. Lori Wilson believed there should be an animal shelter in Pahrump. As far as lack of funding, she was not sure where the fines went but thought they should go to support the shelter. She supported limiting the number of permits, but thought the permitting rules needed to be changed for the size of the lot. She also did not think kennel permits should be authorized in residential neighborhoods. Betty Petaros gave kudos to everyone who was trying to have dogs, but she had a problem with people who thought they were above the law.
Page 6 amend and adopt, or reject Nye County Bill 201 5-08-Cont d. Carrie Jubinsky thought doing away with codes that were not really that stringent would be detrimental to the community. She wondered why the District Attorney and the courts were not prosecuting the citations and why the County had not looked at grants to fund the animal shelter. Dave Stevens thought the Commissioners should add a half percent tax on the real estate taxes to raise the needed money. Louise Parker thought the attention should be focused on where to get the money to have a shelter, not if there should be a shelter. She would be willing to pay $10.00 a year, and she knew there were grants. Bobby Klocker said the shelter needed to stay open at any cost. She was at an Animal Advisory Committee meeting when they asked Vance Payne about the specialty license plate money. In Clark County they gave it to Animal Control and they in turn granted it out to the different organizations. She never received an answer to that question and wondered if that money could be put toward the shelter. Amy Nelson noted the County shelter was closed but that there might still be a dialogue for the town to fund a shelter as she believed the town could afford it. She would like to see a lot of conversation about that as well as an agenda item for the towns to vote for their own town shelters at the town expense. Commissioner Wichman closed the public hearing. Regarding reading letters into the record under public comment, Angela Bello advised people were required to personally appear and submit their comments, however, the Commissioners could read their letters at their request and just note for the record they were present. Commissioner Wichman reopened the public hearing to see if anyone who had submitted a letter wanted to speak. Commissioner Schinhofen read a letter from Patricia Jean Romans, who was present, opposing all changes and requesting that none of them be put through. John Koenig read a letter stating his disagreement with the changes made to Title 6 regarding animals at large, licensing, multi-pet limitations, and disbanding of the Animal Advisory Committee. Commissioner Cox read a letter from Jennifer Jonas, who was present, stating her belief that Animal Control should focus on public safety. She was against the bill and in support of a County animal shelter.
Page 7 amend and adopt, or reject Nye County Bill 201 5-08-Cont d. Commissioner Wichman read a letter from Zuzana Kokol, who was present, expressing her concerns with the closing of the shelter; the public safety aspect of removing items from the ordinance dealing with animals running at large, impoundment of animals for protective custody and release of impounded animals; having to be 18 years old to have a dog on a leash at a park; a de facto ban on permits; and background criminal checks for special conditions animal permits. Commissioner Wichman re-closed the public heating. Commissioner Carbone explained when this was put together they looked at what the ordinance said and tried to figure what could be combined and how to make it more reasonable so it could fit within the existing budget constraints. He agreed with the people talking about the 18 year olds on the leash and probably wanted to change that. Regarding the revoking of permits, there needed to be a process for that and reasons why. As far as the appeal process, if the Animal Advisory Committee did not stay in effect the actual person responsible for that process was Vance Payne. If a person was not satisfied with that process through Mr. Payne then it came to the Board of County Commissioners. Regarding the fees and funds, Commissioner Carbone pointed out they had to make sure there were proper codes approved by the District Attorney and the State so the Sheriffs Office had the proper codes to apply their fees to when they wrote the ticket. Unfortunately Title 6 did not have all the proper words in place to do that at this time. They had also looked at grants, but because there were two shelters the grant would have to be split between the two of them. Commissioner Borasky had a petition with 317 signatures urging the Board of County Commissioners to ensure that all animal codes focused on public safety and animal welfare. He then outlined his issues with the bill, starting with the torture and cruelty section and his concern about an animal that was attacking someone. In Section 6.050.040, he thought a civil penalty would be the better way to go. In Section 6.06.040 regarding dogs and cats limits, he wondered about exceptions for service animals. He pointed out the and at the end of Section 6.06.070.A.3. as he was not sure why it was there. Under 6.06.070.E Commissioner Borasky felt a list of reasons to suspend or revoke a permit should be provided. He then asked if there was an appeal process that would come to the Commissioners since so many people were concerned about that. Maria Zlotek advised there had been an appeal process in it for certain items to the Animal Advisory Committee up to the Board of County Commissioners, but it was removed. She said that was a valid issue that needed to be explored in light of takings, property interests and constitutionality. Ms. Zlotek explained part of the District Attorney s Office directive was to review for mandate versus discretionary issues, but based on the comments and this final draft document additional legal analysis would be warranted.
Page 8 amend and adopt, or reject Nye County Bill 201 5-08-Cont d. Commissioner Borasky noted there should be an allowable reason to suspend or revoke a breeder permit under Section 6.13.025. He also wanted to know how strays would be addressed under Section 6.20.070. As far as Section 6.20.080, animals in parks, he suggested that instead of requiring someone to be 18 years old it be changed to 14 years old or under adult supervision. Commissioner Wichman wondered if it was possible to combine an animal shelter facility with the detention center so they had captive staff. She stated she was not in favor of disbanding the Animal Advisory Committee, but she was in favor of a community shelter. Commissioner Schinhofen wanted to direct staff to bring back two options, one for each town to take care of their own animal shelter and another to fund a County shelter through a parcel fee. Commissioner Schinhofen made a motion to reject this as it was and to bring it back after the determination was made that there was either no way to run a shelter or the shelters could be run by the towns or the County if there was another funding source, otherwise leave it in place the way it was and direct staff to bring back other funding sources for an animal shelter County-wide and look at animal shelters per town; seconded by Commissioner Carbone. Commissioner Cox said she would like to see the advisory board vote on whether they wanted to disband. As far as a town shelter, she had said for a long time that each town should pay for its own shelter. She had a problem with the 20 day timeline to destroy a dog and would rather see them given to rescues. Commissioner Cox also felt the size of the property should dictate how many animals a person could have. She noted that Animal Control was a department that answered to the Commissioners, so the final say should lie with the Board and that should be added in. She also would prefer to see the limit on pet fancier permits taken out. Commissioner Wichman asked Commissioner Schinhofen to amend his motion to ask staff to help the Animal Advisory Committee to put together specific things out of the motion to get their recommendation. Commissioner Schinhofen thought a rewrite of Title 6 was premature until it was learned if the County would have a shelter and how it would run it. They should be looking at it with an eye toward each of the towns and he was certain staff could glean things from the comments made. Commissioner Wichman said she did not want it restricted to a rewrite of Title 6 with the Animal Advisory Committee. She would rather see that committee expand what they could help with and look into how to fund the shelters.
Page 9 4. For possible action Public Hearing, discussion, and deliberation to: 1) Adopt. amend and adopt, or reject Nye County Bill 2015-08-Cont d. Commissioner Schinhofen amended his motion for staff and the Animal Advisory Committee to bring back the possibility of each town running a shelter or the County running a shelter and possible revenues to fund those; Commissioner Carbone amended his second. Commissioner Schinhofen would like this brought back in no more than 60 days. Pam Webster asked what should be done with the shelter in the meantime. Mr. Payne reviewed the impact the shelter has had on his budget. Commissioner Wichman was concerned that if the motion passed then the County was still in the situation of operating a shelter that was supposed to have stopped running in March with no budget for it. If the motion did not pass and this went through the way it was written, the problem still existed. Commissioner Cox suggested using volunteers that did not expect to be paid and accepting donations. Mr. Payne explained they did use volunteers who did not get paid with one part-time paid person providing supervision. If that supervision was removed, he could not in good conscience run the shelter. As far as donations, he noted donations to general fund departments had to go to the general fund. The motion for staff and the Animal Advisory Committee to bring back the possibility of each town running a shelter or the County running a shelter and possible revenues to fund those passed with 4 yeas. Commissioner Borasky voted no. Commissioner Wichman said either a special meeting was needed with an item on it to figure out a stop gap for Mr. Payne or it needed to be added to the next agenda. 5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT (Three-minute time limit per person.) Action will not be taken on the matters considered during this period until specifically included on an agenda as an action item (second). Dave Stevens commended the County for having a meeting like this.
6. ADJOURN Page 10 Commissioner Wichman adjourned the meeting. APPROVED this ATTEST: Of O4c*i_r 2015. 4- Ut Nye ouy Clerk I Deputy
fl&t/ Commissioner Schinhofen Be careful what you ask for on county seat move By Dan Schmhofen h.lac Ccvi& t My response to Commissioner Schinhofem Commissioner Schinhofen is wrong on so many fronts he should file for disability, or has he. First let me be perfectly clear. Tom is not heading this effort. I am along with Cles Saunders. I appreciate his confirming our position to move the County seat. Thank you Tom. Our informal group has worked on this issue since January 01, 2015. Torn Waters had open letter number 385 (or something like that) in the PV Times last week and decided that my facts were wrong. Why he didn t mention that the board unanimously decided not to put moving the county seat on the ballot mystifies me. He only takes issue with my statements even when another commissioner repeated my statements. Wrong Fact - Repeat an untruth often enough and it can remarkably become a trueism, but still not the truth.. Can you say third largest acquifer in the country? As stated, there the county seat is is an NRS that shows how to get this issue before the people and if these people who think moving a panacea, then by all means get the petition up and bring sign it you may want to understand better what I did or did not say and why it I to the county commission. Before you bad idea. Dan is Wrong.. Fact - Commissioners have the power to place a referendum on the ballot. There is plenty of time for the issue to be discussed, evaluated, financials presented and questions answered. Then a fully informed electorate wilt judge the issue. As it stands now, your Commissioners want you to believe they have done all of this All they have done in public is tell us they know better and who the hell do we think we are anyway. think it is a Tom stated that population should determine where the county seat is and that usually state capitals are in the center of the state. Carson City is by no stretch of the imagination the ntiddle of our state. While Tonopah, constantly being referred to as north, is actually better defined as in the center of the county. Above Tonopah is a lot of land mass and many towns, like Round Mountain, $unnyside, Belmont Gabbs, Smoky Valley (upper and lower) Railroad Valley and more. Dan is Wrong.. Fact - The issue is financial first. There are two larger counties than Nyc. They both have their center of government in the population centers They do not travel anywhere for their regular meetings. The Counties of San Bernardino and Riverside meet in their main city. There are over 3,000 counties in the United States and you commissioners are so intellectually gifted above them that you believe the center of government should be as far from the population as possible. Population he says should determine county seats and names a few examples. Anaheim is now more populated than Santa Aim, I grew up but Santa Aim remains the county seat. Dan in Orange County and is Wrong...again Fact - I lived in Orange County and was active on their Republican Central Committee Assembly district 70. Orange County extends south all the way to Dana Point. Their Seat of government is in almost the northern most part of the County in Santa Ana which I might add has a very large population. I ask that the issue be placed on the ballot as a referendum for the 2016 General Election. 1 -QCL b Page 1 of4 o c /
Outlook.com Print Message Page 1 of 1 y-lc P79 Title 6 meeting for O$/24/2015...with my details. Sorry. John (jkoenig1sbcgloba1.net) Thu8/20/159:38PM. Ji frank carbone (fcarbone@co.nye.nv.us); dschinhofen@co.nye.nv.us; Butch Borasky (abomskyco.nye.nv.us); lorinda wichman (lawichmangmai1.com); coxdonnac@msn.com Good evening Commissioner, I will be attending the special meeting on Title 6 Monday but have decided not to speak during public comment as the number of people I feel will be large. After studying the changes put forth for Title 61 feel there are a few I disagree with and will list them below. 1. Animals at large. This is a public health and safety issue and should not be deleted. I would suggest that the fines associated with this behavior be increased so the time spent is self supporting. I realize this is the single most used activity in AC but we can notlshould not allow dogs, cats, horses, etc to run free around the community. 2. Licensing. This is our only way to even try and control rabies vaccinations. I realize that a large percentage of the dogs in the community are not vaccinated but by doing away with licensing it will be out of control. We know there is rabies in bats etc in Pahrump. Again make it self supporting by raising fees. 3. Multi pet tier I and tier II limitation to 25 in the PRPD. Being selfish I realize that no longer will I have to endure requests for zone changes/cups to allow tier I and II permits. Being human I need to ask myself if in a town of 38,000 people (15,000 homes?) is 25 the correct number. I will leave that discussion up to yourselves. 4. Doing away with the Animal advisory committee. I have a problem with this as I think this committee has lost its way and needs to be refocused instead of deleted. As a bunch of volunteers being told you are not needed and all you have done is wrong, my belief is if you ever need them again....good luck. I wish you good luck at the meeting, keep your heads low and smile a lot. John Koenig https://blul 85.mail.live.comlollmail.mvclPrintMessages?mkten-us 8/24/2015