Lyon County implements diesel tax, votes down new subdivision

The Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the 2020-2021 county’s Tentative Budget on April 1, 2020. The County Manager and Comptroller have recommended the budget with no salary increases and a projected 6.6% ending fund balance which is lower than the 16.67% authorized by Nevada Revised Statutes.

The County Manager also recommended that the Board not fund any of the 35.8 positions requested by the various departments including:

24 Personnel for the Sheriff’s Office
1 Information Systems Technician
1 Community Development Director
1 Public Works Director
2 Administrative Assistants
1 Deputy District Attorney
2 Pretrial Services Officers
1 Judicial Master
1 Fleet Services Technician
Upgrade three Library positions to full time

The budget includes increases in employee health insurance by 18% and Workman’s Compensation Insurance with a 10% increase.

The County is expecting a reduction of 5.75% in Consolidated Tax of 5.75% and may see additional cuts due to the COVID-19 response.

COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT TAX

April 2, 2020 the Board of County Commissioners amended County Code 4.09.05 by implementing the 2004 voter approved tax rate increases on new construction of commercial, industrial and other development. The current rate is $.25 cents/square foot. This amendment will increase it to $0.40 cents/square foot July 1, 2020 and will raise 5 cents annually until it reaches the voter approved rate of $0.65 cents/square foot on July 1, 2025.

DIESEL TAX

April 2, 2020 The Board amended Lyon County Code 4.04.01 and 4.04.02 by implementing a $0.05 cent/gallon tax on retail diesel fuel. Lyon County has had fuel taxes in place for gasoline for decades but until passage of Senate Bill 48 in the last Legislature counties were not authorized to tax the sales of diesel fuel.

This tax will generate approximately 2.2 Million dollars in revenue that is split between the county and the two cities. Providing each local government with additional revenues for road maintenance and repairs.

The ordinance passed with a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Gray voting against. The tax will go into effect this summer.

SAGE VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN APPLICATION

April 2, 2020 the Board of Commissioners voted 4-1 (Dini opposed) to deny an application for a specific plan in the area of 10 Mile Hill in Dayton, NV. The specific plan included:

Approximately 102.45 acres as detached single family residential with a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet;
Approximately 113.3 acres as detached single family residential with a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet;
Approximately 67.53 acres as detached single family residential with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet;
Approximately 33.31 acres as multi-family residential;
Approximately 34.15 acres as commercial;
Approximately 10.62 acres as public/quasi-public;
Approximately 11.28 acres as park; and
Approximately 174.79 acres as open space.

The Board of Commissioners voted to deny based upon the findings:
A. The Specific Plan application is not compatible with the Findings required by section 15.210.03 of this title:

1. 15.210.03:
a. Consistency With The Master Plan: The applicant has not demonstrated that the
amendment is in substantial compliance with and promotes the master plan goals, objectives and actions.

b. Compatible Land Uses: The proposed amendment is incompatible with the existing master planned adjacent land uses, and reflects a logical change in land uses.

c. Response To Change Conditions: The proposed amendment has not demonstrated and does not respond to changed conditions or further studies that have occurred since the master plan was adopted by the Board, and the requested amendment represents a less desirable utilization of land.

d. No Adverse Effects: The proposed amendment would adversely affect the implementation of the master plan goals, objectives and actions, and would adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare.

e. Desired Pattern Of Growth: The proposed amendment would not promote the desired pattern for the orderly physical growth of the County, would not allow infrastructure to be extended in efficient increments and patterns, would not maintain relatively compact development patterns, and would not guide development of the County based on the consideration of natural resources, the physical geography and the efficient expenditure of funds for public services.

B. That the proposed location of the development and the proposed conditions under which it will be operated or maintained would not be consistent with the goals, objectives and actions embodied in the master plan;

C. That the proposed development would not be in accordance with the purposes and objectives of this title and, in particular, will not further the purposes stated for each zoning district; and

D. That the development would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to such a development; and would be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the County.