The 10-year revision of Douglas County's master plan is not ready. Approval could come in December, when the issue will be re-addressed by the Douglas County Planning Commission.
That was the commission's unanimous decision Wednesday, urged on by a series of objections from ranchers and residents.
"Several members of the public weighed in on this, and it's clear we need extra input," said commission member Bob Conner.
"If we receive another draft we need to get it in a more timely fashion," said commission member Margaret Pross. "It's very involved."
In the works for more than a year, a draft of the document with revisions released by consultants Design Workshops on Nov. 3 has received a lot of criticism. The new draft should be completed and delivered to county officials by Nov. 30.
This revision to the master plan adds a new chapter dedicated to agriculture and a new agricultural opportunity officer, to promote opportunities for increasing the economic viability and profitability of commercial agriculture in Douglas County.
The proposal irked some ranchers.
"If you want agriculture to stay here, the people who own the land need to be running this," said rancher Nate Leising. "If Douglas County is directing us through this document, it isn't going to work. That's why there won't be any agriculture here."
"We have an agricultural organization in place through state law," he said. "We were appointed by state governors and we're a legitimate agency."
"We have no money for (sheriff's) deputies because voters turned down the sales tax initiatives, but we found the money for this position," said rancher Clarence Burr. "Central planners have done nothing for agriculture."
Steve Frish of the Sierra Business Council said those counties in the intermountain west who have effectively maintained their agricultural element include that governmental link, in part so ranchers get paid for services they're already providing.
"Ranchers provide vistas, flood protection and species habitat," he said. "Part of the intent is to create a way for local government to work with but not control the ag community."
The role of this new officer could also generate funding for land protection tools the agriculture community could use at their discretion, Frisch said.
Growth is at the heart of most discussions with respect to planning in Douglas County and this was no exception.
John Garvin, co-chair of the Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee suggested a 1-2.5 percent guideline for growth.
Developer R.O. Anderson said concerns about a permit allocation system (growth cap) are coming at a time when Douglas County doesn't have the information it needs concerning water and the transportation element.
"There's also a need for a fiscal model, to see what happens when we only grow from 1-2.5 percent," Anderson said. "What would that do to the economic policies in this county."
Douglas County resident Jim Slade said the original master plan only needs implementation to be effective, especially with respect to growth management. The substantive changes seem to be developer rather than data-driven.
"It seems this is a rewrite on the cheap by a handful of people," he said. "They favor developers and unmanaged growth."
Frisch said this plan is not designed with a fiscal element and the difference between 1.5 and 3.5-percent growth could drive a lot of decisions.
"Because this wasn't done up front, it would probably be an implementation measure," he said.
Susie Vasquez can be reached at svasquez@recordcourier.com or 782-5121, ext. 211.
