A tension-filled July 17 meeting of the Mineral County Commissioners featured executives and proponents of Green Energy Nevada LLC hurling accusations that commissioners actively discouraged businesses from locating in Hawthorne and deliberately threw up roadblocks to GEN’s Hawthorne business venture.
Another puzzling issue about the meeting included GEN representative Izzie Razack’s accusation that the bond company insisted on making “unreasonable” demands on GEN before issuing the bond.
On July 22, an anonymous government source sent the Independent-News a copy of an email dated from July 15, 16 and 17, circulated between GEN, Mark Nixon, Shelley Hartmann, a bond company and others. It contains the “unreasonable” demands from the bond company including: “The start-up balance sheet makes mention of a joint venture. What two parties make up the joint venture?”
Other “demands” include:
• Improvement/job cost.
• Verification of funding to uncover the purchase price and cost to develop land.
• Company performing work: Are they licensed, bonded, etc.?
• Do the owners have previous development experience? Resumes would be helpful.
Up to this point GEN did not mention the existence of a silent partner to the Independent-News or many others for that matter.
In fact, after gathering professional opinions from those active in the real estate, legal and construction professions, the general consensus indicated the bond company made legitimate demands upon GEN because it isn’t just a land deal. It is tied to a performance Bond that requires tangible building improvements on the land equal to its appraised value.
A second anonymous government source familiar with the contract clarified the issues: “The land is priced at zero for value as long as they will put that (appraised) value in taxable infrastructure on that ground,” the source said.
“In order for us to meet the statutes for the sale unquote of that land, there has to be development, and that doesn’t mean bare ground or equipment. It means honest-to-God taxable infrastructure development,” the source continued.
While the source described the agreement as doable, they also said the bonding company had every right to make informational demands upon GEN because if GEN defaulted on the contract, the bond holder is liable for the appraised value of the land.
The source pointed out other incongruities as well: “They’re (GEN) going to have to have some engineering and an honest-to-God plot plan before they can get building permits from the county. The building inspector, fire marshal and FEMA have to be able to examine these plans to make sure they’re viable.”
As of July 22, 5 p.m. GEN had not obtained a bond agreement. The Independent-News also questioned the county fire chief and the building inspector regarding the plot plan issue. Both officials said GEN had not submitted plans in regards to the project other than a submission of plans for a mobile chicken coop to the building inspector.