MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Transportation

 

Seventy-First Session

March 1, 2001

 

The Committee on Transportationwas called to order at 1:40 p.m., on Thursday, March 1, 2001.  Chairwoman Vonne Chowning presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Guest List.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mrs.                     Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

Mr.                     John Carpenter

Mrs. Barbara Cegavske

Mr.                     Jerry Claborn

Mr.                     Don Gustavson

Mr.                     John J. Lee

Ms.                     Kathy McClain

Mr.                     Dennis Nolan

Mr.                     John Oceguera

Mrs.                     Debbie Smith

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED

 

Ms.                     Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman

Mr.                     Tom Collins

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Speaker Emeritus Joseph Dini, Jr., District 38

Senator Mark Amodei, Capital Senatorial District

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Paul Mouritsen, Committee Policy Analyst

Sue Modarelli, Recording Committee Secretary

N. Jolene Jones Miley, Transcribing Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Greg Hess, Storey County Commissioner

Leroy Goodman, Lyon County Commissioner

Lance Gilman, Commercial Real Estate Services

Susan Martinovich, P.E. Assistant Director-Engineering, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)

Scott Craigie, Lobbyist, Alrus Consulting, and Tahoe Reno Industrial (TRI) Center and Storey County

Steven Oxoby, P.E., Chief Road Design Engineer, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)

 

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 6:  Urges Department of Transportation to place construction of State Route 567 and connecting Interstate 80 Interchange on Department’s report of projects for construction and maintenance of highways. (BDR R-763)

 

Chairwoman Chowning introduced Speaker Emeritus Joseph Dini who expressed his overwhelming support of A.C.R. 6.  Speaker Emeritus Dini indicated he supported the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Park (TRI) project.  The route the resolution addressed would be State Route 567 originating in Silver Springs at the center of Lyon County, one of the fastest growing areas in the county.  It would link from US 50 to I-80.  SR 567 would open all of central Lyon County for access to Reno and to commute to work at TRI.  Factory-built housing has allowed workers to have affordable housing at a very central location. This route would give them access to this new work area.

 

Speaker Emeritus Dini asked if there were any questions.  Chairwoman Chowning asked what the fiscal note would be on A.C.R. 6 if it were a bill.  Speaker Emeritus Dini indicated he did not have that information.  He pointed out there was a partnership between the county and TRI. He speculated the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) would probably have a good figure on the cost of the interchange.  TRI owned all the property and had expressed donating the entire right-of-way, thus no purchase cost of the right-of-way.  That would make the project much more affordable.  It would offer a better driving route and had the advantage of cutting out a great deal of mileage.  Speaker Emeritus Dini indicated he would defer to Lance Gilman, Broker, of TRI, who would have many answers he did not.

 

Chairwoman Chowning introduced Senator Mark Amodei from Capital Senate District.  Senator Amodei expressed support of the resolution and touched on points of the project in terms of development in rural Nevada.  He felt an important message for economic development opportunity could be sent to NDOT. He also indicated this project could become Nevada’s poster child for economic development. The project was 102,000 acres and would attract the types of companies (Fortune 500 and Vision 2000 companies) that Nevada wants.  The roadway would be 17 miles long.  NDOT would elaborate about the details but would be driven by the development.  He quoted “the project had already put its money where its mouth was and would continue to do so.”  He felt the project would be simpler as NDOT would only have to work with one owner for right-of-way acquisition.  He felt that the roadway would create high paying and high quality jobs for economic development of the areas.

 

Chairwoman Chowning expressed this project was good as it translated into economic development, which would translate into jobs and quality of life for Nevada citizens.  She referred to A.B. 210 that the committee proudly passed extending leases for county airports from 50 years to 99 years. She felt this project would be in the same spirit.

 

Assemblyman Lee asked for information about the airport at Silver Springs.  Senator Amodei replied the Silver Springs airport was presently slated for federal funding to repave the runway.  TRI had looked at the airport in the project plan. There may be other development patterns present that would preclude its full use as a potential cargo hub for western Nevada.  He would provide that information to the committee.  He felt Scott Craigie, President, Alrus Consulting could better answer specific questions.  Chairwoman Chowning asked if there were additional questions for Senator Amodei. Hearing none she requested the next presenter come forward.

 

Gregg Hess, Chairman of Storey County Commission introduced himself.  He explained Storey County was best known for Virginia City, the largest historic monument in the country.  The county was also known as poorest in state with a $5 to $6 million budget.  Unfortunately the county budget was reduced $1.5 million with a Sierra Pacific Power tax abatement reduction.  TRI gifted the school district $360,000 to operate the school district; there might not be a school district at Virginia City if not for that generous gift.  A.C.R. 6 was vital to the county’s effort to expand economic development in the southwest end of the county. Commissioner Hess and Storey County felt the development would be a great asset to the county.  This could be the opportunity to go from the poorest to the richest county with this project and would also be an asset to Lyon and Washoe Counties as well. Lyon County would be targeted for employees and workforce for the TRI project.  A new roadway would shorten the drive for the workforce by 10 to 15 minutes and would eliminate traffic on US 50 as well as the canyon road. It would cut off an hour of trucking time from southern Nevada and California.

 

TRI would provide the entire infrastructure and Storey county would pay back from taxes collected from the industrial buildings.  Washoe County had great potential for development on the other side of the river from the project, as water and sewer were available.

 

There was a power plant (Stanley Dean Witter) currently under construction, which could provide power to Reno and northern Nevada.  The plant would be on line by July 1, 2001.  Power could be provided at peak times.

 

Mr. Hess explained there was no intent to circumvent the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) or NDOT processes in any way.  The county was fully prepared to make significant financial contributions to the TRI project.  The county planned on doing the project with its own Regional Transportation Commission (RTC); no other Regional Transportation Commission was being asked for help.  Storey County felt they could do it on their own with the help of TRI.

 

Mr. Hess concluded the project would be a great asset for their counties in conjunction with the service plan agreement with TRI.  The county was ready to be a partner in any way it could and could make the park succeed which, in turn, would help all northern Nevada.

 

Assemblyman Nolan asked if there were residential areas planned in affiliation with the park for surrounding areas.  Mr. Hess responded that Storey County had none within the park itself although there was potential, especially on the Lyon county side.  A bedroom community was being looked into, although there were no signed agreements.  There were 25,000 to 26,000 acres that could be set aside if approved by Lyon County.  Most workers would be housed in Lyon County.  Assemblyman Nolan’s specific interest about housing was in regard to a plan in the prison system to draw some specialty areas to that area and wanted to see quality housing.  Mr. Hess responded there was no provision for housing in the agreement but there was the possibility of adding residential areas in Storey County.

 

Assemblyman Claborn asked where the water for the project would come from.  Mr. Hess responded there were wells and a lot of acreage for water rights. The existing wells were producing tremendous amounts of water and TRI was buying water rights as fast as they could to make sure the park had an ample supply.  At the time of approval of the service plan the Norman-Gilman Group showed ample water would be provided.  The service plan also provided information that a major sewer plant would be installed.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson stated that the project looked like a great idea; his concern would be the effect on the industrial park in Sparks.  Mr. Hess replied the project was shooting more for the high-tech areas, although there would be warehousing included, as there was a railroad spur and roads were accessible.  He felt the impact on Sparks would be minimal as they were targeting different areas than those Sparks had targeted.

 

Commissioner Leroy Goodman, Lyon County, representing the Fernley area, introduced himself.  He stated Lyon County liked the project and had been pushing for the road to take some of the pressure off 95A between Fernley and Silver Springs.  There was an industrial park in Fernley, but TRI would not compete with the existing park because of the different type of industry it would attract.  It would open up central Lyon County all the way to Dayton.  It was a good project for the entire region and would utilize the railroad all the way to Winnemucca.  Commissioner Goodman expressed Lyon County was in favor of the project and would put its support behind the project.

 

Commissioner Goodman also indicated Lyon County supported the project along with Fernley and the Silver Springs airport improvement paving on April 6 which was 75-feet wide.  The county had also just completed a wastewater treatment facility in Silver Springs with 180 homes hooked up, and more being added daily.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter asked what the situation was on the power plant and would they operate continually or just when there was a shortage.  Commissioner Goodman explained Mr. Gilman would be better able to answer, but the power plant would probably be providing power for TRI and during times of brownouts.  The county knew that when power was being produced at Pinion Power Plant, Sierra Pacific Power (SPP) would be taken off the tax rolls and would lower the assessment annually from $52 million to $11 million.  The Department of Taxation ruled they would be removed from the tax rolls because they were demonstrating they could produce power.  A $1.5 million loss for a small county like Lyon was a big loss.  SPP left the tax roll because of a loophole in federal law, and although the county was to have been given one year’s notice, it was caught short because no notice was given them. 

 

Assemblyman Nolan asked what fire stations and police departments were being planned for the new development and who would be responsible for responses on the road during construction and after completion.  Commissioner Goodman responded Storey County would respond directly on the road with the new fire and police stations.  TRI would build the facility and the county would repay when taxes were collected.  This site would probably be built within a year’s time. Discussions had been held between the county and TRI so that response could be handled for existing businesses, which were: Kal Kan, SanMar, and Kaiser.  The county wanted to proceed to get the fire department and emergency procedures completed as soon as possible.

 

Chairwoman Chowning thanked Commissioner Goodman and Commissioner Hess for their support and information.  She introduced Mr. Gilman of Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center.

 

Mr. Gilman indicated that along with Don Roger Norman and Roger William Norman, they were principals and developers of this project.  He thanked Speaker Emeritus Dini and others that provided information on the project.  He felt his task would be only to fill in the blanks.

 

He informed the committee that he was the developer of the Double Diamond Ranch in Reno and had brought the first high-tech company to Nevada, namely Lockheed in 1993.  He gave an overview of the progress made on the Double Diamond project and that success story.  He mentioned consultants estimated build-out would take 20 years, but in less that 6 ½ years only a very few acres were left (150 acres) of the 2,500 original acres.

 

Mr. Gilman referred the committee to an article by the Reno Gazette Journal written on Monday, February 12, 2001 (Exhibit C).  A recap follows:

 

• Of 102,000 acres, approximately 30 percent was developable land on             the north end, in Storey and Lyon Counties;
• Projected taxes were estimated at $18 million;
• Projected 20,000 jobs on completion;
• Protecting nature by donating 400 acres to The Nature Conservancy;
• Two new golf courses and a man-made lake;
• A new road would connect I-80 and US 50;
• Two power plant stations would be available to the industrial park; Sierra Pacific Power Tracy Plant and Morgan Stanley Capital Group expected completion in eight weeks;
• Park served by existing road and rail transportation. The Silver Springs airport was being resurfaced and when the new road was completed it would provide air service as well; and
• Water, sewer, gas, and electric were all on-site.

 

He indicated TRI had been working with NDOT for a year-and-a-half for the plans to design the interchange.

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked if there were workers and housing for the project.
Mr. Gilman replied there was an immediate need for 700 employees with a Canadian company who manufacture plastics injection molding in a 1 million square foot facility.

 

Assemblyman Lee asked about hunting on the land.  Mr. Gilman stated there was acreage set aside for wildlife but no hunting would be allowed. Mr. Lee said it looked like a beautiful, exciting project.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter questioned what the electric plant would generate.  Mr. Gilman responded he had not seen the wattage output from Morgan Capital Group.  This was their fourth plant and their primary target was to deal with the lack of generation capacity in United States.  Mr. Gilman thought it would be relatively expensive and the plant might only run for 1000 hours a year total.  Power would be turned on during peak hours only. It was known as a peaking generator.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson questioned why they would only operate 1000 hours.  Mr. Gilman replied Nevada would only allow that amount because state regulations only allowed a peaking plant that much time.  There were gas-fired turbines and very expensive to operate.  It was actually a jet engine attached to a generator.  Transmission lines in Nevada did not have the capacity to import power.  TRI was installing a tank farm on 15 acres to ensure an uninterrupted fuel supply.  The plant was also hooked into a well that produced 1000 gallons a minute, which would allow cooling of the generator, thus guaranteeing safe, clean, risk-free, power. 

 

Assemblyman Gustavson asked other than right-of-way, was TRI going to dedicate funds to the road.  Mr. Gilman replied TRI had already spent $1.7 million for that purpose.  They had graded a 6-lane boulevard from I-80 and had run utilities from the far western edge of property.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson stated it was a great project and asked about smoke stacks.  Mr. Gilman’s response was all Nevada basins were regulated by environmental protection.  Smokestacks denoted to him a relationship to industrial centers, not polluters.

 

Assemblyman Lee stated TRI had accomplished so much without SR 567, would this be a flaw if the resolution was not passed.  Was there a back-up plan?  Mr. Gilman replied the park was not predicated on getting SR 567 and they would enjoy a success level in the first 5,000 acres with I-80, the railroad, and the infrastructure.

 

Chairwoman Chowning introduced Susan Martinovich, P.E., Assistant Director of Engineering, and Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT).

 

Ms. Martinovich stated that NDOT was neutral on the proposal although they would always welcome projects so strongly supported by local entities.  The resolution urged NDOT to place those two projects for construction and maintenance on the department’s report of projects.  She explained the background, impact and the schedule as related to the inclusion of the project on the statewide plan.  There are many projects statewide that had been encumbered on the department’s report of projects. She addressed some of the questions that had been raised.

 

A.B. 625 of the Sixty-Ninth Session appropriated $1 million to NDOT for construction of a bridge east of the Tracy-Clark Vista Interchange of Interstate Highway I-80.  The interchange agreement was executed with the developer, and set forth the language specifying the funding and construction responsibilities to meet the mandate of that legislation.  The agreement stated that funding would be applied toward planning and preliminary design necessary for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  All additional design costs would be the responsibility of the developer as outlined in the agreement.  Actual construction costs would be identified later and prioritized in coordination with Clark County and their transportation improvement plan. Because Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds were involved, for either of the projects (interchange and roadway), in order to qualify for federal funding the NEPA document must first be completed.  The NEPA document identifies:

 

• Purpose;

• Need;

• Associated impacts on wildlife, wetlands, right-of-way and adjacent communities; and
• Looking at and evaluating alternatives.

 

The NEPA process could take from 18 months to five years.  A Record of Decision (ROD) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) must be received from FHWA before construction could begin, depending on the findings results.  After receipt of federal approval from FHWA, design and right of way acquisition could begin.

 

The NEPA process had been started for the interchange along with a change in control of access, with an estimated cost of $2 to 3 million, based on NDOT hiring a consultant to do the work.  There was a similar project in Clark County costing $3 million.  Surveys and mapping could then begin. Next, development of other alternatives, evaluation of impacts, constructability, and public meetings would be scheduled.  Estimated cost of the interchange was $20 million and estimated at $24 million was SR 567’s 19 miles that would run from I-80 to US 50. Those costs would not include right-of-way or final design.  Assuming NDOT did not have in-house staff, there would be an additional $2 to $5 million for final design based on consultant costs.

 

The project was scheduled to go before the Transportation Committee Board in March to begin discussion for seeking approval to contribute funding toward it.  If approved, a consultant would be selected with a two-year time frame to get environmental approval from FHWA.  Then final design would take another year, and they could then advertise in 3 or 4 years and go to bid; overall construction would take about 5 to 8 years.

 

Chairwoman Chowning recapped that the total cost would be $50 million (not including right-of-way) and 5 to 8 years to complete.  Would it be possible that additional federal funds might become available?  Ms. Martinovich declared that all funds were encumbered for the three-year plan and within that time projects could slip, be delayed, or right-of-way may not be secured.  Currently, funding was under T21 appropriations from FHWA.  FHWA was in the process of developing a new appropriation bill for FY2002 and FY2003.

 

Assemblyman Lee asked, “Did you mean that the I-95 widening project in southern Nevada might be at risk?”  Ms. Martinovich responded that funding had been identified for the I-95 project, as well as others in the three-year plan. The statewide plan had financially encumbered all funds.  If this project was to be added, something else would need to be moved out.  To fit in another $20 million project appropriation for that particular project, may mean other projects might be delayed or reprioritized.  The interchange was currently under design; the 19 miles of roadway was estimated, costs rose to $24 million, and, with additional costs for final design, estimated costs rose to another $2 to 3 million.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter asked of the $5 million what portion were the county and developer contributing toward that cost.  What would NDOT request for contribution or match?  Ms. Martinovich replied NDOT was still in the discussion stages but the developer had put up the cost of design for the interchange.  She had no answer, but match would vary with the project: some projects contributed 50 percent; rural areas contributed 25 percent of the Wendover and East Carlin interchange.  Battle Mountain had spent about 25 percent or perhaps 1/3 of the cost on the interchange.  Assemblyman Carpenter again asked when local entities contribute, what did NDOT think would be a reasonable amount for counties and/or developers to pay in matching funds. He suggested “NDOT must have some sort of idea.”  Ms. Martinovich stated that Director Tom Stephens had met with Scott Craigie and Bob Slater and a figure for contribution was mentioned.  However, she had not been in the meeting and did not have that information.

 

Chairwoman Chowning introduced Scott Craigie, President, Alrus Consulting, representing both Storey County and TRI.  Mr. Craigie stated he had participated in the project in the 1997 session with the $1 million appropriation that helped get the interchange.  He declared that the appropriation as well as the developer’s money was being spent on putting together environmental reports and plans for the interchange area.  Mr. Craigie indicated the interchange project was well under way. 

 

Mr. Craigie explained that A.C.R. 6 was in no way trying to bypass any of the processes.  TRI began the planning process on SR 567 at the suggestion of the NDOT director.  TRI could not afford to wait to do the siting of where the road would go; they had to ensure that development would not build over the best road options.  The development plan provided for, and TRI was building, the first leg of the roadway.  The first two miles of the project was already in, and five or six additional miles had been graded.  The contribution of a fully dedicated right-of-way would be part of TRIs match.  TRI was prepared to do its share and knew they must contribute a fair amount for the road.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if there was currently a bridge there.  Mr. Craigie responded in the negative.  The overpass would be a four-way exit/entrance system and would be a “flyover;” it would go over the wetlands and the railroad line and would be high enough for a triple-deck train.  Those plans were being drawn directly under the supervision of NDOT and FHWA.

 

Chairwoman Chowning asked Ms. Martinovich if she had any closing remarks.  Ms. Martinovich responded, to Assemblyman Carpenters’ concerns about matching funds stating that based on past history, the Transportation Board would ask, “What are you bringing to the table for this?”  She foresaw similar treatment on this project.

 

Chairwoman Chowning summarized that A.C.R. 6 was an example of the process: Voices could be heard, bringing an idea, holding the hearing, legislators being educated about projects.  It was simply a request and the committee appreciated NDOT’s cooperation toward wanting to contribute to the quality of life for more of Nevada citizens.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:22 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

N. Jolene Jones Miley                         Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairwoman

 

DATE: