Flood Project Technical Advisory Committee DRAFT Minutes

Flood Project Technical Advisory Committee – DRAFT Minutes

February 23, 2007

Page 1 of 5

Flood Project Technical Advisory Committee

MINUTES

Friday – February 23, 2007 – 10:00 am

Washoe County Complex, Building C

Central Conference Room

1001 East Ninth Street, Reno, Nevada

1.INTRODUCTIONS

Naomi Duerr – Flood Project Director opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. noting that Assistant City/County Managers as well as Finance Directors and Public Works Directors joint the monthly meeting.

PRESENT:Neil Mann – Reno Public Works; Randy Mellinger – City of Sparks; Wayne Siedel – Sparks Public Works;

2.LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

Naomi Duerr – Flood Project Director, drew attention to correspondence (copy on file) about the infrastructure funding legislative hearing. It is Ms. Duerr’s opinion that the primary issue is transportation funding.

During the discussion it was suggested that this may have been precipitated by the Washoe County request for $100-million contribution to the flood project. Other discussion noted that various representatives from local government including City and County Managers will address the issue. It was noted that to maintain continuity the region should make a unified request.

Ms. Duerr noted that the Governor’s budget includes a line item earmarking $10-million for eco-system restoration with approximately $5-million each to northern and southern Nevada. Ms. Duerr outlined various projects in southern Nevada that the $5-million could be used for. It has been suggested that the funding be sent directly to Washoe County of eco-system restoration projects rather than though the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

3.LAND PDT (Project Delivery Team)

Naomi Duerr – Flood Project Manager, noted that the Land PDT (Project Delivery Team) had been formed to work with the City of Reno/Sparks, Washoe County and Corps (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and others on land issues. Ms. Duerr noted that the BCC (Board of County Commissioners) had approved the hiring of a Land Acquisition Manager to coordinate flood project land acquisition, credit, and other issues, pending approval of the personnel review committee. Ms. Duerr noted that the Corps followed a specific land acquisition format. Ms. Duerr emphasized the need to involve all project sponsors in the process.

Ronda Moore – Flood Project Deputy Director, outlined the selection review team.

4.LEGAL SEMINAR ON TAKINGS

Naomi Duerr – Flood Project Manager, recalled the previous FPTAC (Flood Project Technical Advisory Committee) meeting discussion on flood mitigation issues. Ms. Duerr noted that Michael Baker, Junior, does a lot of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) mapping also offers a legal course that is recognized in many states as CE (continuing education) legal education credit on flood related issues.

Ronda Moore – Flood Project Deputy Director, commented that she was seeking to have CE credit for engineering and flood plain manager. The course also offers insights into how flood plain ordinances should be crafted to reduce the likelihood of legal challenges. Ms. Moore noted that a legal challenge in the Lake Tahoe area had resulted in a Supreme Court ruling that TRPA (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) moratorium was not a taking. Ms. Moore believes that rules are being developed to address scenic mitigation ratio is being developed. It is expected that the seminar will be scheduled in early May 2007.

Ms. Duerr emphasized the intent to assure that legal counsel and professional engineers receive CE credits for the course and perhaps flood plain managers. Ms. Duerr noted that the course would be provided free to the project partners and staff and at cost to others in the region.

Ms. Moore commented that she was seeking a location that would accommodate up to 100 attendees.

During the discussion it was noted that each of the project partners include several enterprise fund operations. Other discussion noted that he local sponsors would be hosted at no charge with a fee for other interested parties. It was suggested that Ms. Moore contact Greg Befort at the Regional Public Safety Training Center to host the conference. Other discussion noted that the RWPC’s (Regional Water Planning Commission) work on a regional drainage document was nearing completion.

Paul Urban – Flood Project Manager, commented that changes are being reviewed to see what conflicts with local development criteria.

5.SPARKS COUNCIL MEETING ON COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

Joann Meacham – Sparks Public Works, asked that Naomi Duerr – Flood Project Director send a memorandum to Sparks City Manager Shaun Carey to have an agenda item scheduled for the Sparks City Counsel to review the Interlocal Agreement.

Ms. Duerr noted that the FPCC (Flood Project Coordinating Committee) had recommended modifications to the Cooperative Agreement including the change of the voting structure from unanimous consent to super majority; change status of UNR (University of Nevada, Reno) from voting to non-voting member, change Storey County from non-voting to voting member status. The Reno City Counsel recommended that the voting structure be simple rather than super majority; with the addition of Storey County delayed until funding options are identified. The BCC (Board of County Commissioners) approved all recommendations as submitted. Ms. Duerr noted that the difference between super majority at 66-percent and simple majority is one (1) vote. Ms. Duerr emphasized that all parties have to agree to the modifications before they become effective. The FPWG (Flood Project Working Group) had suggested that the four (4) votes come from all sponsors not just two of the sponsors. Ms. Duerr commented that she would prepare language for the Sparks City Council to consider.

There was some discussion about having FPCC members to convey and approve the recommendation. Of concern to the local jurisdictions is the perceived veto power and that the Reno City Council may ultimately agree to the 66-percent majority. It was pointed out that the FPCC Vice-chair Bob Larkin and others had indicated a desire to have Storey County bring forward a funding mechanism as well as some flood storage/mitigation as part of being a voting member. It was noted that Storey County is considering a redirection of a certain percentage of sales tax to flood control as their bonds are retired. It was pointed out that many of Storey County’s 3,500 residents already contribute to the flood project through Washoe County’s 1/8-cent sales tax. Other discussion suggested a cost share ratio be developed to determine what funding is brought to the project. It is expected that the portion of Storey County draining into the flood project be subject to whatever funding mechanism is ultimately developed. Discussion then turned to the issues associated with the development of regional benefits for the downtown Reno Core as part of the benefits engineering study. It was explained that the cost/benefit engineering study would include all segment of the project as part of the supporting documentation that would be presented to Congress.

Ms. Duerr outlined recent discussions with representatives of Nevada’s Congressional delegation and Bob Johnson about restoration issues.

Paul Urban – Flood Project Manager, outlined the annual funding process used to justify Corps (U, S. Army Corps of Engineers) funding. It is estimated that $2.5-million will be needed for the Corps to continue working toward the Chief’s report. Mr. Urban noted that the physical modeling for the Virginia Street bridge option would most likely, in the Corps’ opinion, be part of the PED (Preliminary Engineering and Design) rather than the GRR (General Reevaluation Report). Additionally, an ability to use $10-million could be used for preliminary design.

During the discussion it was noted that the total $800-million project cost would result in an annual request for $40-million for construction annually. Once the EIS (Environmental Impact Study) is completed and submitted to the Corps’ headquarters is a six (6) month process. The intent is to have the Sacramento Division to continue working on the preliminary design once the initial project is submitted to their headquarters. Discussion then focused on having the City/County Managers working with federal lobbyists for various organizations in the region to work in a specific direction beneficial to the project. It was noted that the flood project has two federal lobbyist including Mia O’Connell (Corps) and Marcus ? It was noted that project staff and the FPCC Chair and Vice-chair would met with federal Corps staff, lobbyists as well as the Congressional delegation. It is thought that the inclusion of other lobbyists representing various agencies in the region would benefit the project. Discussion then focused on the timeline for the project and the lag time between the submission of the project to Corps headquarters and Congressional approval. It was noted that the lobbyists are apprized of the region’s ability and willingness to develop/construct the project. The intent is to assure that funding is available so that the Sacramento Division is working on preliminary design. There is a possibility that the Corps could design something that Congress might not approve. However, it is thought that at this point in the schedule there would be little likelihood of that occurring. Other discussion focused on the need to identify the correct terminology to avoid potential confusion. Typically, a PCA () is needed before design can start. However, the Corps also ahs a provision that allows design to move forward. It was also noted that the Truckee Meadows is in a unique positions of having a project designed and authorized by Congress in 1988 that had a benefit/cost ratio 2.5:1. Since it was designed in 1985 and Water Resource Development Act changed the ratio, the Corps recalculated the ratio. The cost of publicly owned land valuation was changed and was no longer considered as part of the cost. The reevaluation of the publicly owned property reduced the benefit ration significantly and Senator Reid was encouraged to drop the authorization. Other discussion focused on the various funding sources for PED and other processes. Currently the project does not have a cost/benefit ration due to its GRR status.

6.DRAFT FPCC AGENDA – March 16, 2007

Naomi Duerr – Flood Project Director, outlined the draft agenda drawing attention to the Finance Subcommittee update on the Interlocal Agreement. The Finance Directors and legal counsel are working on that. Of particular concern is that the City of Sparks has not participated in the recent meetings. Ms. Duerr noted that John Sherman was setting up the next meeting on March 1, 2007.

During the discussion it was suggested that some of the $5-million would be used for restoration in various areas. Other discussion noted that this was part of the flood project’s eco-system restoration and whether the additional funding could be considered part of the regions cost share. The intent is to get credit for the state’s contribution if possible to reduce the region’s cost share. It was pointed out that eco-system restoration was part of another Corp’s project and should, in staff’s opinion, be approved for credit. Other discussion noted that the FPCC (Flood Project Coordinating Committee) would be asked to approve a 117-year event protection. Of some concern is the incomplete drainage plan that could adversely affect the project. It was noted that levees could be designed to 117-year with interior drainage designed to 100-year. The interior drainage is designed to maintain existing drainage. It was explained that the flood project can provide greater levels of protection than interior drainage. Other discussion noted that a 117-year project could be authorized but built to a somewhat lesser degree of protection within certain parameters. As the discussion continued, it was noted that the 117-year event may be a few inches less than the 1997 event. Of concern is that the protection to 117-year event would flood other areas. It was pointed out that the flooding was to a somewhat lesser level. Discussion then focused on the expectation that the project will be built and how interior drainage would be addressed with a 117-year event compared to a 100-year event. It was noted that the downtown reach would remain at the 100-year event. As the discussion continued, it was noted that a poll of the public felt the project would protect against the 1997 flood.

Ms. Duerr then outlined the upcoming annual report that over time will transition to a larger format that includes greater detail, analysis and photographs. Ms. Duerr asked who the monthly activity report should be presented or sent to at the local jurisdictions.

Joann Meacham – City of Sparks, stated she would add to the Sparks City Council agenda in the future.

Greg Dennis – City of Reno, outlined the various ways in which the Reno City Council receives reports. Mr. Dennis will advise Mr. Duerr on the format.

Ms. Duerr explained that the monthly report would be distributed among the sponsors and others after presentation to the FPCC (Flood Project Coordinating Committee) and that the report includes a variety of information associated with the flood project. Ms. Duerr then provided an overview of the Virginia Street Bridge workshop and the Corps’ report on land acquisition, right-of-way needs, cost analysis of the replacement and restoration options and perhaps an analysis of potential funding options. It is thought that replacement of the bridge would be at the sponsors’ expense as the Corps considers a bridge replacement as a utility whereas restoration could include funding from historic preservation funds and other Corps funding.

There was some discussion about how the Corps might address bridge funding. In the event the project is funded as the LPP (Locally Preferred Plan) the region would pickup certain costs. However, Congressional authorization at full federal funding will make a significant difference in the sponsors’ cost share. It was emphasized that the Corps is seeking a decision from the region on what the LPP includes specifically. Discussion then noted the public workshop and subsequent decision on the Virginia Street Bridge as well as Reno staff concerns about whether the Ferrari Shields bypass option will function as suggested. It was noted that if the region determines that the bridge should be rehabilitated the design will require a physical model to ascertain whether the bypass option functions as intended. In the event the design does not function there could be additional costs associated with a larger bypass option. It was emphasized that in 2000 and 2001 workshops were held to discuss various bridge options including channel widening, replacement of bridges as well as landmark clear span bridges. Although historic preservation was involved in the workshops, once the public determined that replace of a historic bridge was the preferred option based on public heath and safety, there was no further involvement. However, Section 106 requires that the Corps continue to work with SHPO (State Historic Preservation office) unless a legal challenge is filed. It was noted that each step is an incremental decision made in the overall process and that such decisions can be reversed until a final design is constructed. Discussion then noted that the Reno TRAction project had to be reviewed individually to determine feasibility, funding availability and other criteria.

Ms. Duerr noted that the final agenda would be published somewhat later and that she had asked Washoe County to conduct a survey of building purchased as part of the land acquisition. Ms. Duerr noted that if buildings were demolished the appraisal would be different. Therefore, it may be prudent to keep the buildings intact until a Chief’s report is filed.

It was noted during the discussion that there are significant costs involved in retaining building in terms of insurance, maintenance and other issues. It was suggested that consideration be given to delaying certain acquisitions until somewhat later in the process. It was emphasized that the Bristlecone program was a unique situation.

7.OTHER ITEMS? And

8.ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS

During the discussion focused on the concerns associated with the current Corps (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers) project schedule. It was noted that until the interior drainage model is complete the North Truckee Drain feasibility study had been delayed until the interior drainage model is completed. Other discussion suggested a City of Sparks develop a tentative schedule and cash flow for the North Truckee Drain project.