UPPER SOUTH EAST COMMUNITIES COALITION, INC - Environmental Preservation Group in Washoe County
Open Forum/Comments

Editorial from a Working Group Member

Comments sent to several Reno City Council Members:
I have a concern about funding that the RTC receives for road building and the burden that puts on City of Reno's budget. As you know the RTC is in the midst of building the Southeast Connector (SEC). While I am opposed to this needless road, I find that the RTC's budget is creating an ever increasing need for road maintenance funding by the City of Reno. I worked for the Federal Govt. for many years and have seen the same problem in how one agencies funding creates a burden for another agency. The SEC is a perfect example of this problem. Assuming this road is built, it is my understanding that maintenance will be the responsibility of the City. This will be a huge cost partly because of the location of the road but also because of its design components; ie, bridges, underpasses, vegetation managaement, and bikeways. The sad part of this issue is that this roadway is not needed now and the taxpayer will be paying interest on the bonds needed to build the road long before it will receive the traffic envisioned by the RTC. As a result the City of Reno will be paying an ever increasing amount for maintaining this roadway. I would like to suggest a couple of solutions to the maintenance cost that the City will be facing. First, delay or end construction of the SEC phase II until there is a demonstrated need for the road. Second, change the funding RTC formula so that RTC is responsible for maintenance of the all roads that are not just neighborhood roads or those maintained by the State of Nevada. As it stands now, the funding formula promotes more road construction while at the same time requireing the Cities and County to maintain the roads. This is stupid! By the way, I am against all single purpose funding with the exception of education. Having a dedicated tax base for a single use effectively prevents funding from being placed where it is needed and takes decisions out of the hands of our elected representatives. I expect our council members and county commisioners to make the hard decisions based on current and future needs, not some outdated funding decisions made years ago.
Vern Schulze,

2 Comments to Editorial from a Working Group Member:

Comments RSS
Jan Pederson on Friday, May 10, 2013 3:08 PM
If Council members would take the time to read the history of floods in the upper southeast area, they would HAVE to vote against ANY further development in that flood zone! The floods have been devastating not only to Reno businesses and homeowners, but also to Sparks businesses. It is only common sense to not add any more development, including a huge 6-lane road, in the flood retention area. If the Council members do not have that common sense, then they should think about the votes and taxes that will no longer be available to them when the area floods again---and it will! The widening of McCarran has taken care of any traffic difficulties on that street--even at high commutes times. That is sufficient for the foreseeable future and will save the flood retention capacity.
Reply to comment

Brother Coyote on Friday, May 10, 2013 3:44 PM
Vern, These are excellent points. It seems to me that the RTC has become the Rogue Transportation Commission. They need to keep building more and more useless roads so that they can prove that they are relevant, and to keep spending our tax dollars.
Reply to comment

Add a Comment

Your Name:
Email Address: (Required)
Make your text bigger, bold, italic and more with HTML tags. We'll show you how.
Post Comment

Recent Posts

February 6, 2018
USECC - Update - May 2017
USECC - March 2017 Update
January 5, 2017
November 29, 2016


Editorial Comments
Public Comments Given at Reno City Cousel
powered by