Column: Lyon County heads down an expensive road

Most would like the roads they must travel on a daily basis to be paved. If not paved, regularly maintained gravel roads would probably be acceptable.

However, as has been well noted through the years, not all Lyon County roads are maintained - even if they have been accepted as right-of-ways. And non-maintained roads can make daily trips to work, school or to the store true adventures in vehicle survival.

Once, back in the 1970s, the commissioners agreed to maintain all county roads. Soon realizing the time and expense of such a commitment, the effort was short lived and a maintained/non-maintained list was established. Until the currently proposed new Road Acceptance Policy is approved (it was on yesterday's commission agenda), roads not on the maintained list must be paved to county standards before they will be accepted.

As with all politicians, your county commissioners want happy constituents. One of the most popular ways to keep voters happy is to improve their roads.

The "paving only" requirement has been a thorn in the side of the current board from the day they were elected ... they want to be able to tell you the county will take over maintenance of that annoying, dirt street in front of your home. The new road acceptance policy is being established under the presumption it will make it easier to do so.

And, if rumors hold true, the list of those anxious to add the expense of another road to the taxpayer supported maintenance list is getting longer every day.

Under the new policy, if it "met Lyon County standards when it was constructed" and fulfills other prescribed criteria, a gravel road may be accepted. The commissioners will make the final determination and, along with the Road Division Manager, will determine the degree of maintenance.

What does "county standard" at time of construction mean?

If "county standard" means they met acceptable parcel map standards at the time the map was approved, does this mean all gravel roads accepted as dedicated/prescriptive right-of-ways in the past and are now well traveled arterial roads will be accepted for maintenance and, when called for, eventually paved at county expense?

How many roads will be accepted before it makes a significant impact on the road budget? (Time, manpower, materials).

The effort to bring more roads into the maintained system would not appear as politically sugarcoated if the commissioners had spent as much time revamping the county subdivision codes. Until this is done, they are simply promulgating an existing problem. The list of well traveled, overburdened and deteriorating county roads (maintained and non-maintained) that we have today will continue to grow.

With the intent of placing more responsibility for related impacts to local infrastructure on developers, on Dec. 3, 1998, a since-retired commissioner proposed to amend the subdivision codes. In February of 1999, stating they wished to study the current ordinance more closely, the current commissioners vetoed all suggested changes. No action has been taken since that time.

While continuing to approve subdivision after subdivision, yet refusing to take decisive and immediate action to put the responsibility for related impacts where it belongs, these commissioners, in the end, are simply increasing the tax burden on those they are currently professing to help.

Among the changes proposed back in December 1998 that could have been approved 18 months ago was to put the burden of improving adjacent local and collector streets on the developer. The new road acceptance policy the board is so proud of generously offers to let county taxpayers pay for improvements to these roads that new subdivisions have turned into well traveled, overburdened collector and arterial roadways.

The sad thing is, most taxpayers will pay heed only to the fact his road to the market is improved and not upon whom the financial burden will fall.

Fernley has been the sight of a number of examples where developers were let off the hook - for the sake of getting as many homes built as soon as possible. Recent decisions regarding the residential development of the Rolling A property in Dayton is another.

Instead of mandating that the Rolling A developer create a second entry/exit for the proposed 700 plus home subdivision, main access to the development has been allowed via existing county roads. To this point, no requirements have been placed on the developer to improve these adjacent local roads. Guess who will pay for improvements when they become heavily traveled arterial and collector streets?

Let me repeat myself:

Developers are businessmen. They need not be looked at as evil predators. However, somewhere along the line, the burden of paying for the impacts they put on our streets, parks, emergency services must shift from the taxpayer to those profiting from the growth.

It is the responsibility of our governing officials to put it there.

Think about it.