Differing reports on golf club development raise new issues

Dan Kulin

Monday, July 25, 2005 | 11:12 a.m.

Las Vegas officials want to know why there were two versions of a report on the implications of allowing residential development on Billy Walters' Royal Links Golf Club, which is next to the city's sewage treatment plant.

Both versions acknowledge that allowing homes next to the plant would likely lead to more odor complaints, and both recommend further study of the matter. But the two versions, done by a private firm working for the city, differ greatly on the extent to which they explain the potential effects of allowing homes next to the plant.

What is apparently the final version of the report is noticeably vague and far less foreboding than the other version. The apparent draft version is filled with large sections of comments crossed out.

An estimate of the potential cost to the city of further alleviating the odor problem, up to $100 million, is contained in one report, while the friendlier version simply says those improvements "can be costly."

The draft version of the report appears to have been almost entirely rewritten, and the differences are evident from their beginnings.

The version with large sections crossed out is titled "City of Las Vegas WPFC -- Effects of Converting Royal Links Golf Course to Residential Development on Odor Complaints" whereas the version that appears to be a final draft of the report is titled "City of Las Vegas WPCF -- Assessment of Odor Control Improvements."

WPCF stands for Water Pollution Control Facility, the formal name of the treatment plant.

The cover memos for the two versions also differ in that the memo that accompanied the final version of the report is essentially only the first paragraph of the page-long memo that accompanied the draft version of the report.

Left out of the final memo were comments from the consultant regarding the importance of a berm around the plant for flood protection and a warning about the hazardous materials at the treatment plant.

The longer memo singles out the potential impact of methane gas, which is a byproduct of the treatment process and is stored there to be used for heating and energy production.

Walters' plans for replacing the golf course with about 1,200 homes could put some homes closer to the methane tanks than federal regulations allow, the memo said.

Deputy City Manager Betsy Fretwell said the investigation into the two versions of the reports will look into who requested the changes to the document.

The final version was delivered to the city late last week, while the earlier version arrived at the city manager's office on Monday, she said.

Calls to the consultants who produced the reports, for which the city paid $2,000, and city staff who oversee the treatment plant operations were referred to Fretwell.

Fretwell said in addition to finding out why the changes were made, she wants to find out exactly what the city might have to do if residential development is allowed next to the plant.

The realization that two versions of the report existed was a factor in the City Council's decision on Wednesday to postpone formal discussions of the matter until August. It was the second time the council put off addressing the issue. Two weeks ago concerns over potentially misleading briefings from the city attorney's office prompted the council to put off the matter then.

Mayor Oscar Goodman said he is still looking into the questionable briefings, in which he said one or more council members were given "inflammatory" information about Walters' proposal.

Walters is asking the council to lift a deed restriction on the 160-acre course along Vegas Valley Drive east of Nellis Boulevard, which the council put in place when the city sold Walters the land for $894,000 in 1999. Walters is offering the city $7.2 million to lift the restriction, which allows only a golf course on the property, so he can build homes there.

The $7.2 million represents the difference between the $894,000 Walters paid the city six years ago and the 1999 value of the land if it had no development restriction, plus 6 percent interest.

City documents estimate the value of the land without a deed restriction at $48 million. Walters has said the land might be worth about that much, but also said it is unfair to evaluate his proposed deal without taking into account the roughly $50 million he says he has invested in the property and the value of additional revenue from the sale of water to new homes.

The land is just outside the city limits, and so any development plan would have to be approved by the Clark County Commission.

Walters said he hopes additional studies are done, as the reports recommend, and said he will continue to move through the county's lengthy approval process while the city leaders contemplate whether to lift the deed restriction.

It was unclear exactly what effect the two versions of the report might have on the City Council, which is now scheduled to consider Walters' request on Aug. 3. But some council members said last week that the reports raised new concerns for them.

The reports were done in response to a request from Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian, who asked for "a full report on the implications of allowing development" on the golf course.

The directions to the consultant HDR Engineering of Folsom, Calif., on what to include in the report were relayed to the firm in an e-mail from city staff.

On July 8 City Manager Doug Selby sent an e-mail to city Public Works Director Dick Goecke and Environmental Manager David Mendenhall, who is the treatment plant manager, asking that they get an outside consultant to assess the effectiveness of past odor control measures, the likelihood of future complaints, and a record of past complaints related to the sewage treatment plant.

Selby said he wanted the information for the July 20 council meeting for the item related to the deed restriction on the golf course land.

Mendenhall then relayed Selby's request to consultants at HDR, which had engineering firm CH2MHill write the report.

Fretwell said it appears both versions of the report satisfied the request from the city.

Both versions of the report were addressed to Mendenhall. Calls to Goecke and Mendenhall were referred to Fretwell.

Tarkanian said both versions of the report left her more concerned about the potential development than she was before.

"The city has to be looking at the environmental safety of the citizens who might be there," Tarkanian said. "Even if we're not involved with the land, the city might have a liability because we own the plant."

Councilman Lawrence Weekly said he hasn't yet had time to review the reports, but said he will take into consideration the potential impact of allowing homes on the golf course on those future homeowners and their neighbors.

"We need more housing, but I'm not interested in putting anyone in harm's way," Weekly said. "It's unfair to say that just because it's in the county, we don't care."

Councilman Gary Reese said that although he has not fully studied the reports, he is concerned about the potential cost of improving odor control measures at the city plant.

Councilman Steve Wolfson also said the potential cost of plant improvements is "a factor I have to consider."

Goodman said Wednesday he was concerned that the council wasn't provided with all the relevant material in the first version of the report they saw, which was the version without sections crossed out. Goodman said he was particularly concerned about the public safety issues that were addressed in one version of the report, but not the other.

Councilman Larry Brown said that while he hasn't reviewed both reports, he has heard of the issues raised in both and is now concerned about the apparent public safety issues raised in the apparent draft version. He is also still interested in the "economics" of Walters' proposal.

"The methane, that's the new information I need to be briefed on and understand," Brown said, adding that the inconsistencies between the reports are "unacceptable."

Brown also said that although county officials would have the final say in whether the land can be used for residential development, the council should also consider whether allowing homes there would be a good policy decision.

Walters said he is willing to go along with whatever the city leaders request in order to resolve the issues.

"We are totally committed to doing whatever it takes to make this project work for the city," Walters said.

Walters, who said he didn't know about the report until last week, added that while the report pays a lot of attention to the odor issue, he sees that as a nonissue.

"A zero-odor situation has never even been discussed because we understand there will be some odors, that's why there is the disclosure and the odor easement," Walters said, referring to the expected requirement that any new property owner would have to sign a document acknowledging that he knows how close the treatment plant is and that there may be some odors emanating from it.

Walters also said that while the reports raise some new issues, "there are no conclusions in those reports," he said, referring to how the warnings of potential problems or increases in complaints are typically couched with words such as may or could.

"The report doesn't conclude anything except that more studies need to be done and I support that," Walters said.

While the two versions of the report do address the odor issue, the reports vary greatly in some respects.

In the draft version of the report the sections crossed out, which are not found in the final version, included:

Information about how the golf course provides a buffer between the plant and some existing homes. The draft report notes that removing the course "will probably also have some impact on the residents beyond the new development." The course's vegetation and irrigation help dilute the odor, the report said.

New residents able to see the treatment plant will be more likely to believe they smell odors from the plant. The draft says there "is a correlation with visually being able to see a wastewater treatment plant and the sensing of odors."

A sewer junction box near the plant and the planned homes has the potential to produce "high odors." The report says that box would be "very close to the homes to be build (sic) on both the north and south sides of Vegas Valley Drive."

Future expansion of the plant and the "lack of a buffer zone" will lead to more odors. "Again the lack of a buffer zone and the close proximity of the homes to the future treatment facilities will make it virtually impossible to eliminate all off-site odors with the expansion."

The potential cost of additional odor control improvements. "For the city to match this goal of no detectable odors, the capital costs would be in the $63 million to $100 million range for additional odor control to meet no detectable odors at the property line, if the housing development is allowed next to the plant," the report said.

The report went on to say that if homes are built on the golf course, and the city wants to keep odor-related complaints to a minimum, as in recent years, "then the city may be looking at an additional $43 million to $80 million in odor abatement needs."

When information is found in both reports, there was sometimes a difference in how that information was relayed.

For example, when the reports talked about the potential impact on the existing nearby homeowners, the final version said "the removal of the golf course could also have some impact on the residents beyond the new development."

In the draft version, the words "will probably" were crossed out and the word "could" was underlined, showing that the sentence was originally intended to read that replacing the golf course with homes "will probably" impact the residents beyond the proposed development.

This would be expected to happen because the golf course, with its vegetation, irrigation and accompanying cooler temperatures, better dilutes odors than streets, and homes, the draft report said.

As the final version said, replacing the golf course with a residential development "may" impact the surrounding areas.

In the draft version of the report, that sentence contains a crossed-out "will probably" next to an underlined "may."

archive