Reno Will Appeal … Again

In a further effort to deny the Lemmon Valley homeowners damages for flooding caused by the city, the city will appeal the recent ruling in favor of the three residents that suffered the worst flood intrusion. Approval to move ahead with the appeal was 4-3.

City Attorney, Karl Hall, opened with the argument that the district court made several errors that he thinks should be settled at the Nevada Supreme Court. He thinks this issue applies to other cases currently pending. He thought the “class certification” was in error and that the liability was not clearly established. He also thinks the damages were determined in error.

Councilmember Brekhus pointed out that this is the second appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court on this case and asked if any of Hall’s arguments had already been considered by the court. Hall indicated that the Supreme Court had not yet ruled on this case.

Councilmember Duerr asked what were the possible outcomes that the city might expect if the appeal is approved. Hall said he hoped that the Supreme Court would order a new trial. He would like some guidance from the Supreme Court in any case. Hall asserted that the additional plaintiff’s attorney’s fees would be about $50,000 additional if they lost. He neglected the added interest the city would be liable for. Duerr has some concern for the public perception of the city spending more money on this case.

Councilmember Jardon expressed concern that the appeal will result in higher plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and would like some idea of what that amount might be if the city appeals and loses. Hall had a vague answer for the costs. He said the city could file an appeal March 10 and that the case would probably take 6 months.

Mayor Schieve asked Hall if the city needs to appeal this case in order to get “clarity” on the law regarding such suits. Hall replied that an appeal is the intended way to get such “clarity”.

Brekhus asked if the city could negotiate with the judge on the amount of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ costs and fees. Hall said yes. Brehus suggested that this would be a better use of the legal team’s time than moving forward with another appeal.

Councilmember Reese thinks there are enough legal errors in the recent ruling that warrant the appeal. “We have an obligation to follow the advice of our lawyer (Hall).” He trusts the judgement of the legal team.

Duerr reminded the council that the plaintiffs have waited over 4 years now. People are living in trailers and have their horses boarded somewhere else. She thinks the increase in the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees will be much higher than Hall suggested. Duerr “I think we should just put this to bed. I’m concerned that this drags on for the city and the plaintiffs as well.”

Jardon referred to the drawn out case of the city against Scenic Nevada was very instructive even though it lasted 15 years. It might be a benefit to pursue this appeal for what would be learned. She also thinks the $1.5M plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees are unreasonable.

Brekhus didn’t think the Scenic Nevada case is applicable to this case. “Continuing to slog through this case will further alienate us from our constituency. I am very troubled by it. I just can’t go there. I don’t think another $50,000 is worth the roll of the dice.”

Schieve “There is a very large emotional toll that this has taken on those residents. I think we all ought to move forward. To me, this just doesn’t sit right. I won’t be supporting it (appeal).”

Reese claimed to take umbrage at the argument that he is callous toward the residents. He asserts that the city should defend itself against what he sees as “bad law”. The decision should not be made based on the emotional considerations: this is a case that will bear on future cases. The legal team is doing a “good job in defending the taxpayers and our general fund.”

Councilmember Weber “I just want to say that I do support our staff and our legal team moving forward to the Supreme Court. It’s just part of the process. This is the right thing to do.”

Schieve moved that the appeal not move forward. Duerr seconded. Brekhus voted “aye”. Reese, Delgado, Weber, and Reese voted “nay”. Then, Reese moved to approve the legal department’s proposal to appeal which carried 4-3.

The viewer is left with a few impressions. Reese takes umbrage easily. He wants to be seen as compassionate while arguing vociferously for fighting the homeowners. Weber made only a passing reference to the suffering endured by her constituents. Who does she represent? Delgado had nothing to say the entire meeting.

Meeting Video (topic starts at 30 minutes from the beginning)

Meeting Agenda

County Whitewash

On Tuesday, 2/16/21 the Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved a proposal to create a “Commissioner Engagement Program”. It would be run within the county manager’s office under the communications director. It would include commissioner outreach and community advisory boards. The program would be effective in fiscal year 2022 and have a budget of $358,000. It would include two new staff members plus some technology costs. Some of it would come out of the existing county manager budget.

The first track would come out of the communications department with the following initiatives.

  • Provide smart and targeted quality of life enhancements for each district.
  • Make a new website or at least a separate web page.
  • Develop a social media presence (Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter)
  • Publish newsletters
  • Host public “coffees” and “chats”

Like most dysfunctional organizations, the first effort is to address the negative perception rather than the underlying problems. It is “putting lipstick on the pig”. It looks like the goal is to increase “public trust in government” without addressing the pattern of malfeasance. The stated goal is to “increase citizen engagement”. This might take the form of a backlash.

A second part of the initiative is to have a greater development focus called “Neighborhood Level Development Input”. This is to “re-engage local developers to expand community outreach and public education”. They want the developers to run more and better meetings describing their new developments. Such meetings feature one-way communication. The developers rarely consider any objections raised by the residents. The program would encourage a “dialogue”, but this seems no different from the present practice if the developer will not compromise. The county wants a “data driven strategy” based on polling. They want better PR. They would improve their standing if they would uphold the existing zoning.

Commissioner Questions

  • Commissioner Herman made the point that she wants to see the return of the earlier Citizen Advisory Boards (CAB’s). Will the new program have regular public meetings? The plan does not include restoring the earlier CAB structure. The meetings in the district would be up to the commissioner.
  • Commissioner Hartung made the point that commissioners should not be appointing family members to local boards.
  • Commissioner Hill thinks that more communication would be useful for her constituents in Incline Village.
  • Commissioner Lucey claims that the original CAB structure was not effective. Every district is very different. The CAB’s should not be changed from the current roles. He is excited about this new program.
  • Commissioner Jung likes a “toolbox” for commissioners to “personalize” their approach toward constituents.

Public Comment

  • A member of the Sun Valley CAB described the utility of the earlier CAB structure and how it was able to serve the residents on a number of issues.
  • The chair of the North Valley’s CAB says that they do not feel included in the whole process by the county commissioners. The CAB recommendations don’t get presented to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). The CAB’s need to have some authority and there needs to be 2-way communication with the BCC.
  • The chair of the Incline Village CAB reminded all that the CAB roles were limited by the BCC in 2014. Attendance in the Incline Village CAB meetings dropped dramatically after the CAB’s role was limited to development issues. Earlier meetings were attended by the Fire and Police representatives and informed the residents on many topics of local importance.
  • A Warm Springs resident reinforced the point that the role of the CAB’s should be returned to the earlier scope.
  • The chair of the Warm Springs CAB wants to have the CAB’s to have a greater role like they used to.

In meeting after meeting, year after year, the commissioners have listened to hours of residents’ testimony only to decide against them. They are getting plenty of “engagement”. They are simply not supporting the residents. The staff presentation even included a an eerie reference to the “silent majority”: a term coined by Richard Nixon. This brings to mind the slogan from 50 years ago “The majority isn’t silent. The government is deaf.”

The physical symbol of the problem the commissioners face with their constituents is the recent barrier built between the public and the dais. It’s a metaphor for the isolation that the commissioners seek from their constituents.

Staff presentation

Agenda (item 10)

Meeting Video (starts at 2:30)

A Victory for Lemmon Valley Homeowners

The Nevada District Court handed a victory to three plaintiffs claiming damages from flooding caused by reckless development approved by Reno (2/11/21). The court ruled decisively that Reno was liable for more than $750,000 in flood damage plus interest. Judge Breslow granted summary judgment and awarded the plaintiffs the damages that they had requested, and struck numerous City witnesses for failure to properly disclose them. Furthermore, the court sanctioned the Reno attorneys $1,500 for failing to admit the truth of basic facts about the case, such as whether the Plaintiffs has water on their property at any time during 2017. This ruling will be brought before the Reno City Council to determine whether the City will appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. If the City appeals and loses it will likely be liable for additional costs and attorney’s fees. Councilmember Brekhus has already expressed her opinion that the city should settle with the plaintiffs.

This ruling is only part of the story. There are still 27 plaintiffs remaining in Federal Court cases besides the three referred to above. The three state court plaintiffs were part of a class-action suit that had been “decertified” by the Nevada district court. Since the initial trial, the federal requirements had changed so that the remaining Swan-Lake flooding victims can now file their cases directly in Federal Court. The federal case is bolstered by Reno’s loss in state court.


Trial Posts

ThisIsReno article

Ruling document

Daybreak Appeals Approvals 1/27/2021

In a move addressing a quirk in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), the developers (Newport Pacific Land Co. [NPLC] and Sunny Ranchos) of the Daybreak properties have appealed two Reno Planning Commission decisions that went in their favor. These two items were on the agenda for the Reno City Council; items I.1 and I.2. This seemingly-illogical tactic was taken so that the developers could petition for judicial review in case the City Council reversed the decision of the Planning Commission to approve. The NRS 278.3195.4 states that a plaintiff can only petition for judicial review if the plaintiff appeals both the Planning Commission decision and the City Council decision. There is no allowance for the case where the Planning Commission decision favors the plaintiff, but that favorable decision is then overturned by the City Council. This illogical construction in the NRS has been confirmed in a recent court decision (Prado Ranch North, 2019). The City Council can affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the development (see staff reports below). Presumably, the developers (appellants) would want the city to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to approve.

The first appeal was from the Sunny Ranchos developer. Their tentative map approved by the Planning Commission was for building 124 homes on 47 acres. The Sunny Ranchos developer requested to withdraw their appeal.

The second appeal was from the Newport Pacific Land Co. regarding their tentative map for 205 homes on 97 acres. The NPLC representative requested to continue (postpone) consideration of their appeal until the City Council meeting on 2/24/21. The City Council approved the request to continue the consideration until the meeting on 2/24/21.

Wolgast and a neighbor contacted their representative, State Assemblywoman Lisa Krasner, in June 2020 to enlist her support to change the problematic NRS statute in June of 2020. This would be in the form of a Bill Draft Request (BDR) requesting a minimal change in the NRS wording. Initially receptive, representative Krasner then emphatically declined to promote the change. Wolgast went on to contact Assemblywoman Sarah Peters who said that she was giving pandemic-related issues priority and would not advance this BDR. So, if you want to have standing to petition for judicial review following an unreasonable decision by the City Council or the County Commission, you must appeal a decision by the Planning Commission even if it is in your favor.


NRS Fails Homeowners 2/21/19

Reno Staff Report LDC-21-00009

Reno Staff Report LDC-21-00010

Mortensen Ranch Development Continued

The Reno City Council decided to postpone (continue) consideration of the Mortensen Ranch development until March 10, 2021. The Mortensen Ranch development had been denied by the Reno Planning Commission 12/18/19 and then the developer’s appeal was denied 1/22/20.

The developer requested a judicial review of the denial of their appeal (below). This was heard by Judge Kathleen Drakulich (the aunt of “JD” Drakulich, an area developer and a city council candidate). She ordered that the city reconsider the development based on the specific requirements of the Mortensen-Garson Overlay District (MGOD) that defines the zoning for this area. Her ruling indicates that more general concerns should not be considered in the city’s decision.

The developer marked-up their tentative map (below) to include the following changes.

  • Reducing the total number of planned homes from 676 to 632 units.
  • This included the removal of all 26 sites that were on the eastern ridgeline.
  • Reconfiguration of the 23 lots on the southern ridgeline.
  • The addition of an emergency access road to the northeast.

Not adequately addressed even with the changes are the following.

  • The ridgelines are still not adequately protected as specified in the MGOD. This is especially true of the northern ridge.
  • The required wildlife corridors have not been planned or reviewed by NDOW.
  • The MGOD specifies where development can occur and which areas are required to be left as open space. The latest plan still has 200 homes planned in the area specified as open space.
  • There is no plan to improve the traffic regarding freeway access which is already a problem.

The city clerk received 44 letters in opposition and 22 letters of concern. Voicemails were received in addition which were not described.

Councilmember Reese moved that consideration should be continued until the March 10 city council meeting. He is not comfortable considering this project when Councilmember Jardon is not present since it is in her ward. Councilmember Brekhus is opposed to the continuance since it will likely cause overly long agendas for later meetings. She is also sensitive to developer complaints that the city is not responsive and does not consider development applications in a timely manner. Mayor Schieve noted that Councilmember Jardon has not met with this developer and that this is an important step in considering the project. The vote to continue was unanimous except for Councilmember Brekhus. City Attorney, Karl Hall, indicated that there is no deadline imposed by the court for the city to reconsider the development. The e-mails and voice-mail messages received will be presented at the later meeting.


Deadly Highway (NV 431)

This is a guest post by Thomas Daly, CSP.

In 2018 NDOT contracted with the traffic engineering consulting firm Kimberly/Horn to conduct a ‘Road Safety Assessment’ of Mt. Rose Highway.   Their 39-page report with appendices was issued in August 2018 with more than 50 ‘suggestions’ for road safety improvements.

ON December 5, 2018 NDOT made a presentation to area residents to discuss the study, see summary of issues at this link

While Mt. Rose Highway is a state road, and thus NDOT’s responsibility, virtually all of the intersecting roads and streets are COUNTY owned.  So, solutions to the increasing traffic, multiple fatality/injury accidents, pedestrian safety and property damage accidents are a dual responsibility.

So, of the 50 or so traffic safety improvements suggested, what number of those have been completed in the ensuing two years?  You guessed it…none.

But the carnage continues.  A three-fatality traffic accident occurred at Thomas Creek Road and Mt. Rose Highway on November 10, 2018.  Another two-vehicle accident resulting in two fatalities occurred last year at the intersection of Callahan Road and Mt. Rose Highway and another fatal accident occurred this year higher up on one of Mt. Rose Highway’s infamous hair-pin turns. 

Mt. Rose Highway should be re-named the ‘Highway of Death’. 

NDOT was requested on October 27, 2020 to brief the Washoe County Commission at an upcoming Commission meeting on this subject but no date for the briefing was specified, so do not look for it until next year. 

Traffic safety does not seem to be a priority of NDOT nor our County Commissioners.

Drive safely.

Thomas G. Daly is a Mt. Rose Highway corridor resident and a former Washoe County Planning Commissioner.

2020 Election Finance Update

The reports are in from the candidates for campaign contributions through October 15, 2020. Here is a summary of what Reno Councilmembers and Washoe County Commissioners are getting from development interests.

Reno Ward-1 City Council

  • Jenny Brekhus, incumbent: $10,050
  • J D Drakulich, challenger: $136,880

Reno Ward-3 City Council

  • Oscar Delgado, incumbent: $64,000
  • Rudy Leon, challenger: $0

Reno Ward-5 City Council

  • Neoma Jardon, incumbent: $75,299
  • Darla Fink, challenger: $0

Reno At-Large City Council

  • Devon Reese, incumbent: $95,450
  • Eddie Lorton, challenger: $12,960

Washoe County Commission, District-1

  • Marsha Berkbigler, incumbent: $24,500
  • Alexis Hill, challenger: $3,800

Washoe County Commission, District-4

  • Vaughan Hartung, incumbent: $20,475
  • Marie Baker, challenger: $0

Conclusions …

  • Developers really want to see Drakulich defeat Brekhus. They would much rather see a realtor representing Ward-1 rather than an urban planner who will oppose irresponsible development.
  • Developers have little love for the challengers. Other than Brekhus, the incumbents seem to be working for them just fine.
  • The incumbent county commissioners don’t think they need to mount vigorous campaigns.


Previous post: WRAP Election Edition 2020

Excel file with detailed campaign contribution data

WRAP Election Edition 2020

Updated 10/9/2020

Updated 10/6/2020

We have had to face the fact that many of our commissioners and council members are shameless. They are not persuaded by logical arguments. They cannot be pressured by public sentiment. They cannot be shamed by public exposure of their subservience to the developers. Most appear to accept their ethical demise. That leaves only two avenues to effect change: the courts and the ballot box. Residents get a chance to express themselves at the ballot box every two years. Residents should seize the opportunity.

The Nevada Independent has an excellent review of the candidates running for the Sparks City Council.

Who Is Running?

City of Reno


Jenny Brekhus (incumbent, non-partisan) …

  • Has a Masters of Public Administration and a Masters Regional Planning
  • Has served two terms on the city council
  • Served as Planning Director for Silver City, NM.
  • Does not have another job other than the city council

J.D. Drakulich (non-partisan) …

  • Large-scale area realtor.
  • Has never held elected office.


Oscar Delgado (incumbent, Democrat) …

  • Has experience as a community organizer
  • Has a Masters of Social Work and a Masters of Urban Planning
  • Has served two terms on the city council
  • Serves as CEO of the Community Health Alliance

Rudy Leon (Democrat) …

  • Served as a university administrator and a research librarian
  • Holds a PhD.
  • Has never held elected office.


Neoma Jardon (incumbent, Republican) …

  • Served as HR Manager for McDonald-Carano-Wilson law firm
  • Has served two terms on the city council.

Darla Fink (Democrat) …

  • Holds a Masters Degree in Public Administration.
  • Was director of finance and administration for the Sierra Nevada Job Corps.
  • Has never held elected office.

At Large

Devon Reese (incumbent, Democrat) …

  • Has completed a partial term: he was appointed to fill Bobzien’s seat.
  • Ran for the Nevada State Senate in 2016 unsuccessfully.
  • He is a lawyer with experience in union-related suits.

Eddie Lorton (Republican) …

  • Ran for mayor in 2014 and 2018.
  • Local businessman
  • Opposes development with inadequate infrastructure
  • Has never held elected office

Candidate op-ed pieces in the Reno Gazette Journal … (Delgado & Leon not available on 10/6)

Brekhus / Drakulich / Fink / Jardon / Lorton / Reese

Reno Gazette Journal interviews between Delgado and Leon

Washoe County


Marsha Berkbigler (incumbent, Republican) …

  • Had a career as a lobbyist and a realtor.
  • She is seeking a third term on the county commission.
  • Has been a booster of EDAWN’s efforts to increase area growth.

Alexis Hill (Democrat) …

  • Has a Masters in Public Administration
  • Has experience working with area foundations (Sierra Arts, EDAWN, and Truckee Meadows Tomorrow)


Vaughn Hartung (incumbent, Republican) …

  • He is seeking his third term.
  • Photographer

Marie Baker (Democrat) …

  • Has her own independent insurance business.
  • Has never held elected office.

Campaign contributions recorded 1/1/2020 – 7/15/2020

Note: this does not include contributions after July 15 which are likely to be substantial. The new contribution totals will be reported October 15. The new totals will be posted on WRAP as soon as possible.

WRAP Picks … (Steve Wolgast)

Reno, Ward-1, Jenny Brekhus

Brekhus has proven herself to be smart, honest, and fiscally responsible. She opposes reckless development that will cause excessive traffic, flood risk, or school overcrowding. She opposes bond initiatives that are not well founded or responsibly written. Drakulich is a realtor seeking to join a council that is already overly favorable toward development.

Reno, Ward-2, Rudy Leon

Leon is a newcomer and has run a weak campaign against a popular incumbent. She is smart and ethical and has taken a stand against building in floodplains. Delgado has proven himself a shill of the developers with his approval of the Daybreak development. This development presents serious public safety risks of flooding, Mercury contamination, and traffic. He knows the hazards but voted to approve the project anyway.

Reno, Ward-5, Darla Fink

Fink is a newcomer, but an experienced professional with a Masters in Public Administration. She is concerned about the effects of growth on existing neighborhoods. She is also concerned about Reno’s budget and fiscal discipline. In contrast, Jardon is the candidate of the developers and is a consistent promoter of their interests. This is reflected in the campaign contributions she receives from them.

Reno, At Large, Eddie Lorton

A long-time Reno resident, Eddie has a grasp on the issues facing residents. He is opposed to the city’s approval of development that does not have the infrastructure in place to support it. Developers should pay for the infrastructure needed for their developments. Devon Reese is new to the council, but has been unwavering in his support of developers. They have responded with record campaign contributions. He has indignantly defended his ethical position, but it’s a logical to conclude that his votes and their contributions are related.

Washoe County, District-1, Alexis Hill

Hill is smart and dynamic. She is concerned about water availability, homelessness, sustainable growth, and government accountability. Berkbigler has strong ties with area realtors and developers and is a consistent vote for developers. A voter is left with the impression that she thinks that all growth is progress.

Washoe County, District-4, Marie Baker

Marie Baker provides us with little information other than that she is a native Nevadan. This is an opportunity to vote against Hartung who has proven himself a steadfast supporter of developers. Hartung will ask incisive, pointed questions during commission meetings only to vote with the developer when the answers are unsatisfactory. It is a form of theater.

Related links in WRAP:

Reno approves Daybreak

Daybreak Payday

Coffee with Devon Reese

Meeting the County Commissioners (2017):

Be sure to get your vote in early. Nevada has safe, secure, and convenient voting opportunities.

Lakeridge Tennis Club Developments

The following is a guest blog submitted by Jim Christoff.

The owner of the Lakeridge Tennis Club decided to sell the property in 2019 to an LLC that included Reno Land working with Wood Rogers. The developer held public meetings regarding their plans and indicated that some of the recreational facilities would be retained on roughly half the property. Club members and neighbors were reassured that the development would be on a suitable scale. Reno Land went on to apply for a zoning change from “Specific Plan District” to “Community Commercial” for greater flexibility. The Reno City Council approved the zoning change on 9/23/19 (minutes see C1). The developer then submitted dramatically different plans including complete demolition of the existing facility and the construction of 350 apartments. This plan was approved by the Reno Planning Department.
Nine individuals appealed the decision of the Planning Department and their appeals were heard by a Hearing Examiner appointed by the city. Many of those appeals claimed that the plans did not meet Reno’s municipal code. The Examiner agreed with the appellants. The developer then appealed to the Reno City Council to overturn the decision of the Examiner and allow the project to proceed. The appeal to City Council was on its agenda for August 26, 2020, and all sides were prepared to argue their cases in front of Council. Hundreds of letters, emails and voicemails were sent to the city in advance from citizens opposed to the project. However, less than 5 hours before the meeting, the developer withdrew their plans and as a result the developer’s appeal was not heard. The developer may have concluded that they would get a more favorable hearing after the November elections.
Appellants claimed that the developer acted in bad faith relative to the neighbors and Club members by using ‘bait and switch’ tactics. As stated by the Hearing Examiner, “Reno Land representatives were clear and almost unequivocal: Reno Land intended to keep key parts of the Club and build apartments on a smaller scale than what has been presented in the SPR before us now.” Over 200 neighbors and Club members had attended the public meetings to see the developer’s plans. This now appears to have been a ruse by the developer in order to induce citizens to accept a change in zoning instead of contesting it during the subsequent Council meeting.
The later plan would put 350 apartments in eight 4-story buildings on the 9.3 acre site. The developer went on to claim that the 350 apartments would generate less traffic than visitors to the Club, estimated by the former general manager to be 100 to 150 visitors daily. This appears absurd. In addition, the development provided only 392 parking spaces for 350 apartments, forcing any additional vehicles to park on adjacent streets.
Lakeridge Tennis Club was once northern Nevada’s largest multipurpose facility, offering year-round indoor and outdoor tennis and swimming as well as a fitness center, aerobics studio, basketball, racquetball, squash, Zumba and pilates. The Club had a dining room open to the public with indoor and outdoor seating offering views of tennis games in progress. It was home to the Lakeridge Swim Team, which trained many future athletes who ultimately became members of the US Olympic Swim Team. Membership was open to anyone and the Club was considered a quasi-public facility because it served the fitness and recreational needs of citizens as well as providing financial assistance and scholarships to those in need.
Once the elections are over, the council members may be less sensitive to the interests of their constituents. At that point the developer may re-submit the plan and pursue the appeal. Stay tuned!

Recent articles …

RGJ “Lakeridge Tennis Club Closing Permanently”

RGJ: Lakeridge Plan Change Approved

RGJ: Reno Land Changes Lakeridge Development Plans

Additional reference …

Weiss appeal

Reno Swamp #3: Daybreak Payday

The Daybreak project faced strong opposition from residents.  It brings an increased hazard of flooding, a potential for widespread Mercury contamination, and gridlock-traffic.  Residents presented detailed arguments with maps and analysis at each step.  See the Daybreak history page for details and links.

  • 7/19/18 The project is approved by the Reno Planning Commission.
  •  9/11/18 The city council first postponed (continued) a decision.
  • 11/28/18 The city council voted to deny the project.
  • 2/16/19 The developer sues the city.
  • 3/5/19 The developer submits the project in pieces to the Neighborhood Advisory Board.
  • 8/26/19 The developer’s suit is settled placing restrictions on Reno.
  • 9/23/19 The city council voted to approve the project after the developer went to court and got a judgement limiting the city’s options.  It did not oblige the city to approve it.
  • 10/23/19 The project approval is challenged at its second reading.
  • The project was approved by the regional planning authority (TMRPA).
  • 6/11/20 Residents then appealed the decision of the planning authority to the regional governing board.  The board voted to approve the project.

It was a long haul.  For the officials who supported the project, it was a source of public embarrassment.  They supported a terrible project that clearly presented a threat to public safety.  It looks like they got compensation for their … uh, service.  See what they got from the Daybreak developer and related interests in the last quarter.


    • $10k from Newport Pacific Land (Daybreak) ,
    • $10k Lyon Management Group (Newport Beach builder)
    • $5500 from AGC (local contractors)
    • $5k from Reno Land LLC [not Daybreak]

Nevada Secretary of State report


    • $10k from Newport Pacific Land (Daybreak) ,
    • $10k Lyon Management Group (Newport Beach builder)
    • $5k from Reno Land LLC  [not Daybreak]

Nevada Secretary of State report


    • $10k from Newport Pacific Land (Daybreak)
    • $10k from NPC Investors (Newport Beach)
    • $4.5k from Wood Rogers (Daybreak Planning)
    • $10k from Lyon Management Group (Newport Beach builder)
    • $5k from AGC PAC

Nevada Secretary of State report

Apparently, there were no Daybreak contributions to Mayor Schieve who voted for the project at one point and against it later.  Schieve voted for a continuance which is what the developer requested, not for the project itself.  There were no contributions to council member Weber who is the most outspoken supporter of all development.  Neither of them are up for election this year.  We may see a contribution from Daybreak for the next election.

Prostitution is legal in Lyon County.  It looks like prostitution by officials is thriving in Reno.

It might be time for a RICO (Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) investigation of the Reno City Council.

The “Shameless” post seems to represent the character of these officials.