The Western Regional Water Commission (WRWC)is considering new approaches to address wastewater handling for the North Valleys.  One proposal on their agenda is to redirect some or all of the RSWRF (Stead sewer plant) discharge to Long Valley Creek in Lockwood east of Sparks north of Peavine Mountain in California (item 8).  The proposal is to budget $75,000 to study the proposal.  It is not explicit whether this would be to divert some of the current discharge, or only the additional discharge related to expansion.  With the RSWRF expansion plans denied by the Reno Planning Commission, it is not clear if this will still be seriously considered.

The WRWC will also consider budgeting $100,000 to re-map the current designated flood zones in Lemmon Valley (item 9).

Meeting details: 

Thursday, May 23, 9:00 AM, Sparks Council Chambers, 745 Fourth St., Sparks

The plan to expand the wastewater treatment plant capacity at Stead (RSWRF) was denied unanimously by the Reno Planning Commission last night.  This was a great meeting with incisive questions, informative answers, and insightful discussion.

The proposal is to expand the capacity of the plant from 2.0 million gallons per day to 4.0 million gallons per day.  As it is, the treated wastewater flows into Swan Lake.  There is no alternate routing of the waste water as part of this proposal (Proposed_Stead-Plant_Expansion_051519)

Residents expressed the following concerns.

• The water level in Swan Lake is still rising.
• There is only one foot of freeboard (height not submerged) on the Hesco barriers.
• The contribution of effluent to the level of Swan Lake is significant.
• The number of evaporative ponds has been decreased: these are full.
• Stantec did the hydrology report for the Prado development as well as for the new treatment plant.  It looks questionable.
• Closing the Lemmon Valley wastewater plant was considered in 2006, but never implemented.  The residents lack confidence in official commitments.
• There are 17,000 new homes planned for the area.  The infrastructure should have been in place before these plans were approved.
• Can the Stead plant be upgraded to treating water to an A+ standard so that it can be discharged anywhere?  Can this be part of the plant capacity increase?
• Why not get a new permit at a reduced level that matches the current effluent flows?
• The original plant was built in 2006.  The expansion should include improvements to incorporate current technology.
• The Stead plant has exceeded its permitted effluent flows twice in recent months.
• FEMA prohibits new development approval in flooded areas until the flooding is mitigated.
• The Planning Commission is responsible for approving the developments that have resulted in the flooding.

Irene Tudor, a member of the Ward-4 NAB made the following points.

• Water inflow and outflow is not balanced for Swan Lake.
• The waste water operating plan was developed in 2013.  The situation is very different now.

Joe Coudriet, Reno Public Works Department, gave a presentation prepared by Stantec.  This included an informative map of planned development in the area.

(Presentation to the Commission – LDC19-00060 (Reno-Stead Water Reclamation Facility) (1))

His points.

• Given the number of development plans in the North Valleys, the time to plan to expand the treatment plant is now.
• There is consideration that the Lemmon Valley treatment plant might be decommissioned with the wastewater being redirected to the Stead Plant.
• The plant expansion will not increase effluent flow to Swan Lake: they are still limited by their current permit (2.35 mgd).
• It is most cost effective to double the capacity of the plant rather than to increase the capacity incrementally.
• Plan to “shave” (redirect) 0.5 mgd of untreated sewage directly from the Stead plant to the TMWRF plant (Truckee Meadows Wastewater Reclaimation Facility).  This flow would not end up in Swan Lake.  They plan to move forward with this scheme, but it may not be in operation till early 2022.  The line to TMWRF is nearly complete.  This will not be used to reduce the existing flow into Swan Lake, but rather to allow the Stead plant to handle more than their current permit.

Commissioner discussion:

• Why not start diverting the 0.5 mgd now to reduce the discharge into Swan Lake rather than diverting later to support additional development?  Answer: such a reduction would upset the operation of the plant.
• Why not use the pipeline to divert treated effluent so that it does not contribute to the level of Swan Lake?   Answer: this would be possible.  It’s less efficient since the treated effluent would be treated a second time.
• Why is the diverting pipe so small that it can only handle a fraction of the flow?  Answer: the pipe was existing.  It wasn’t built just for this purpose.  The capacity could be more than 0.5 mgd with limited improvements.
• If the Stead plant has exceeded its permit capacity before, what gives us confidence that increased plant capacity won’t mean regularly exceeding the discharge permit?  Answer: the plant has only exceeded it’s permit on two occasions (one in 2017) when there was high precipitation.
• Why expand the Stead plant at all when we don’t want the effluent in that basin?  Why not direct all the sewage to TMWRF for treatment?  Answer: TMWRF has limited extra capacity.  With future development, we may need 6-8 mgd capacity in the North Valleys.  TMWRF does not have 4 mgd extra capacity, but they could handle 2 mgd more if improvements in the connecting line were made.
• Why don’t we have wastewater treatment capacities that match our growth plans under the new Reno Master Plan?  Answer: this facility plan has been in the Master Plan for 10 years.  We are looking into alternatives.  We understand there is an issue of trust with the public.  We will not increase our wastewater flows above the permitted amount until there is a comprehensive plan in place.
• If we’re importing water into the basin to support development, where does the water go?  Answer: about half of it goes to a treatment plant.  The rest is consumed.
• With the improvements to the Stead plant, could we plan to decommission the Lemmon Valley plant?  Answer: Yes, with some modifications.  This will depend on the Reno City Council’s decision.  Extra storage capacity will make it possible to dispose of more water for re-use (golf courses, dust suppression, etc.) which will reduce the flow into Swan Lake.
• What would it take to improve the discharge water to Class-A+?  Answer: we presently discharge water to the Class-A standard for re-use customers and also to the creek.  It is a higher grade of water than is discharged by TMWRF which is Class-B.  Class-A meets state standards and is considered safe.  Class-A+ is advanced treatment that would be suitable for aquifer recharge.  It is very expensive and the treatment from Class-A to Class-A+ would likely be handled by the water authority (TMWA).
• Are you planning for some of the big developments being proposed in the North Valleys?  Answer: yes; one mgd capacity will support about 4,500 homes.  The increase to 4 mgd will provide capacity for many new homes.  Some of the large developments being proposed are outside of the Stead-plant service area.

Commissioner discussion

• Commissioner Marshall was not comfortable approving the plant expansion absent a credible plan to address increasing discharge to Swan Lake.  He doesn’t see this expansion as consistent with the Reno Master Plan.
• Commissioner Weiske wants to see a discharge plan in place before the plant is expanded.
• Commissioner Olivas says that sometimes we “bet on the come”, but there are two many holes and unanswered questions in this project.  The flooding shows that the older plan was faulty and having a permit to increase the discharge does not mean that it’s wise to do so with our current information.
• Commissioner Gower agrees with Commissioners Marshall and Weiske about conformance with the Reno Master Plan.  He wants to take a step back and be more thorough with the overall strategy before moving forward with a piece of it.
• Commissioner Johnson struggles with the infrastructure issue because this will allow for additional discharge and for additional water to be delivered to the North Valleys.

My impressions …

1. It looks like closing the Lemmon Valley wastewater plant is not controversial.
2. A substantial part of the Stead wastewater could be directed to the TMWRF facility.
3. The Lemmon Valley residents are raising substantial and profound questions.
4. The Planning Commissioners are really applying themselves to get to the truth.

The Senate Bill 327 will allow developers to get easier approval for massive developments (like Stonegate or Daybreak) with less public review.  It is written by Ben Kiekhefer on behalf of his employer who works for developers.  It passed the Nevada Senate by a wide margin.  It is now before the Government Affairs Committee in the Assembly which does not seem to take much interest in it.  They may review it as early as Thursday 5/16 (agenda).

Note: the bill has been substantially edited from the original version, but the effect and intent are unchanged.

Please send one or more members on the Government Affairs Committee a brief message telling them to oppose this terrible gift to developers.  Developments built under these rules could detract from the appeal of the Truckee Meadows for generations.

List of Committee Members … click the name for a contact form.

If you have time, come to the hearing.  It will be in Room 3143 in the Legislative Building in Carson City starting at 9:30 AM.  The committee is considering a number of bills.  There is no guarantee that this bill will be covered on 5/16.

Friends, Supporters, Concerned Citizens,

Please join like-minded neighbors for an update on development issues around the county and an opportunity to meet other supporters of responsible development.  Have a glass of wine or other beverage from the cash bar.

Agenda 

4:00 PM Open the room.  Get a drink and a seat.

4:15 PM Start program:

• Introduce a planning commissioner or two.  They can discuss issues of concern to them and answer some questions.
• Describe issues from Pleasant Valley, Damonte Ranch, Galena, Verdi, and Lemmon Valley.
• Introduce neighbors from the various parts of the county and have them describe their efforts and results.

5:15 PM Get acquainted with neighbors and principals.  Inquire about what tactics seemed to work to blunt destructive development.

6:00 PM Leave the room

The Tamarack Casino is located at 13101 South Virginia St. just north of the Summit Mall.  The Casino was kind enough to provide the meeting room free of charge.

I attended the Assembly hearing yesterday morning to review SB327, the bill that will allow expedited land development.

I made the following observations:
1)  Alex Assefa, Democrat from Clark County made pronounced commentary on whether this bill addresses the real issue of affordable housing in NV.  The gentleman member seated to his left (I wasn’t able to identify) made a point about the need for “starter homes” and Mr. Assefa pressed that starter homes and affordable housing are two VERY different types of housing.  One is based on an upwardly mobile family unit, and the other must serve the working class with very limited upward financial opportunity.   Mr. Assefa is rightly concerned that this bill does NOT address the need for affordable housing.
2) Gregory Hafen a Republican from Nye county stated that he works as a developer and sees a “need for this bill”.  What he SHOULD have done is immediately recuse himself because he stands to benefit financially if this bill should pass.
3) John Ellison, a Republican from Elko county stated that “fast is always better” in response to Aaron West’s comment that developers “lose $5,000/per lot per year” as a result of the current tentative map approval process, and that the purpose of SB327 is to get product to market faster.
Am I the ONLY one who sees what is happening here?   The product that is really needed is AFFORDABLE HOUSING and the proponents who spoke in favor, Aaron West (NV Builders Alliance) and Angela Fuss (Head Planner for Lumos Assoc., engineers and planners working exclusively for developers) will financially benefit from passage of this bill. as will at least one of the Assembly members, Mr. Hafen and the sponsor, Senator Kiekhefer, who’s law firm McDonald Carano represents the Stonegate developer.  It is apparent that he is sponsoring a bill specifically to favor developers as clients.
The hearing was a farce and did nothing to elucidate ANY altruistic need for this outrageously corrupt bill.   Affordable housing?   Really?

The hearing on this bill lasted only 45 minutes.   Only one person spoke in favor of the bill: Ms. Melinda Smith, representing the Builders Association of Nevada.  Surprised? Not.

Three people spoke against the bill, all offering very salient points as to why this bill is not only totally unnecessary, but only benefits developers at the expense of existing residents and environmental concerns:

Mr. Patrick Donnelly, representing the Center for Biological Diversity, linked this bill to the increasing threat of urban sprawl and poor environmental planning.  He also linked this bill to those who are working on the Lands Bill.

Ms. Maxine Meeks, a former Carson City Planning Commissioner, spoke against this bill, stating that the public review process is “the heart and soul” of the PUD and that this bill effectively prevents citizen participation.

Mr. Mike Lawson, Washoe County Planning Commissioner for District 2 made the following comments:

The current process under NRS 278 is for a development to be completely designed so that individual residential lots and many details are defined. This requirement ensures the design can be reviewed for tentative map approval. Engineering reports need to be submitted to show that there is traffic capacity, water availability, sewer treatment capacity, and flood control before the development can be approved by the planning commission at the tentative-map step in the only step that gets public review and input. Under SB327, the primary developer can submit a plan for a Planned Unit Development (zoning exception) and tentative map including superpads which have no design details. The primary developer could sell the superpads to commercial builders who would complete the detailed design for these large tracts. This creates several issues including but not limited to the following:

• Under SB327, the development is never reviewed in its entirety. Neither the planning commission nor the public gets to consider the finished product.
• If the primary builder grades the entire project but the superpads don’t sell, we have a mammoth scar on the landscape for the indefinite future with erosion and other hazards.
• SB327 is written so that the primary developer may include estimates of water, traffic, sewer, emergency services, and other impacts the development will produce.
• SB327 would not require the primary developer to submit his plan incorporating superpads to the planning commission for review. The City or County could designate a manager or other professional to review the plan with no public review.
• • SB327 would not require the secondary developers to submit any engineering reports regarding the tract plans. So, no one is responsible for the engineering analysis of the finished design.
• SB327 would require cities or counties to designate a single person to review and approve the secondary developers’ tract plans. These plans would not go before the planning commission. The city council or county commission would never vote on these plans. There would be no public review.
• SB327 would only allow the city or county 30 days to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove a tract plan (SB327 13.1). This is not enough time to seek public input or to get questions answered.
• SB327 would only allow regional agencies 15 days to respond to a secondary developer’s tract plan.

As of the morning of May 7, 2019 the NELIS website showed 96 comments in opposition to SB 327 and zero in favor. It is apparent that this Bill would serve the few at a cost to the many.

The Legislators would be wise to show us who REALLY profits or do not pass this bill!

OK.  It’s not “simple addition” to figure out the flooding contribution of waste water on the level of Swan Lake.  It’s about as hard as figuring out how much to tip your server.

The Reno Stead Waste Water Plant flows 2.5 million gallons of treated effluent per day to Swan Lake. (Smith)

The Lemmon Valley Waste Water Plant flows 0.22 million gallons of treated effluent per day to Swan Lake. (Smith)

Combined, they flow 2.72 million gallons of treated effluent per day to Swan Lake.

One acre foot is 325,861 gallons.

So, 2.72 million gallons per day is 8.34 acre-feet per day.

Multiply by 365 to get 3,046 acre-feet per year.

The area of Swan Lake is 1,600 acres. (Smith)

Divide 3,046 acre-feet by 1,600 acres.  The result is 1.90 feet per year.

ANSWER: Waste water discharge into Swan Lake raises the level 1.90 feet per year.  

Conclusions

• The effluent discharge into Swan Lake is a significant factor in the lake level.
• It looks like the 2.5 feet of evaporation loss comes from measurements, so this is net of the 1.90 feet of effluent contribution.  Thus the total loss to evaporation is 2.5 + 1.90 = 4.4 feet.  If the effluent were shut off, the lake might fall 4.4 feet during a year due to evaporation.
• If the Reno Stead Waste Water Plant flow increased to 4.0 million gallons per day and the Lemmon Valley Waste Water Plant flow increased to 0.3 million gallons per day, the total would add 3.0 feet to the level of the lake every year.  In this case, the lake level would only lose 1.4 feet per year from evaporation (net).

It looks like the neighbors who assert that the flooding is substantially due to effluent from development are right.

…..

PS  Check out the “In The Media” page to see what is going on in the news and opinion columns relating to development.  This page is updated frequently.

At 8:30 AM in the county chambers, the seats were mostly full for the start of the joint Reno City Council/Washoe County Commission Meeting.  The stated intent was for the city and county to work together in the meeting and give their respective staffs direction to work on solutions for the Lemmon Valley flooding.  All officials were present.  Council member Reese was on the phone and Mayor Schieve left early.

Public Comment lasted 90 minutes.

• Tammy Holt-Still spoke flanked by four neighbors holding signs protesting the development and the flooding.
• Nearly every speaker promoted the idea of a moratorium.
• Many asserted that more development couldn’t fix a problem caused by development.
• Many were displeased with the morning meeting time.  An evening meeting would have made it possible for more neighbors to attend.
• A few residents complained that they can’t sell their homes due to the flooding.
• Ray Lake of the North Valleys Citizens’ Advisory Board spoke of passive recharge and made the point that there are 17,000 more dwellings in the build plan for the area.
• Council member Brekhus left the dais to make a public comment at the lectern.  She has written a resolution imposing a one-year moratorium (Lemmon Valley draft moratorium res).  The city, county and community would need to work together during the moratorium period.  She thinks a pause in all construction is imperative at this point.

Dave Solaro (Assistant County Manager) opened a presentation about the storms and flooding.  Precipitation in 2018 was normal, but in 2019 it was above normal.  Flansberg (?) gave a presentation about flood control efforts in nearby Silver Lake.  He was followed by Dwayne Smith.  Here are a couple of points from the presentation.

• Silver Lake needed many of the same emergency measures as Swan Lake with Hesco barriers, pumps, and new berms.
• The presentation includes a map which shows the expected flooding without the emergency barriers now in place.  It is sobering.
• The presentation included current efforts, short term plans, and possible long-term plans.
• Their intermediate efforts include improving the performance of the Hesco barriers and the berms and also changing the lane stripes on Lemmon Drive.
• The long term plan proposed by the planning department is to increase evaporation by pumping some water onto vacant land (Prado North was suggested), to increase infiltration by planting a crop that is water intensive, and to start assisted evaporation (spraying into the air).
• The Lemmon Valley waste-water plant would get improved berms, seepage pumping and water-quality testing.
• Swan Lake rose 10′ in the 2017 season and then lost about 2.5′ to evaporation in the summer.  It rose only 1′ in the 2018 season and then lost about 2.5′ to evaporation later in the year.  The 2019 season had higher rain and even worse flooding.

Andy Gebhart (TMWA) indicated that there are five good wells operating in Lemmon Valley.  There are others (2?) that are submerged and can’t be operated.  He said that there are three sources for water to supply Lemmon Valley residents and that they should be confident that water will be available.

Doug Maloy (RTC) spoke of their plan to raise and widen Lemmon Valley Drive.  The board will consider doing preliminary design work in May using consultants.  The raised section would be from Fleetwood to either Chickadee or Ramsey.

The discussion came back to the dais with each official allowed 3 minutes.

• Jardon asked how much the effluent water contributes to the water level.  She also asked if the city or county could avail themselves of emergency federal funding.
• Herman supported the idea of a moratorium.
• Brekhus asserted that a moratorium would be pro-development.  Every water supply and sewer hookup should be stopped immediately.  A moratorium proposal should be on the agenda for both the city council and the county commission.
• Berkbigler wants to see a better barrier for the flooded part of the Lemmon Valley School playground.  She’d asked if the lake could be dredged and then used for recreation.
• Delgado asked if area development can proceed while they are still working to address the flooding.  He was told it could proceed in limited ways.
• Duerr asked about using funds from a Flood initiative (AB54?).
• Lucey wanted cost information about maintaining the Hesco barriers and the pumps.  He does not support a moratorium.
• Weber wants to see community meetings.  She asked about the availability of flood insurance.
• Jung wants future meetings in the evenings for the convenience of residents.  She asked about using waste water for flood control.
• Reese asked about where the financing would come from.  He was told that the county would submit a FEMA proposal in November.
• Hartung asked if the water could be used to grow alfalfa to consume water.

Vaughan offered a second round of discussion with a 2-minute limit.

• Jardon wants Washoe County to pursue federal funding.  The county is making little progress in this regard.  She feels that the developers need to be included in the meetings.
• Herman thinks we should have a winter crop to consume the water since the precipitation is in the winter.
• Brekhus wants to see public cost accounting of expenditures.  The costs will need to be borne regionally.  There need to be interlocal agreements to define combined efforts.  The Lemmon Valley waste water plant flow should not be re-directed to the Stead plant: its capacity is allocated.
• Duerr asked about the status of the DRI core study investigating the causes of the flooding.  It is due September 2019.  She suggests diverting some of the untreated sewage from the Lemmon Valley waste water plant to TMWRF (Washoe County).
• Jardon wants to finish the studies and start work.
• Jung wants to see the county reimbursed for emergency expenditures already made (FEMA).

The following comments were made during closing public comment.

• The Prado North property is already under water: there is no opportunity to increase evaporation by pumping water there.
• Alfalfa won’t grow in mud bogs.
• The water needs to be diverted before it reaches Swan Lake.
• The storms aren’t the problem, the development is.

In closing …

• Jung wants a precipitation chart for Lemmon Valley historically year by year since 1984.  She also wants a chart of waste water volume for the same period.
• Herman said she would request an agenda item for the county to consider a moratorium.
• Jardon wants to have another joint meeting including developers.
• Brekhus will put a moratorium on the city’s agenda.  She does not think another joint meeting is important.  She wants to move forward with concrete plans.  We need to keep an eye on costs since there are many worthy demands for public funds.
• Jardon proposed a website to describe the Reno and Washoe County efforts to address the flooding.  A motion to create a website passed unanimously.

Hartung claimed that the county was ‘suited to action’ and was pleased by the progress made in the meeting.  This was puzzling since no directions were given to the city or county staffs to move forward with any plans.  The commissioners had requested a lot of information from staff.  The meeting was adjourned shortly after 1:00 PM.

Local Government principals

Reno City Council: Hillary Schieve (Mayor), Naomi Duerr (Vice Mayor), Jenny Brekhus, Oscar Delgado, Neoma Jardon, Bonnie Weber, Devon Reese

Washoe County Commission: Jeanne Herman, Marsha Berkbigler, Vaughan Hartung, Bob Lucey, Kitty Jung

TV Coverage

KTVN-2

KOLO-8

NEWS-4

Over 100 residents were present in the North Valleys High School cafeteria for a meeting in preparation for a joint meeting of the City of Reno and Washoe County on April 29.  The joint meeting has the sole purpose to consider plans to address the flooding in Lemmon Valley.  Both the city and the county have approved development that has contributed to the flooding.  To date, the two governments have not worked together on the problem and their efforts have been unsatisfactory.

Roger Doyle described the state of residents’ class-action lawsuit (Filed Complaint) against the City of Reno for their part in causing the flooding.  He made the following points.

1. The case will go before a judge on June 10. The research and investigation are done.  The facts are established.  It is time that the legal arguments are being presented to the court.  Can the argument prove that the city is culpable?
2. Doyle looked for feedback from the community on how they wanted the case to proceed. There are 55 homeowners in the class-action lawsuit, and he wanted some idea of their priorities.
3. The criterion of joining the suit was that there was flooding on the homeowner’s property. Residents would be sorted into groups based on the damage caused by the flooding.  The class was closed at the end of May 2017.  Residents should keep their receipts for flood related damage and expenses.
4. The outcome could be a financial disbursement or a buyout. If it’s a buyout, it would be based on the property values before the flooding in 2017.  Legally, a buyout must reflect the Fair Market Value at the time of the flooding.  It’s unknown if appreciation for the last two years would be considered.
5. Whatever the outcome, “It won’t be enough”. Residents who leave will likely not find similar large-lot properties within 10 miles of Reno.  The county can take the homes by eminent domain as an alternate to a buyout.  The result will be the same to residents in that the compensation will need to reflect the FMV before the flooding.  In this case of inclusion in the County/FEMA program, FEMA would require that the properties taken not have any development in the future.
6. Doyle exhorted the residents to advocate publicly for their case. Political pressure is key.  The residents need to make their voices heard to get a fair outcome.  He suggested they write Commissioner Herman (their commissioner) and the members of the city council.  He is already seeing a shift of opinions on the county commission.  If the residents don’t stand up, the City and the County will pick the cheapest option.
7. Doyle reminded residents “This is Nevada: Water, flat land, and money are in short supply.”
8. The table of options (BCC 04-09-19 – Lemmon Valley Matrix) presented by County Assistant Manager (Dave Solaro) to the county commission did not have nearly enough information to make a sound decision.
9. The suit does not address recent efforts that Reno has made to address the flooding. It does not specifically address the hazard presented by the contaminated water.  Any contaminated water during the flooding events is a factor in whether the flooding damaged properties.
10. It’s a big suit with thousands of pages of documents, many depositions, and a lot of research.  Doyle described a settlement as a “free roll” for the City in that a settlement wouldn’t come out of their budget (FEMA?).
11. There is no flooding above the 4925’ elevation. This leaves 150 homes at lower elevations.  Washoe County offered to buy out some of the 25 homes that are within 100 yards of the shore.
12. The residents, the City, and the property owners, need to come to come together on a solution. Declining to negotiate seriously and settle would mean going to trial which would be risky and exotically expensive.
13. Consideration of a moratorium on new development and construction is not part of the suit. People will need to accept that development will happen.  The development needs to be reasonable and responsible.  Residents are mostly happy to have Walmart and Smiths nearby for shopping.
14. What if the case is settled, and there is new, increased flooding? Given that neither the city nor the county is ready to halt development, this is a real possibility.  This would be a new suit.

Aside: Doyle suggested residents see John Oliver’s piece on FEMA flood insurance.  Viewers may not like the humor, but the piece is informative (19 minutes).

Tammy Holt-Still took over the agenda once Doyle was finished.

• The Prado North petition for judicial review was denied on April 9 on the grounds that she lacked standing. This was due to an inconsistency in the NRS that states that the petitioner must petition both the Planning Commission decision and the County Commission decision even when the Planning Commission decision is favorable to the petitioner.  It is literally nonsense.  Residents indicated that they wanted to move forward with an appeal to the Supreme Court and to initiate a case based on a Writ of Mandamus (a special remedy that allows a suit to force a government body to perform a duty under the law).
• Holt-Still indicated that there was an opportunity for negotiations with Reno. She sought a consensus on several issues regarding the sewer plants and the possibility of a Special Assessment District for flood-related improvements in the North Valleys.  Further details will be available following the negotiations.

Commissioner Herman pointed out that the Vidler Pipeline from Honey Lake is contributing to Swan Lake.  This is in addition to the 2.5 million gallons per day contributed by the Lemmon Valley sewer plant.  The County plans to expand this to 4 million gallons per day.

The presenters stuck to the facts and key considerations.  The questions were pointed.  The answers were frank.  Some frustration was expressed.  But information was effectively provided and consensus on important issues was established.  It was a little rough, but it was democracy in action.

There is no time yet scheduled for this meeting on Monday, April 29^th, but I wouldn’t miss it.  It is a big event with far reaching ramifications for the rights of homeowners and the relations between Reno and Washoe County.  It may be a spectacle.  Also, I need to show solidarity with these residents who have been so grossly wronged by our local governments.  While their suffering may be the most egregious, their fight is the fight of neighborhoods all over the Truckee Meadows.

This is a guest post by Pamela Galloway.

Warehouse

The developer of a  480,000 sqft warehouse on 28 acres in Mogul has requested a postponement after facing opposition from residents.  This is part of the Reno Gateway Business Park development.  The City of Reno Planning Commission agreed to postpone the project; voting 5-1. Although the property in the City’s sphere of influence, it is not contiguous with the existing city boundary, so it can’t be annexed. The developer would like to work with residents and City Staff to amend the site plan before re-presenting to City planning commission.  The County refuses to hear this project even though the developer has requested to present to the W Truckee Meadows/ Verdi joint CAB.  Neighbors have the following concerns.

• The massive size is comparable to the Amazon fulfillment center in the North Valleys that has 65 truck bays.
• Why not occupy the warehouses in Boomtown that are practically vacant?
• Traffic safety is a concern bringing in so much commercial traffic in a residential area.  The additional truck traffic may hinder emergency services and school traffic.
• This warehouse is not compatible with the character of the area.

Residential

The new West Meadows development (aka Meridian 120 North) off exit 5 in Verdi is having trouble selling the new homes. They had expected 40% percent of the homes to be sold by this time, while only 7% have sold. The entry level homes have recently been discounted from $550k to $450k. The builder has declared a 90 day moratorium on home construction in the development.  TMWA will be bringing a new line to deliver water to the Verdi and Boomtown areas.

The Society for the Preservation of Verdi has issued a brief supporting the City of Reno in a petition for judicial review filed by BT South (aka: Reno Land Development) against the City of Reno due to the denial of their development potentially consisting of 3,000 residences. This includes the Meridian 120 South development.  The City council remanded the project back to the planning commission to be ‘all inclusive’.  The developer was attempting to get approval of this project piece meal.  The developer is requesting approval for 78 homes in one of 6 “villages”.  The impact could not be determined by council specifically naming water.

This area has an active neighborhood group: The Verdi Community Council. The area is also represented on the West Valley CAB and the Ward-5 NAB