This is a guest post by Tom Daly

Fire protection in Washoe County

Nevada Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 (Kieckhefer R-16) would direct the Legislative Commission to appoint a committee to study fire protection services in Washoe County. Committee members would only  be legislators, appointed by legislative leaders. No outside experts, local officials or taxpayers need apply.

Really?

Since 2008, there have been five such expert studies. Those studies are gathering dust, with the majority of their recommendations unfulfilled yet, on one issue, they all agree. In order to improve fire and emergency medical services (EMS) to residents county-wide, you must first ‘fix dispatch’.

Fire & EMS in Washoe County are currently dispatched by four different entities being the Washoe County Sheriff (WCSO) for the Truckee Meadows and North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection Districts (TMFPD & NLTFPD), the City of Reno, the City of Sparks and, for EMS, the Regional Emergency Medical Services Authority (REMSA).

Consider that in Clark County their consolidated ‘regional dispatch authority’ (cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas along with Clark County) has, for two decades, handled fire & EMS dispatch efficiently for all three jurisdictions with the costs pro-rated based on the number of calls per jurisdiction.

IXP Corporation’s 2016 dispatch study reported that the 1990 dispatch agreement between Reno and Washoe County, trading forensics and dispatch services, could be amended resulting in the saving of $991K each year, collectively, for those two jurisdictions via a consolidated dispatch operation run solely by the WCSO.  The County Auditor in June 2015 reported that the current agreement results in a cost of $560K each year (since at least 2007) borne by County taxpayers subsidizing Reno. Our County
Commissioners could dissolve this agreement on a ninety-day notice and bring a new agreement forward, but have not even agendized this issue for discussion, much less ‘for possible action’.

And if you think the ‘closest unit’ is being dispatched for fires, per the existing ‘automatic aid’ agreement between Reno and the TMFPD, you would be mistaken.  That agreement ‘carves out’ portions of the Double Diamond community so that RFD#12 Steamboat will respond, despite TM#33 Foothill being closer by travel time, the agreed upon metric to define ‘closest’.  Reno also refuses to activate its ‘automatic vehicle locator’ (AVL) technology so that the ‘closest unit’ is dispatched regardless of the call’s locale.  Sparks and the TMFPD do so.  Reno instead opts for delayed response by its units so its fire union can be satisfied – citizen safety be damned.

Our politicians delay and deflect but never decide.

Senator Kieckhefer’s well-intentioned resolution will change nothing until 2021, if ever.

God help you if your house catches on fire before then.

The approach to address the Lemmon Valley flooding was the principal issue addressed at Tuesday’s meeting, but it was not the only significant one.  Agenda  /  Video (you can jump to the agenda item)

• Give the Assistant County Manager authority to make emergency expenditures in Lemmon Valley (item 7)
• Expand sewer capacity in Damonte Ranch for South Valley growth (item 8)
• Extend the final map deadline for the Sun Mesa development (item 10)
• Decide the Marshall Ranch development appeal (item 11)

Agenda Item 7

Authorize Assistant County Manager, Dave Solaro, to enter into agreements and contracts responding to the flooding emergency in Lemmon Valley (agenda item 7).  Dwayne Smith declared that the Swan Lake flooding was an emergency for the county.  He didn’t bring it to the Board of County Commissioners, even though he had identified the crisis three weeks prior.  Commissioner Jung thought it should have come before the board, even if they had needed an emergency meeting.  The Lemmon Valley wastewater treatment plant supports about 1200 residences and some large commercial customers.  This would include up to $500,000 for access road and berm improvements and up to $150,000 for emergency pumps for the treatment plant and collection system.  This proposal passed unanimously after some discussion.

Agenda Item 8

Cast-in-place piping as part of expanding sewer capacity in the South Valleys for “new growth”.  This section is in the Damonte Ranch area.  It is not clear what new growth this is intended to support and whether it is related to the proposed $50M sewer bond for the South Valleys.  The motion carried unanimously with Berkbigler and Jung absent for this vote.

Agenda Item 10

Extend the deadline for the final map for the Sun Mesa development to 2020 (agenda item 10).  This was the first reading and introduction of this proposed amendment.  This development got the tentative map approved in 2004 and has been extended repeatedly.  This is truly a zombie project.  It’s a small extension of an existing development, but no one knows if it will ever be built.  This item will come back for another reading and public hearing on April 23.  There was no vote on the proposed amendment.

Agenda Item 11

The Commission considered the appeal of the Marshall Ranch development project on Winnemucca Road.  The Planning Commission denied this project and the developer was seeking to get the denial overturned.  At the meeting, the developer (Ken Krater) requested a continuance (postponement) so that the vote on his appeal would occur at a later meeting.  He said he wanted to consult with his lawyer about his potential conflict of interest from serving on the Downtown Reno Partnership board.  This presented a problem since the county commission is required by statute to take action on an appeal within 60 days of the appeal being filed.  It appeared that the consideration of the appeal had to occur by April 13.  Krater then decided to withdraw his appeal.  He can resubmit his appeal if it is changed.  Alternately, he could resubmit the same appeal if he waits a year or more.  Commissioners Hartung, Berkbigler, and Lucey all expressed concerns about the project.

Related Public Comment:

Opponents of the Marshall Ranch development said the development would spoil area views.  One asked “Is nothing sacred in this county?  Don’t make the area like Vegas”.  This area is a habitat for the endangered Carson Wandering Skipper (butterfly).

Ray Lake (chairman of the North Valley’s Citizen’s Advisory Board) spoke during public comment.  He was concerned that the county had cancelled 7 of the 8 recent monthly meetings.  He wants to bring Mr. Rodriguez of NDOT to make a presentation about plans for the North Valleys, but is prohibited by the more restrictive rules placed on the CAB’s by the county commission.

The Board of County Commissioners (Washoe) had several significant items on the agenda today.  All were present.  The audience contained about 40 members of the public.  The principal topic was agenda item 6 wherein the staff is coming to the commissioners for direction regarding an approach to the Lemmon Valley flooding.

The meeting had a lot of speakers for “general public comment” at the beginning of the meeting.  The vast majority were there to speak to the Lemmon Valley flood recovery approach.  This public comment portion took an hour.  Speakers made the following points.

• The County is unwilling to cooperate with the city to come forward with a common solution to the flooding.  Commissioner Hartung denied this.
• There needs to be a moratorium.  Speakers asserted that development caused the problem flooding and that more development would make things worse.
• The school is unsafe with the effluent water encroaching on the playground.
• Traffic is unsafe for motorists and especially pedestrians with the flood barriers.
• The water needs to be cleaned up before any more development is permitted.
• The new inflatable barriers have protected the house but not the septic tank at one home.
• Older area plans specified no development in the area till the infrastructure is done.
• Silver Lake is rising and will flow into Lemmon Valley worsening flooding.
• We have had enough studies.  These seem to have been ignored, anyway.
• Nevadans are “battle born”.  We need to be “battle ready”.
• Some county pumps were operated on extension cords run across the Hesco barriers.  Some cords were blown into the water shorting out the pumps.
• The floodwaters stink and it will get a lot worse with warming temperatures.
• The speed bumps installed prevent prompt evacuation and access for emergency services.

No love lost …  Public speakers were unsparing of the commissioners and the county staff.

• County engineer, Dwayne Smith, was repeatedly lambasted by name.
• Assistant County Manager, Dave Solaro, was criticized by name.
• “I know for a fact he’s (Ken Krater) paid off some of you guys (commissioners).”
• “You commissioners need to accept responsibility for the development that caused the flooding.”

Staff assertions;

• Dave Solaro made a presentation ( BCC 04-09-19 – POWER POINT for Lemmon Valley) showing the history of flooding in the area. The flooding of 2017 was an all-time record.  The flood of ’86 took 3 years to evaporate.  The flood of ’96 took 5 years to evaporate.  The flood of ’06 took 2 years to evaporate.  But the current flood level, will likely take 6-7 years to evaporate.  One recent storm raised the lake level by 1-1/2 feet. 
• We have met our priority of keeping the flood waters out of peoples homes, but that is not enough for wells, septic tanks, animals, and vehicles.

County Commissioners made these points;

• Commissioner Herman went through the list on the table (BCC 04-09-19 – Lemmon Valley Matrix ) and discussed the problems with each approach emphasizing how many years they would take.
• Around 230 homes would need to be bought out if we don’t solve the flooding at a cost of $69M. (Herman)
• Raising homes would cost $16M but wouldn’t address flooded roads or livestock problems.
• We should contain the lake to protect homes, wells, and septic systems.  Can we contain the lake with berms?  Can we clean it up to be used for recreation? (Berkbigler)
• The water is not evaporating as we thought it would.  Future storms will be even worse.  (Berkbigler)
• “How much have we spent on the flooding in Lemmon Valley, and on what?”  (Jung)
• We need a detailed report.  We need to move beyond just protecting property.  We need to lower the water level.  (Jung)
• We need a global solution; not just one to protect homes.  (Hartung)
• We can get help from Congressman Amodei once we decide on an approach.  (Hartung)
• Consider the long-term maintenance costs of any proposed solution.  (Lucey)
• Take solutions to the affected residents and then to the county as a whole to get agreement.  (Jung)
• We need both a short term and a long term plan.  (Berkbigler)
• We could build a reservoir on the east side of the valley and pump some of the flood water there.  (Herman)
• Do we need a new storm-water utility in the North Valleys?  (Hartung)
• I want to see a timeline for the different options.  (Jung)

Public comment specific to the agenda item regarding Lemmon Valley flood mitigation.

• We presently have two sewer plants emptying into the lake.
• The county’s buyout offers have not been representative of home values.
• More development means more effluent water.
• It’s not our fault we bought there.  It’s the County that allowed it to flood.
• More development means rising water levels.
• The flooding is caused by the high-density development and warehouses.
• More calls for a moratorium on new development.
• Can we get a perimeter road?  Lemmon Drive had 12″ of water this morning.

The agenda item closed with Dave Solaro agreeing to come back with a proposal based on the commissioners preferences.

There was media coverage of the meeting.

KOLO-8          NEWS-4          KTVN-2

I watched Dwayne Smith’s Utility and Engineering presentation to the Planning Commission last Tuesday (April 2. https://www.washoecounty.us/csd/planning_and_development/board_commission/planning_commission/2019/Files/2019-04-02/Washoe%20County%20Utility%20Presentation.pdf  Washoe County Utility Presentation).   Presumably, this vacuous “overview” covers what the Department thinks is adequate to account for the planned expenditures to be covered by the $50 million sewer bond. Overall I found the presentation to be incredibly elementary and it did nothing to address the technical aspects of the County Engineer’s sewer management, engineering, management conceptual planning – ie, what are the projected costs, in particular cost per acre/feet, gallon or liter of sewage treated and disposed. My comments and questions:

Dwayne mentioned adding groundwater injection as an effluent disposal option in the North Valleys.  He also mentioned, in a different segment of his talk, a description of playas having no outside water discharge and generally large clay layers which preclude infiltration of surface water into the ground.  If they do decide sometime in the future to add injection strategies in the North Valleys and Verdi, which “aquifer” would be utilized? Playas have insufficient aquifer storage capacities (by his own admission during his presentation!).   Along that line, how much money do they plan to contribute to the current aquifer injection pilot work being done by TMWA, and is this part of the $50 million bond?

It is surprising that nobody on the Board asked about the differences in treatment costs for Class A+, A, B, and C water.   Dwayne said they plan to go to Class A+ water effluent throughout the county.  What will that cost, as opposed to Class A?  What is the price difference, per gallon of treatment, between Class A and A+?   Would this be worth the cost? The chart below shows the required treatment levels for each effluent planned use. Will they be over-treating some effluent at taxpayer expense, just to say it’s all going to be A+?

Minimum Reclaimed Water Quality Requirements for Direct Reuse

At Minute 57 of his talk, Dwayne launched into a discussion of the Planner’s criteria for development and how hard they work to assess impacts of development and determine mitigation needs for each development.  This WOULD have been a perfect seque into the need for more critical technical review of engineering documents provided by developers!   I’m disappointed that the planning commissioners who were present didn’t pick up on this.  Nobody asked what the criteria were, particularly with regard to water use and sewerage evaluation.

About 8 minutes later, Dwayne invited the PC to come visit the Planning Department and observe for themselves how the planners review, critique and evaluate tentative maps and project plans and how the permitting process works.  This would have been another good place to segue to a query of the engineering report review process and whether the Planning Department has the appropriate expertise to review the sewerage/water aspects.

The Planners should provide ballpark costs for water treatment to Class A B C standards.

Every week Lemmon Valley residents stand up to ask over and over why the water keeps rising and why the County can’t do anything about it.  The answer is “Water Balance Modeling”.   I have no idea if the esteemed hydrologists at the County (or TMWA) have revised their modeling inputs for Washoe County, and Lemmon Valley in particular for the 2018-19 winter and spring runoff, but when the model inputs are broken down into their most simple form, it becomes obvious why there’s a problem, and why this issue won’t go away unless we have another 4 year drought….

It may benefit Dwayne Smith to present to the PC and BCC a simplified water balance discussion.   We should frame some questions for the Lemmon Valley STPs, and others around the model inputs, how they are identified, measured and revised as necessary to accommodate changes in precipitation and increase in effluent as development increases.

Taking effluent quality standards to Class A+ might at least protect residents from tainted water, but at what cost?   Wouldn’t it be cheaper to treat to class C or B then revise discharge locations to avoid health and safety issues?   I think it’s going to mean that basin-to-basin pumping is going to have to be an option, eventually, in the North Valleys.

But here’s another possibility. Could it be that, in planning for all future Washoe County effluent be treated to Class A+, the County wants to make some money?   Class A+ water can be SOLD as drinking water! Is this worth it, considering there are plenty of water use options, as listed in the table above, that don’t require A+ effluent water standards?    Why else would Dwayne be pushing (REALLY pushing, he mentioned upgrading to A+ water standards several times in his presentation)?   How much, per gallon or acre/ft will it cost to get to A+?   And is it worth it to us taxpayers if we are all satisfied with the treated water use options listed below?

The other thing that strikes me – South Valleys STP is already treating to A/A+ quality. So if that water is going to golf course and landscape irrigation, then we are paying for overkill.  Only B and C water is required for MOST of the effluent uses Dwayne mentions in his presentation.   This could be an absurdity, depending on the cost basis for this  A+ effluent treatment.

We should be allowed the opportunity to VOTE on this perhaps unnecessary treatment standard!   So they make money back by selling it – to whom?  At what price?  And who gets to keep the money?   How does this profit get put back into the coffers?

In 2017, Gail Willey attempted to move his landscaping operation (including Colorock) from the South Virginia Street location to a property in a residential neighborhood on Andrew Lane in Pleasant Valley.  His argument was that his was a nursery with some landscaping materials and was compliant with area zoning.  His large scale rock distribution operation belied that claim.  This project was denied by the Washoe Planning Commission.  Willey appealed to the Board of County Commissioners and they denied his appeal.  He then applied to the Washoe Board of Adjustment.  They denied the project.  He again appealed to the Board of County Commissioners.  They again denied his appeal.  He was granted a special use permit for the wholesale nursery operation, but not for the landscape rock operation.

Now, it’s 2019.  Willey did not apply for the special use permit for the wholesale nursery.  Instead, he started moving his large trees and bulk-bin blocks (roughly 900) to the property with no special-use permit.  His lawyers claim that his operation is allowed under the “crop production” category in the zoning.   He is bringing in mature trees: these aren’t grown on site.  So, he did not apply for a special use permit to operate a nursery and he is not complying with the crop-production requirements in the zoning.  There is no credible defense for what he’s doing.

Neighbors have been calling the County Code Enforcement since December receiving no answers or solutions.  Neighbors arranged for a meeting with County Code Enforcement on Tuesday, March 26th and requested that their commissioner, Bob Lucey, be present.  The neighbors had a detailed presentation describing the situation and Willey’s violations (134 Andrew).  Commissioner Lucey arrived late (missing the presentation) and then left early.  He was quick to defend the Willey operation saying that it was no different than storing and selling hay.  Growing crops is not the same as receiving, storing, and shipping 20′ trees.  It looks like Gail Willey is operating a commercial business in an area zoned General Rural”.  This is disregarding the South Valleys Area Plan.

Willey has multiple violations.

• He is storing the concrete blocks in a flood plain.
• He has done grading in a flood plain without a permit.
• He is storing commercial vehicles (trucks mostly) on the property.
• He is storing trees for commercial purposes on the property.
• He is bringing in large trucks that cannot navigate the road and his driveway.
• He is bringing commercial trucks through a residential neighborhood before 7:00AM.
• He is not operating his business license as issued and the County stated they are allowing deviation so they could possibly modify the terms of his license in the future.

Willey’s violations have been identified for three months, and there has been no action by Code Enforcement.  The neighbors left 27 detailed questions for the Code Enforcement Department that they want answered.  The Code Enforcement principals agreed to answer some by next week, but did not commit to answer all of them.  Dave Solaro stated that he had sent a letter to Gail Willey on March 25.  The Code Enforcement principals seemed reluctant to take any action against Willey and hoped that the neighbors could reach some compromise.  The neighbors want to see the codes enforced.  They feel the County is allowing Gail Willey to operate a Commercial Business in an area zoned General Rural pretending it is something else.  They are alarmed that staff indicated that possible changes could be made to his Business License without citizen involvement.  They are concerned that the County Code and included definitions could be changed for one person or business.  It looks like another case of Commissioner Lucey not defending the interests of the residents.

Mike Lawson has been informed by Commissioner Bob Lucey that Lucey will not re-appoint him for another term on the Washoe Planning Commission for District 2.  Lawson’s term ends at the end of June 2019.  Lawson was originally appointed in May of 2017 to fill the vacancy left by Tom Daley.

Lawson’s departure represents a blow to advocates of responsible development.  He spent a career in traffic planning; most of it with NDOT.  He brings expertise and perspective to the planning commission on a topic of great importance to development planning.  While personable and respectful, Lawson brings character and healthy skepticism to his role.  He makes the time to understand development plans in detail and has no hesitation to ask the tough questions and to challenge developers’ claims.  He quickly grasped the bias shown by the Washoe Planning Department to support the developers and treats their assertions with the same skepticism.  He has changed the way the planning commission approaches its work.  Recent denials of destructive development plans have been unanimous.  The area plans (master plans) are being interpreted literally and applied consistently.  Hopefully, his influence on the planning commission will last, and the commissioners will review new development plans critically.

His dismissal is no surprise.  His predecessor, Tom Daly, had been removed from the planning commission following his public criticism of the terrible Colina Rosa (aka Symphony Ranch) development.  The Board of Commissioners wants to still voices that represent the residents, homeowners, and taxpayers.  They have proven consistent supporters of the developers and special interests.  This was seen last year when the Board of Commissioners discussed ways to limit the role of the planning commission as well as the role of the Citizens Advisory Boards (LINK).  The Board of Commissioners is increasingly isolated in its obsequious support of the developers.

We must not despair.

• Lawson has influenced the way the planning commission works.  This is likely to last.
• Lawson will continue to advocate against destructive development.  The “gloves will be off” once he is out of office.  He will no longer be bound by official decorum.
• Lawson has made important personal contacts that will augment his influence.
• Lawson has influenced the community’s perception of what good development should look like and what destructive development must be avoided.
• Lawson will be more available to work with residents fighting destructive development when he no longer needs to consider limitations imposed by his official role.

Lawson has been drawn to public service, and this has been evident by his work on the planning commission (Lawson blog).  Washoe County residents from every district owe him their gratitude for his service on the planning commission and for the resolve he has shown defending their interests.

The Reno City Council agreed to the developer’s request to “continue” consideration of the development to a later date.  A developer is allowed two continuances under Reno code.  Also, the City usually grants a first continuance when requested by the developer.  When asked, the developer’s lobbyist explained that the developer wanted more time to review their plans especially regarding flood mitigation and might want to make improvements.  It sounded unconvincing.

A more plausible reason for the request for a continuance is that their appeal would not get a favorable vote.  The developer is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission decision to deny the project.  It is patently absurd for the developer to pursue it.  The property is entirely (or mostly) submerged in Swan Lake and the Spring runoff is only about to start.  Swan Lake is in crisis; with untreated sewage entering the lake, and rising water levels behind deteriorating Hesco barriers (industrial sand bags) threatening adjacent neighborhoods.

The council chambers were packed with residents.  Local TV crews were there from channels 2, 4, and 8.  Residents inveighed against this development during general public comment for over an hour.  Since the consideration was continued, there was no opportunity for item-specific public comment.  One resident requested that Councilwoman Weber recuse herself since she is familiar with George Peek who is the owner of the property to be developed.  A pair of priests attended and said a prayer that the City Council would benefit from divine wisdom.

Councilwoman Brekhus opposed the continuance.  She made the following points.

• This project has been under consideration for 3-1/2 years.  We should address it now.  The city has spent too much time on it as it is.
• If the developer is going to make changes to their plan, the plan should be re-submitted to the Planning Commission with attendant fees.  The City Council is not the body with the expertise to evaluate a new plan.
• How about a temporary moratorium until conditions improve?  This could not be considered because it was not on the public agenda.

Mayor Schieve feels strongly that there needs to be a meeting between the City Council and the County Commission to come up with a strategy to address the flooding in Lemmon Valley.  She suggests that no new development be considered until after such a meeting.  The City Manager (Sabra Newby) agreed to arrange such a meeting.

The council deferred to Councilwoman Weber since the project is in her ward.  She moved to approve the continuance to a set date and time.  This was selected to be June 5, 2019 at 6:00 PM in the council chambers.  The vote was unanimous.

KTVN-2 coverage

NEWS-4 coverage

“If the Nevada legislature made armed robbery legal, would it still be a crime?”

Senator Kiekhefer‘s new bill (SB327) makes some of the worst development and development-review practices legal.  It moves decision making into the shadows without public review, accountability, or due diligence.

[disclaimer: I am no lawyer, and I could be wrong in my interpretation.]

In apparent response to a novel development plan advanced by the Stonegate developers, Kiekhefer is proposing to change the NRS to accommodate their specific approach.  The Stonegate principals want to sell “superpads” which are tracts of land intended for residential construction which are part of a much larger development.  The current process is for a development to be completely designed so that individual residential lots and many details are defined.  So, the complete, design can be reviewed for tentative map approval.  Engineering reports would 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.  This is the only step that gets public review and public 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 would sell the superpads to commercial builders who would complete the detailed design for these large tracts.  This creates a number of issues the way the bill is written.  The changes affect the Planned Unit Development requirements in NRS 278A.

• Under SB327, the development is never reviewed in its entirety.  Neither the planning commission nor the public gets to consider the finished product.  It is reviewed and approved piecemeal.
• 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 9.2).
• 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 8.2a and 9.4)
• 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 (SB327 8.2b and 13.1).  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 (SB327-12.4).  Unreasonable.

Senator Kiekhefer works for the McDonald Carano Law Firm that represents the Stonegate developer.  It is apparent that he is sponsoring a bill specifically to favor a client at the expense of the public interest.  This is not the first time his malfeasance has been brought to public attention.

The Reno Gazette Journal reported on December 6, 2017 “In Nevada, Republican Sen. Ben Kieckhefer voted at least six times this year to advance measures benefiting clients of the law firm, McDonald Carano, where he works as director of client relations.”  Link to article.

If I understand this correctly, it is a profoundly scary piece of legislation that could move major development decisions completely out of the public eye.

If you want to contact your elected representatives, you can use these links.

Nevada Assembly     Nevada Senate     Find your senator and representative?

Nevada Senate Government Affairs Committee: Parks (Chair), Scheible (Vice Chair), Orenschall, Goicoechea, Kiekhefer

Senate Committees 2019

Dear Reader, I strongly encourage you to read the bill for yourself.  It is less than 8 pages long.  You would be wise not to depend on my interpretation.  SB327.

References:

RGJ Article 4/1/19

Stonegate Approval Illegal? (blog)

The Reno City Council approved the giant, far-flung Stonegate development at their meeting 2/14/18.  Councilwoman Brekhus was the only “no” vote citing many issues that were not adequately addressed in the application.  She went on to appeal the first development stage on the grounds that the creation of “superpads” is not permitted (1/10/19).  The developer proposed a novel plan in which the residential lots were not defined at the time of tentative map approval.  Instead, his plan incorporates “superpads” which are large tracts of land where individual lots are not defined.  The stated intent was to allow commercial builders to buy individual superpads and to come forward with tentative maps to their liking after purchase.

Brekhus argued that there is no allowance for superpads on tentative maps in the Nevada Revised Statute 278 that governs development.  The McDonald Carrano law firm (representing the developer) joined the city attorney and the community development staff to refute this interpretation of the Nevada statutes.  The Brekhus appeal was denied by the majority including Mayor Schieve, and Council Members Bobzien, Jardon, Duerr, and Weber.

For this current legislative session, Senate Bill SB327 formally authorizes the use of superpads on a tentative map.  This bill is sponsored by Senator Kiekhefer who is an employee of the McDonald Carrano law firm that represents the developer.  In light of SB327, one has to suspect that Councilwoman Brekhus was correct in her assessment that superpads are not permissible under current statutes.  The attendant conclusion is that the City approved a giant development that does not comply with Nevada law.  The city council’s development bias, that supercedes consideration for public good and adherence to the master plan, may have taken the city council too far in this case.

References:

Brekhus Appeal: Brekhus Superpad Appeal

Carrano Letter: McDonald-Carano Superpad justify_0

Washoe County is supporting a $50 million dollar bond for sewer projects serviced by South Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility — which now is extending further south into Steamboat and Pleasant valleys. This appears to be mostly an effort to get taxpayers to front the cost of extending sewer services to new developments benefiting Reno and well into the south. The apparent beneficiaries include Pleasant Valley Estates and Sierra Reflections, St. James Village, and eventually new development up the Mt. Rose Highway.

The County claims that the cost of the bond will be eventually repaid through sewer hook up fees paid by developers. This is speculative and leaves the real possibility that the taxpayers and current ratepayers will be stuck with some or all of the bill. County Engineer Dwayne Smith claimed that no new developments south of the Geiger Grade area would be supported by this project, but it appears that Pleasant Valley Estates and perhaps others are among intended beneficiaries.

One long-time area resident requested a detailed breakdown of the planned bond expenditures. Among links she received from the county to agendas was information below gleaned from the Debt Management Commission agenda. On the bottom of page 12, there is an item for “South Valleys Meadows Sewer (connection fee)”. This category shows only the following items and totals.

• South Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility Admin Building Expansion
  and Improvements; $2,500,000
• South Truckee Meadows WRF Projects; $34,750,000
• Geiger Lift Station and Interceptor; $11,000,000
• South West Vista Lift Station Abandonment and Extension; $200,000
• Steamboat Lift Station Capacity Expansion; $2,400,000
• Pleasant Valley Sanitary Sewer Collection System; $4,000,000

The county’s bond description is: AgendaItem08

You don’t need to be a forensic accountant to see that most of the bond proceeds will go into the “WRF Projects” category which has no detailed description. This may not be a “slush fund” as has been historically used to cover up corruption and malfeasance, but it certainly appears to be one. Reno and Washoe have a history of using vague bond funds for convenient cash to support arbitrary and unethical disbursements. (A former Reno city manager left her employment after it was discovered she shifted sewer funds to pay city bills. The city of Reno refinanced trench bonds several times and for what?)

One resident requested a high resolution image of the map included in Dwayne Smith’s presentation to the Board of County Commissioners on 2/26/19. His presentation on sewer capacity and infrastructure included a map that was illegible due to the large scale being compressed to fit on his presentation slide. This map file has not been provided. Again, the County is not being transparent on this bond request.

Sewer capacity presentation (Staff Report – Manager – STMWRF Bonds 2019 (1))

In summary …

At best, this bond request is to extend sewer infrastructure to new developments at the expense of current ratepayers and at the risk of all taxpayers in Washoe County. The commissioners want the residents to pay for the developers to despoil the area. At worst, this is a boondoggle to facilitate malfeasance and corruption. Nevada’s Open Meeting Law does not help us if the commissioners will not provide information.

We need a very detailed breakdown of this entire $50 million – which developments benefit, by how much, and how will this money be paid back to the taxpayers of Washoe County.

And while we are at it, we need to know how many water rights are being purchased and be assured that these new developments are paying 100% for their own water lines, too. Existing residents cannot be expected to foot the bill, and jeopardize our water supply, for all this “go go” new growth.