Private visions, public decisions

Whose "vision" is being advanced in your name?

This week, I’d like to draw your attention to some important upcoming meetings, and also some recent City actions that I’m afraid have gone largely unnoticed. As regular readers know, one of the primary reasons that I began writing the Brief more than two years ago was my concern that important decisions were being made by the City without sufficient public engagement, or even awareness—and that in some cases, the City was actually dismantling processes that had ensured that certain development-related actions were subjected to proper oversight and expert review.

Another problem that has emerged over time is the difficulty of realizing when certain items are even coming up for discussion. That can be an issue, for instance, with items included on City Council’s “Consent Agenda,” which can all be approved in one fell swoop without any public deliberation. It can happen when agendas don’t clearly identify specific topics that will be under discussion. And it can happen when decisions are made by committees that aren’t generally on most residents’ radar.

The City is dealing with a wide variety of issues all the time, as you can easily see with just a quick glance at the official City calendar of upcoming meetings and events. There are NAB meetings, and committee and commissions meeting on topics ranging from urban forestry to business licensing to human rights. For the most part, the City assumes that simply having a meeting listed on its website (and allowing for public comments there) constitutes sufficient opportunity for residents to weigh in on a decision, and it’s generally up to residents to track topics of interest to them.

That’s been made more difficult, however, with the massive decline in local government reporting, which once provided much more thorough advance notice of what our public bodies would be considering in the near future, and didn’t just report on their actions after the fact, as happens so often today. Reviewing the agendas and staff reports for every upcoming City meeting is possible, certainly, but who has the time, if it’s not literally your job to do so?

Providing advance notice and context about upcoming items related to our built environment has been my focus here, but it’s not my job, and sometimes even I don’t recognize something that’s happened until after the fact. So today, after a quick look at what’s coming up at City Hall, I want to draw your attention to two items that I’m afraid have largely gone under the radar, including the potential cancellation of the long-planned creation of a sixth City ward—something that should be of interest to all Reno residents, no matter where you live. Viewed as a whole, these topics raise a lot of questions for me about whose vision is being promoted in the public’s name.

---

City Council and the Placemaking Study

Reno City Council meets tomorrow (Wednesday, February 22) with the agenda and staff reports available here. The latest (Feb. 17) Development Projects memo from the City can be found here, and as usual, it lists new development applications as well as upcoming meetings (NABs, Planning Commission, and City Council) where they will be discussed and/or reviewed. It’s always a good idea to check it out to see what’s being proposed for your neighborhood or elsewhere in the city. And as a reminder, you can sign up to receive e-newsletters on the City’s website here.

Up for discussion this week is a topic that the City has deemed worthy of multiple public engagement sessions: the Virginia Street Placemaking Study. This week brings the final public presentation from Gehl Studios, on Thursday, February 23 at 5:30pm at City Hall. You can find details on the city’s website here. Last time Gehl was in town, they presented an assessment of current (rather dismal) conditions in the project area and asked for public input regarding various strategies to address them, while also meeting with select “stakeholders” (I was invited to the “users” session).

The ultimate goal of this study, as expressed in the initial scope approved in September of 2021 was to “identify a unified vision” for the project area. Unified visions aren’t easy to come by, but if you want to generate one, this degree of public engagement certainly seems the best way to get there.

The extent of planned public engagement in this case was no doubt considered essential by the City, since the City of Reno and RTC Washoe have tied the fate of the Center Street Cycle Track project to the outcome of this Placemaking Study, pausing that important infrastructure project until the study is complete. Also related is the Micromobility Pilot Project that was implemented in this same vicinity last year, with a report on that scheduled for City Council sometime this spring. And in general, the geographical area seems of wide interest since we’re talking about Reno’s traditional downtown core, an area that many engage with on a regular basis, or would like to, if it felt safer and more appealing. (A recent Reno News & Review “Streetalk” feature asking whether respondents would want to live downtown came up entirely negative.)

Thursday’s event includes a presentation from 5:30-6:30pm and an open house from 6:30-8pm, after which a final community survey will be available on the City’s website for two weeks. Following that, Gehl will provide a “concept design and proposed implementation plan for downtown Virginia Street.” So we’ll see what ideas they have generated for residents to respond to. I’ll be there and hope you can be, too.

---

When a mural is more than a mural

My second topic also involves stated interest in representing a shared “vision,” but pursued in a very different way. It’s the recent commissioning of a mural for the exterior of the National Bowling Stadium. I know what you’re thinking: what’s the big deal about the commissioning of a mural? Murals are great, art is great, and it’s important for Reno to demonstrate its support for art and artists in every way possible. All very true.

But if a public mural is being described as the representation of a shared vision, it’s important to ask when that vision was generated, and by whom. In this case, the idea to commission a mural for the exterior of the National Bowling Stadium seems to have emerged last fall in a City committee called the Capital Projects Surcharge Advisory Committee, which currently includes Mayor Schieve and Councilmembers Devon Reese and Miguel Martinez, along with Bryan Carano and Jonathan Boulware.

The minutes from that committee's September 13, 2022 meeting aren’t posted, but I assume that's when its members decided to use $80,000 of Capital Projects Surcharge funds (their jurisdiction) to commission a mural for the outside of the building. (The City is required by an agreement with the United States Bowling Congress to complete some exterior improvements to the building by this February.) The committee’s September meeting occurred less than three weeks after Mayor Schieve had appeared on the popular PR vehicle "Nevada Newsmakers," where she first publicly expressed her personal opinion that the National Bowling Stadium should become a multipurpose facility somehow affiliated with esports and the University of Nevada, Reno (she even suggested renaming it the “Wolf Pack Bowl”).

The Capital Projects Surcharge Committee on which she serves apparently then directed City Arts and Culture Manager Megan Berner to write a Call for Artists for a mural that would help accomplish the Mayor’s desired rebrand of the National Bowling Stadium (whose use, mind you, has not changed, and which has nothing to do with UNR). You can view that complete Call here but here’s the crux of it:

“Themes and concepts are open, however, proposals that tie the University of Nevada Reno into the city will be given priority. This can be done through color, abstraction, or a figurative/objective approach. The goals for the project include: revitalizing the exterior of the NBS and surrounding area, creating a unique character for a specific area of town, increasing public awareness of art, and broadening visitors’ perspectives of public spaces within the City.”

Berner had apparently already drafted that Call six days later, when she informed Reno’s Arts and Culture Commission at their September 19th meeting that the Call for Artists would be issued as written (it wasn’t even on their agenda), that they couldn’t modify it due to timing, and that they would be reviewing the submissions. Mayor Schieve, who was both on the committee that had directed Berner to write the Call and also served as the City Council liaison to the Arts and Culture Commission, did not attend that meeting, and so wasn’t available to answer any questions. Many arts commissioners at the time and since have publicly expressed their unhappiness about having this directive handed to them, with such specific priorities and parameters. Nevertheless, the Call was issued and ultimately they recommended a design by artist Rafael Blanco, which went back to the Surcharge Committee for approval in January and then to City Council two weeks ago. The design selected was all about bowling, with the prioritized UNR colors of blue and silver as a background.

The Mayor was not pleased. This was clearly not what she was hoping for when her committee had envisioned this mural in the first place. Where was the rebranding as a multipurpose facility? What other proposals had been submitted, and could Council see them? She blamed the process. She expressed concern that the City would have to paint over the mural within months because, in her words, “we're trying to get toward the ‘Wolf Pack Bowl, we’re trying to brand downtown a little bit differently.’” She didn't think the building should be “so bowling-centric,” and that “it should be for the students, for the community,” saying, “I want to change the face of what that Bowling Stadium represents and what it looks like.” The Mayor and Councilmember Naomi Duerr both suggested the mural could depict other sports in addition to bowling.

But here’s the problem: There’s been no City decision to change the function of the National Bowling Stadium or what it represents or hosts. Although the Mayor continued to reiterate that she’s “working on it” (not sure where), the National Bowling Stadium is neither the “Wolf Pack Bowl” nor an esports (or any other kind of sports) venue. It is a Bowling Stadium. And at what point did anyone decide that the University of Nevada constitutes the “unique character” of the area surrounding the Bowling Stadium, which is located between Fourth Street and the railroad tracks, adjacent to the Railroad Depot (the reason for Reno’s founding), and bordering not just the historic Lincoln Highway/U.S. 40 but Reno’s most diverse historic commercial area of Lake Street and Chinatown?

Ultimately, Council approved the selection of the artist and directed Megan Berner to work privately with him to take Council’s comments into account (a move to which Councilmember Jenny Brekhus objected), and although Council requested that the item appear on their February 22 agenda for final review (which seems to have been agreed to) it’s not on that agenda. So who knows what we’ll ultimately see painted on the building by March? It could be a sign depicting the current commercial use of the building (bowling), it could depict football and basketball players, or other new imagery suggesting that the building is a multipurpose/multi-sports facility and/or affiliated with UNR, neither of which is the case. Either way, the project was both envisioned and implemented not as art alone but as a commissioned branding strategy to implement a vision with no public mandate, and it’s not at all normal for City Council (much less the Capital Projects Surcharge Committee) to take a heavy hand in dictating the imagery (and colors) of a City-commissioned mural.

Whether or not the National Bowling Stadium should be a multipurpose facility is irrelevant to this discussion. There is no such repurposing at hand, and this “brand first, build later” mentality so often practiced here in Reno not only promises to create a false impression of the building’s actual function, but is clearly designed to promote an outcome that no public body has even entertained for the building, much less approved. Additionally, for any new “vision” of this downtown City-owned facility and surrounding area to be moving forward before the ongoing Placemaking Study (and the “unified vision” it’s striving to achieve) has been completed is not only premature, but undermines the placemaking process we’ve all been engaging with in good faith.

---

Longstanding plans to create Ward 6 in jeopardy

Lastly, a topic concerning the vision of Reno’s future government composition. Did you know that since 2017, the City of Reno has been planning to create a sixth Ward, represented by a corresponding Ward 6 Councilmember, and permanently eliminate the At-Large Councilmember position? Did you know that the plan to create a new Ward 6 is enshrined in Reno’s City Charter, which can only be modified through legislative action? And did you know that last fall, the City’s Charter Committee and City Council approved a plan to request that the the state legislature reverse that 2017 decision, cancel plans to create a new Ward 6, and instead retain the At-Large Council seat indefinitely?

If you didn’t, you’re not alone. As revealed by a few social media posts I saw last week, a handful of residents have just become aware that the City is officially requesting the repeal of that 2017 decision at the current legislative session. There’s so much confusion about what’s happening that some even thought that what was being requested was the creation rather than the cancelling, of a new Ward 6 and corresponding City Council seat, which shows how little Reno residents have been apprised of this effort to influence how they are represented at City Council.

The fact that the City of Reno didn’t actively engage residents in the discussion of whether or not to eliminate plans for a new Ward 6 raises a lot of red flags. The move apparently began last summer when a few members of Reno's City Charter Committee (which consists of 13 political appointees) raised the question of whether the City could cancel its plans to create a sixth ward in 2024. For background, in 2017, at the City’s request, the State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 36, which set into motion the plan to eliminate the At-Large Councilmember position effective January 1, 2024 and replace it with a Councilmember representing a newly created Ward 6.

During the last ward redistricting process (which was mandated following the 2020 U.S. Census and completed in the fall of 2021), the City was quick to tell residents that this redistricting was only temporary, as the At-Large Councilmember position would be eliminated January 1, 2024 and a new ward would be created. In fact, it was a key piece of information provided at the outset of the City’s presentations, as seen here.

As the City’s Director of Policy and Strategy, Calli Wilsey, said in those presentations:

“This process is focusing on the five wards. Right now, the City of Reno has five distinct wards, and we are scheduled to move to six wards beginning in calendar year 2024. So this process that we’re talking about now is to adjust the boundaries for the five wards. For the sixth ward, we will have a separate and distinct process at a later date, to have that conversation. Those changes were made through legislative action a few years ago.”

That process of modifying the boundaries of Reno’s existing five wards through the 2021 redistricting process was extremely inclusive, with widespread residential participation, meaning that the message that a new sixth ward would be created next year was conveyed to a lot of Reno residents—residents who would have had no reason to expect that the City might consider changing that plan less than a year later.

In deliberating the pros and cons of adding a new sixth ward, the Charter Committee conducted no public outreach or engagement that I can tell, and last June, a slim 5-3 majority of that committee (five of its members were absent) voted to recommend repealing the 2017 law that would create a sixth ward. There was no public comment on the item. A joint meeting of the Reno City Council and Charter Committee took place on August 4, 2022 and you can see all the minutes from the City Charter Committee meetings in that staff report here. 

On August 10th, 2022, City Council voted to move forward with the request for the legislature to repeal the 2017 decision (among other things) and retain the At-Large seat, which is currently held by Devon Reese. News4 Reno reported on that decision after Council had already voted to move the request forward, and I highly encourage you to read that full story here. The agenda item for that topic (D.2), by the way, read only “Presentation, discussion, and potential direction to staff regarding bill draft requests for the 2023 Session of the Nevada Legislature,” and even the staff report referred to the potential change only as “Repeal of changes scheduled to take effect January 2024 related to the number of wards, makeup of elected offices, and other related provisions.” Does that seem transparent to you?

The implications of this request are huge, and I’m extremely concerned that Reno residents haven't been involved in discussions about it at all, even though it's about their future representation at City Hall. At this point, if Reno residents want to have a say in whether or not a sixth ward will still be created, they will have to track the progress of that potential legislation themselves—or rely on the media to do so for them—and testify to the state legislature. Ben Margiott of News4 just wrote another piece about this last week after Devon Reese suddenly announced via social media that he's running for re-election in 2024 (although it's not known for which Council seat, since his At-Large position is still slated for elimination). As the article indicates, the bill proposing several changes to the City Charter is SB 12, which you can track here. But I’m truly shocked that City Council would proceed with asking the state legislature to make such a consequential change to the City Charter without any indication whatsoever that it’s what Reno residents actually want.

So what do these two situations share? In both cases, an ostensibly public (i.e. publicly noticed) meeting was held, and a decision was made to move a process forward—a mural intended to rebrand an entire City facility and vicinity, a legislative action that would alter standing plans for City representation—supposedly on behalf of the public but without any public buy-in or any indication of public need or necessity. Call me naïve, but I continue to be shocked when our elected representatives (or their appointees) make consequential decisions without consulting the public they’re supposed to be representing, or promote as “shared” a vision that is just their own. That, to me, is abuse of power, and it’s our job as citizens to demand accountability for decisions that are ostensibly, but not actually, being made on our behalf.

---

As always, you can view this and prior newsletters on my Substack site and follow the Brief (and contribute to the ongoing conversation) on Twitter, Facebook & Instagram. If you feel inspired to contribute to my efforts, my Venmo account is @Dr-Alicia-Barber and you can mail checks, if you like, to Alicia Barber at P.O. Box 11955, Reno, NV 89510. Thanks so much for reading, and have a great week.