What is City Staff Thinking?

And how can residents learn sooner?

QUICK NOTE: One of the subjects I’ll discuss below—the Downtown Micromobility Network—is on Wednesday’s (10/11) City Council agenda, so if that interests you, you might want to read this through sooner than later. Any public comments received before 4pm on Tuesday (10/10) will be logged into the official record prior to tomorrow’s meeting.

I’ve been thinking a few topics over lately, but there’s one that has risen to the top over the past few weeks. It’s the question of what residents can do when they have serious questions about something that City staff is doing or recommending.

And just so there’s no misrepresenting what I mean by that, I’m not talking about how to criticize City staff, undermine their credibility, or question their qualifications or knowledge. I’m talking about what residents can do when they have serious questions about how City staff have formulated a certain recommendation for Council, or about a course of action City staff is undertaking that does not seem to directly proceed from a prior public vote by Council or another City board or commission.

What happens if residents with a background and interest in a certain issue believe that information in a Staff Report is insufficient, incomplete, or even inaccurate? Or if they have serious concerns about an action the City is undertaking that isn’t on the agenda of a public meeting, but is clearly moving forward? Or if a Staff Report reveals information or recommendations so soon before a Council meeting (they’re usually posted less than a week prior and sometimes far less) that residents have very little time to formulate their own thoughts on the issue, much less convey them to other residents and Council (this Tuesday edition of the Brief being a case in point)?

Questions like that, when they are sincere and well-founded, aren’t personal attacks on staff. They arise out of genuine concern. And they fall into a gray area where there is no clear mechanism for residents to engage directly with staff to get their questions answered. In Reno, all staff actions are ultimately authorized by the City Manager. As the City’s website explains: “The City of Reno has a Council-Manager form of government. This means that the Mayor and City Council make policy decisions, and the staff, at the direction of the City Manager, implements these decisions.” When actions are undertaken by City staff, there should always be a clear line back to some Council-driven policy—but obviously specific interpretations of that link as well as implementation strategies are left to the City Manager’s discretion all the time.

When the link between City actions and prior public discussion isn’t clear, residents can find themselves frustrated. The more substantive and consequential the issue—and the more people who care about it—the larger the potential degree and scope of frustration, if it seems that City staff, at the direction of the City Manager, may have exercised a bit too much latitude, if they don’t seem to have all the facts or knowledge of best practices at hand, or if they aren’t keeping Council—and by extension, the public—updated on certain items of clear public interest. And sometimes by the time an item arrives on a Council agenda, City staff has already proceeded so far in one direction that Council is left with very little time or substance to deliberate and residents feel powerless to change the course of events.

This all might sound terribly vague, so I want to move quickly into three specific issues that have come up in recent weeks that have raised concerns from residents (including me), who find themselves frustrated at what they see the City doing—or not doing—and are concerned that they’re proceeding without the transparent public input that informed decision-making and governance demand.

I’ll start with the issue that’s coming to City Council this Wednesday, October 11: downtown micromobility routes.

---

Downtown Micromobility Network

I last wrote about micromobility on June 12th, when the City was requesting that residents participate in a survey to determine their preferences, after the consultants hired for the Placemaking Study recommended placing bike lanes on Virginia Street (but not, I should add, to the exclusion of also putting them on Center Street).

The results of that survey were compiled in August, and on October 11^th, as Mike Van Houten of Downtown Makeover wrote “the Reno City Council will consider approving and incorporating the…downtown micromobility plan, incorporating it into RTC’s larger regional transportation plan, of which RTC would then fund the construction of the micromobility network.” This is Reno also has an article about the item here.

There is much to like in these recommendations. But in a shock to many, the City’s Staff Report does not recommend implementing micromobility infrastructure on Center Street/University Way (see above). That’s what prompted Ky Plaskon of the Truckee Meadows Bicycle Alliance to publish an op-ed in This is Reno yesterday and to send out a CALL TO ACTION today. Clearly frustrated with City staff’s failure to acknowledge the substantially higher amount of community support for the Center Street/University Way route as reflected in the City’s own survey, Plaskon also raised multiple other concerns about the Staff Report, as reflected in his op/ed’s title, “Why isn’t City of Reno staff honest with the council and public?”

Quoting from his piece: the City’s report “left out the public’s top choice from a survey that City staff said was used to design the plan. The staff report says, ‘The (survey) input showed that generally all routes were supported, some more than others.’ City staff failed to share with council members which routes were more supported than others, and they conveniently left out the public’s top choice—University Way/Center Street. That’s dishonest."

Obviously, any Staff Report that neglects to include critical information is misleading to both the Councilmembers who need to make informed decisions based on all the facts, and to the public, who rely on staff to accurately represent the surveys and studies in which we participate. You can access the complete 114-page Downtown Reno Conceptual Bicycle Network Report with the results of that survey for yourself on a special website the City created for it, but it’s not included or linked to in the agenda. And, notably, that report prepared by the consulting company Alta provided no overall recommendations; those are coming from City staff alone. Prior studies recommending the Center Street/University Way route are also not cited. And yet in the Staff Report under “Engineering,” the Center Street route receives a red X.

There's much more in Plaskon’s piece, which I hope everyone will read, because it also raises important questions about how City staff has come up with its recommendations, the estimated costs, its conclusions regarding safety of various options, and even the City's proposed approach to constructing a cycle track (using a system that would be much harder to temporarily dismantle for purposes of, say, loading, than systems installed elsewhere).

As Plaskon writes, "In D.C., they use a simple design of plastic reflective “candlesticks” and parking lot wheel bumpers bolted to the ground. They offer the same, if not more, protection at one-fifth the cost. The bumpers and candlesticks can be quickly and cheaply moved to benefit businesses, accommodate loading zones and, ultimately, save taxpayers money."

Funding for the routes recommended by staff could all fit into a $20M allotment available to the RTC through Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funding. That’s no doubt central to its appeal, since according to the Staff Report, the Center Street/University Way route would be the longest and most expensive.

That’s often true for the broadest and most transformational options. But are those numbers even reliable? Has the approach that Plaskon describes been considered, or is the staff basing its recommendation on a more inflexible design that makes it look much less palatable to anyone with property along the west side of Center Street? Have property/business owners along that street clearly been shown how properties elsewhere interact with cycle tracks? A table in the Staff Report refers to 26 meetings between City of Reno Public Works staff and property/business owners, but exactly who did City staff speak to, what information did the City provide them with, and what exactly were their concerns or objections? How many of those individuals supported the idea or were neutral?

The report doesn’t list them or say; we are just asked to trust that “many” were concerned, without any records of those interactions, giving the Center Street route a red X in the “Business” category. So there’s no indication of whether those anonymous but supposedly substantial concerns are founded in an awareness of what would actually be installed on the street and how it might be worked around. Cycle tracks aren’t railroad tracks, after all, and bicycles aren’t trains; if cycle track lanes need to be closed for a period of time (as bike lanes certainly would for all the special events on Virginia Street) then bicyclists, just like cars, can simply take another route.

Plaskon has been more involved in trying to get the downtown cycling networks completed than just about any other resident, and I find his frustration about the staff recommendations completely understandable and his arguments compelling. You can view the Micromobility item (D.3) on Council's online agenda and contribute public comment in advance of or during the meeting following the instructions at the top.

I should add that transparency is especially critical regarding this issue, which has already been subject to more controversy than any transportation issue in recent memory, including questions over why RTC Executive Director Bill Thomas paused the Center Street Cycle Track plan in the first place without any direction to do so from his own Board, and how much influence Caesars Entertainment (The ROW) wielded over that decision as well as over the recommendations of the Placemaking Study consultants, with whom they were granted a private meeting. For more background on some of that, see the Reno Gazette-Journal’s April 18^th article, “Poor morale, resignations hit RTC Washoe as projects get ‘political’” and my November 2022 Brief, “Power over Planning.”

---

Questionable Handling of a City Asset

The second issue involves the City’s Family Shelter & Community Resource Building, which opened on Record Street in 2008. I provided background on the construction of the entire $26M campus in a post written back in March of 2021.

Just a few weeks ago, residents became aware of a series of internal City staff memos outlining severe damage that the building has undergone, mostly in the brief period since its closure in 2022. That report was quoted in a September 21^st News4 article titled “Officials: Mold, water damage prevent reopening old Reno homeless shelter, despite calls from activists” and can be viewed in its entirety here.

As the News4 article indicates, concerned residents have been urging the City to allow the vacant shelter to be used to house vulnerable women and children this coming winter. But the memo, “distributed to the city council amid calls from activists to reopen the shelter, says both buildings have been red tagged and the estimated cost to fix them would be $2.75 million.”

News of the building’s dismal condition came as a shock, considering its relatively recent and expensive construction and recent use. The memo listed leaky roofs causing water damage and possible mold, more than a dozen incidents of vandalism and burglary resulting in the theft of copper parts related to electrical and plumbing, the decommissioning of the elevator, and the potential for structural damage to the floor and ceiling. Although vacated last year, the building was never officially decommissioned or abandoned, raising questions about how such a valuable city asset could have been subjected to such neglect.

Included in the internal City materials were memos to City Manager Doug Thornley from Development Services Director Chris Pingree with the results of a visual inspection, which concluded that “the costs to repair the building may exceed the value of the building” and recommended that a third party be hired “to confirm this assessment and better delineate costs for repair, if feasible.”

A second memo to Doug Thornley from Revitalization Manager Bryan McArdle summarized the damage and indicated that “a range of next steps could be considered,” including initiating a more detailed inspection, bringing in a third party for a more detailed structural evaluation, formulating an ongoing maintenance and security plan, and commissioning detailed appraisals to “comprehensively assess the future potential of the site.” He concluded with a recommendation that “we obtain an appraisal of the property with the building in its current condition and if the land were vacant.”

Residents immediately raised the alarm. In an opinion piece published by This Is Reno titled “City responsible for homeless shelter’s neglect, damage”, Ward 3 Neighborhood Advisory Board chair Ilya Arbatman raised concerns about the building’s deplorable state of neglect, possible violations of open meeting law (if Councilmembers were discussing the memos outside of a City meeting, which is unclear), the possibility of repurposing the buildings for uses like transitional and supportive housing as advocated years ago by many including Mayor Schieve, and concern that the City had already decided to permanently dispose of it.

In the September 27^th City Council meeting, Arbatman and others called for City Council to agendize a discussion about the fate of the building and its potential reuse, as reported by This is Reno. Residents also raised questions about whether the neglect was due to the City’s intent to rid itself of the property, and without trafficking in that kind of speculation (which I am not), it’s safe to say that City assets, even if vacant, aren’t neglected if the City envisions a future use for them. The decision not to proactively protect them is what we refer to in historic preservation as “demolition by neglect.” The City has already designated millions of dollars in ARPA funds for a slew of community projects, but not for this City-owned building that was specifically built to service unsheltered and vulnerable populations. Why not?

It’s unclear which of those “next steps” might have been authorized by the City Manager were these documents not made public. However, at this point, placing a discussion of the issue on a City Council agenda is critical, and the sooner the better. At that time, hopefully both residents and Councilmembers can pose a whole series of questions to City staff, and ensure that all options for the property are considered.

---

What’s Happening with the Lear?

I’ll end with an issue that is near and dear to my heart and to my professional expertise: the First Church of Christ, Scientist—widely known as the Lear Theater.

Like many of you, I’m frustrated. The last documented City action regarding the building was the appropriation of $1M in ARPA funds toward landscaping and upgraded fencing of the property. The building’s safety, of course, should be paramount, as the proposed fencing would be intended to ensure. But one million dollars is a lot of money.

City staff provided an update on that plan to the City’s Historical Resources Commission (HRC) back in June, at which time staff was informed that the precise design and layout of any fencing would have to be approved by the HRC since the building is listed on the City register. Since the historic property was never fenced in the past, any such addition to the grounds would be significant, and one can assume that any fencing intended to prevent vandalism would have to be fairly tall, raising questions about the potential impact to the building’s integrity and historic context. There has to my knowledge been no public discussion of precisely what kind of fencing the City has in mind, and I’m concerned that anything envisioned as temporary will eventually become permanent, altering the grounds forever. So that’s one bit of critical information.

Even more troubling to me is the fact that the City has not yet commissioned a Historic Structures or Conditions Report to assess the current condition of the property, make recommendations for its renovation, and generate cost estimates for simply maintaining the building and bringing it up to code. That was one of the first steps taken by the City upon its acquisition of the Southern Pacific Railroad Depot (another City-owned property I’m frankly concerned about). Of that $1M, I have seen no indication that any of it is being allocated for the commissioning of such a report, which I frankly can’t understand.

Additionally, I have been calling for the City to hold a public meeting specifically about this historic building since they first acquired it in 2021. To me, a critical first step, besides commissioning that structural report, is openly asking the community what they would like to see this building become. There seem to be no plans to do that. In fact, back in June, Assistant City Manager Eric Edelstein and Revitalization Manager Bryan McArdle brought a private developer to the HRC meeting as part of the City’s “update” on the Lear, allowing him to discuss his qualifications and interest in the property, to the consternation of the commissioners in attendance.

(As a reminder, Mayor Schieve repeatedly indicated upon the City’s acquisition of the property that she did not want to see it turned over to developers, but remain a community institution. More recently, at a recent event honoring historian and arts professional Geralda Miller, the Mayor voiced her public support for transforming the building into a cultural center, perhaps named after its esteemed architect, Paul R. Williams. All options have appeared to be on the table, although without any governing public conversation to ensure that.)

Then on September 13^th, City Councilmember Devon Reese posted on his public Facebook page that the Lear Theater is "getting ready to RFPs and to see what it’s future holds" and that "our historical resources commission will soon be asked to evaluate all options. Perhaps RFP is the wrong term but I believe that will lead to that type of process." That was alarming, as there had been no indication that any such plan to issue an RFP [Request for Proposals] was in the works.

Councilmember Reese didn’t elaborate on that or respond to my concerns on his page, but I’ve acquired the document to which he was apparently referring: a “Policy Briefing” dated August 2023 titled “Lear Rehabilitation.” You can view the eight-page document here. On its final page is a “Proposed Process for Rehabilitation” including releasing a Request for Qualifications, inviting a short list of developers to submit proposals, selecting a winning proposal, and entering into a Redevelopment Agreement. So who wrote it? Who’s making these recommendations? And why on earth would an RFQ [Request for Qualifications] be considered the best approach, when that would prevent anyone who was not a professional developer from submitting ideas for what the building could become?  I wrote to City staff, Mayor Schieve, and Councilmember Duerr (Council liaison to the HRC) about it, to no reply.

The Historical Resources Commission’s October meeting was cancelled, but they have requested a City update on the Lear for their November meeting, which should occur on November 9^th at 4pm at the McKinley Arts & Culture Center. I hope we can get some more answers about this “Policy Briefing” then, and some assurances that the City will be fully engaging with the Historical Resources Commission to collaboratively determine the next steps to take regarding this important landmark.

---

Admittedly, this post identifies a problem without a clear solution, at least for residents. Community members with concerns about issues like the ones I’ve discussed here often feel that they have few options. One is going to a Council meeting and expressing their concerns in general public comment, hoping to influence the City Manager and City Council to place an item on a future agenda. If an item is on an agenda, posted a week or less before a meeting, we can rush to make sense of the materials and recommendations included in the Staff Report and try to get our thoughts organized and expressed as quickly as possible. Some might manage to write an op/ed for a local media outlet, a newsletter post, or a Call for Action, outlining our concerns in hopes that City Council might share our concerns and/or forward our questions on to City staff and try to get some answers in the minimal time allotted during Council meetings for questions and discussion.

But there is something our Councilmembers can do for us.

Ultimately it all comes back to that question of governance and how transparent the City is with the sharing of information at a point much earlier than immediately before a momentous decision is to be made. Our Councilmembers are our representatives in this process. We rely on them to voice our concerns and ask our questions. And they’re obviously being shown a lot of materials that the public doesn’t automatically get a chance to see at an early point, or sometimes ever.

Our Councilmembers can direct the City Manager to be more transparent with early stages of City action—with the content of policy papers, memos, surveys, and the like. He works for them and City staff work for him. We can’t understand or contribute to discussions of something we don’t know about. It’s up to our Councilmembers to discern when an issue they’re being informed about is something that residents would clearly be interested in and to determine where and how that information can be shared with us, early enough for us to participate in those decision-making processes. That’s not being disrespectful or distrustful of City staff; it’s part of being a thoughtful and conscientious representative of the people.

---

As always, you can view this and prior newsletters on my Substack site, subscribe for free to receive each new edition in your email inbox, 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.