Possible new ADU and trespassing ordinances, taxing tourists & more
Possible new city ordinances governing ADUs and trespassing near the railroad, and much more on tap for the week of July 29, 2024
This week’s City meetings concern a wide array of actions with potentially far-reaching implications. The full calendar can be found on the Current and Upcoming Meetings page here, and I’ll be specifically highlighting three of them:
Monday, July 29 at 12pm: Concurrent Meeting of the Reno City Charter Committee and Reno City Council
Tuesday, July 30 at 2:30pm: Capital Projects Surcharge Advisory Committee
Wednesday, July 31 at 10am: Reno City Council & Redevelopment Agency Board
Let’s start with Monday’s concurrent meeting.
Should Reno’s City Charter be changed?
As I mentioned last week, Council is considering several Bill Draft Requests to forward to the State Legislature by September 1, and this week gives us the opportunity to view the deliberations of two committees where some of the options originated. For more on the preliminary discussions of all of them at last week’s Council meeting, please read “City council mulls changes to its charter, tax revenues through state legislation” (Kelsey Penrose, This is Reno, July 26, 2024).
One set of possible requests pertains to the City Charter, and the Reno City Council and Reno City Charter Committee will meet concurrently on Monday, July 29th to discuss them. Here are the final Charter recommendations forwarded to Council:
2024-001: Requires that City Council declare a special election to fill a vacated Council seat if there are more than 180 days until the next general municipal election
2024-002: Changes the terms of the Charter Committee members who are appointed by the legislature to align with the terms of an individual officeholder
2024-003: Requires that the City Manager reside in the City of Reno no later than six months after the date of his or her appointment
2024-004: Eliminates gendered language throughout the Reno City Charter
Several City Councilmembers expressed their preliminary thoughts about some of these in the July 24 meeting, and on the 29th they can engage in conversation with those who recommended them. You can access the agenda, staff report, and associated materials here and participate either in person in Council Chambers or virtually by registering at https://links.reno.gov/CityCharter07-29-24.
Should funding for downtown public facilities be augmented by charging hotel guests more, or charging more guests at more hotels?
Another Bill Draft Request being considered by Council would involve making changes to the Capital Projects Surcharge Fee. The Capital Projects Surcharge Advisory Committee is meeting on Tuesday, July 30th at 2:30pm to discuss that possibility, among other topics. You can attend the meeting in the 7th floor Caucus Room at City Hall or via Zoom by preregistering at https://links.reno.gov/07-30-24.
I feel like this topic has the potential to be easily dismissed because it might not seem that relevant to most residents. But if you care about the revitalization of the old casino core, you should be paying attention to this committee, because their deliberations and recommendations to Council involve some of downtown Reno’s most poorly-performing and least active buildings—those that the City itself owns—the National Bowling Stadium, Reno Events Center, and Downtown Reno Ballroom.
Due to its narrow scope, this committee is composed of three City Councilmembers (currently Mayor Schieve and Councilmembers Reese and Martinez) and reps from Caesars Entertainment/The ROW (Bryan Carano) and Jacobs Entertainment (Jonathan Boulware), the only two entities whose hotel guests currently pay these fees.
The last time I wrote about this committee was in March, regarding the since-discarded idea to locate an Esports facility in the Bowling Stadium, and about a year before that, with respect to the mural commissioned for the stadium’s exterior.
The Capital Projects Surcharge is a fairly new fee, established in 2011 and originally imposed on hotel rates at seven downtown hotel casinos (Silver Legacy, Circus Circus, Eldorado, Sands, Siena, Club Cal-Neva, and Harrah’s). The fees it generates are used to upgrade and maintain City-owned tourism and entertainment facilities located within a mile of a small, circumscribed central downtown district.
Of course, as the number of downtown hotel casinos has diminished, so have the funds generated by the fee. One possible response to that decline is to persuade the state legislature to allow the City to increase that surcharge and/or expand the number of properties subject to it. Under Item B. 3, this committee will discuss their recommendation to pursue one or more of the following options:
Increase the surcharge amount per room night (currently limited to $2)
Place a limitation on how often or by how much the surcharge can be increased
Expand the district to include hotels that do not hold a nonrestricted gaming license
Why tax hotels? The premise is that these facilities were constructed to attract more tourists who would be staying in them, so visitors would essentially be paying for the facilities that many of them came to Reno to enjoy. The construction of the three adjacent buildings at the heart of the old casino core—the National Bowling Stadium, Reno Events Center, and Downtown Reno Ballroom—were heavily pushed by downtown Reno’s gaming properties as critical steps to revitalize downtown Reno and reinvigorate it as a tourist draw in the face of California’s expanding tribal casinos.
It didn’t exactly work out that way. So after lurching along for more than a decade, the City got this surcharge fee put in place to generate more revenue to maintain those and other city facilities. And now, this committee—with representation from the last two downtown gaming properties with hotel rooms—wants the City to go back to the legislature and allow them to finance these buildings’ upkeep by taxing visitors more.
Isn’t it perhaps time to consider taking some decisive and bold action to completely reinvent what these underperforming buildings can do for all of us?
Under Item B.1 at their Tuesday meeting, this committee is scheduled to receive a presentation from the RSCVA “regarding activation of the Reno Events Center and the National Bowling Stadium” and I’d love for a bunch of us to watch that presentation and see just what they’re proposing. And we should be looking for something big—and I mean, really, really big—not just a few more events or a café.
By the way, this is a discussion that by right should not be occurring within this little committee, but under the auspices of the Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board, a critical body that the City abolished without any discussion about six years ago and should reinstate immediately (please read my entire Brief about that here).
Now on to Wednesday’s City Council meeting. You can find the full online agenda here, so be sure to scan through it for items of interest to you.
Should ADUs be allowed in Reno?
The proposed ADU ordinance is back for discussion by City Council under item D. 2. This item is not the first reading of a new ADU ordinance and does not even include drafted text of a proposed ordinance. What staff is doing here is seeking direction from Council on proposed ADU standards and asking for their feedback before moving forward with “community input,” whatever form that might take.
You can read my overview of the City staff recommendations and find links to a great many relevant online articles and resources in my July 15 Brief here:
Discussion of a proposed ADU ordinance to return to Reno City Council on July 31
When I wrote that piece, there were no indications of whether this ordinance would address the potential use of ADUs as Short-Term rentals (STRs).
We now have the July 31 Staff Report to view here, which discusses the history of this item and notably states that City staff does not currently regulate Short Term Rentals (STRs) and that staff is not recommending that change.
Not taking STRs into account in this ordinance could be a problem for residents with concerns about ADUs. As Mike M. wrote in the comments on my July 15 Brief:
“STRs (Short Term Rentals) is the issue that needs to be addressed first by Council. There are currently 2000+ STRs available in Reno (1400 on VRBO and Airbnb alone). Those are 2000+++ unit not being rented to residents in our core neighborhoods. STRs should be banned in Reno if any of the Master Plan goals are to be achieved.”
If you would like to provide Council with your thoughts on this item prior to or during their July 31st meeting, refer to Item D.2.
Should it be a misdemeanor to trespass within 100 feet of either side of the railroad tracks?
While the potential ADU ordinance has been under discussion for months and still hasn’t been written, another one seems to have been put together in record time.
Just last week, Council discussed writing a new ordinance that would govern trespassing near the railroad tracks, and City staff clearly had it all cued up because its first reading is already on the agenda for July 31, 2024 under Item E.1.
Here’s how the agenda item reads:
What that brief description doesn’t say is that this ordinance wouldn’t only “prohibit trespassing upon railroad tracks”; it would make it a misdemeanor to trespass within 100 feet of either side of the railroad tracks.
As the Staff Report indicates, Council was given a presentation on April 24 about downtown public safety along the railroad corridor and at their July 24th meeting got a presentation “related to the need for a possible ordinance to help address railroad maintenance access, reduce repair costs and stormwater collection system interference, and to ensure the corridor is unobstructed in case of emergencies.”
But the ordinance, as written, is about people. Specifically, it would “prohibit trespassing upon railroad tracks” and indicates that “a person would be considered trespassing if they enter or remain within 100 feet of a railroad track…” and that anyone who does so would be guilty of a misdemeanor. That’s 100 feet “from the most outer points of the railroad track extending out in each direction.”
In the July 24 meeting, City staff called this a “hundred foot buffer safety zone” and provided a map of City-owned parcels on either side of the tracks to demonstrate the City’s interest in properties abutting the railroad right-of-way (it’s not clear on the map how far beyond those parcels the 100-foot “buffer safety zone” would extend).
The Staff Report also outlines another perceived advantage to the City:
“A significant benefit of this ordinance over standard trespassing is that it will not require posting of signs every 500 feet along the railroad corridor, currently required by law. This will eliminate the staff time and costs associated with production, installation, and frequent replacement of signage on the railroad tracks.”
The Council’s July 24th discussion, which you can view here, lasted just ten minutes. There was no public comment or correspondence. There was no discussion of penalties, misdemeanors, or of precisely how this would be enforced. Staff reassured Council that “We’re not introducing an ordinance in any way. We’re trying to get feedback from the body” so that staff could “incorporate it into a future ordinance, if that’s the direction” that Council desired.
Council directed staff to draft an ordinance, and now here we are less than a week later with a fully written ordinance (posted two days after the July 24 meeting) that according to the Staff Report has already had “legal review completed for compliance with City procedures and Nevada law.” Approval of the first reading of this ordinance by Council on Wednesday would pave the way for a second required reading, and after publishing in one issue of a Reno newspaper, it would immediately go into effect.
Encroachments on railroad property are extremely serious. But I’m thinking that because this proposed ordinance goes much further than regulating “trespassing on railroad tracks,” as the agenda reads, maybe there should be a little more discussion of the ordinance’s actual language, its implications, and potential repercussions, before a first reading is conducted and approved. What do you think?
Other development items on the City Council agenda
The July 31st City Council agenda is packed, and I encourage you to read it through. Some of the other items related to development include the following:
Items C.1, C.2, and C.3 concern the Chism Mobile Park Master Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for the site between West 2nd Street and the railroad tracks.
Item D.1 is about removing certain federal or public lands from the City’s Sphere of Influence. You can view them on a map here.
D.5 – Downtown Updates for the month of June 2024. You can view the Staff Report with a monthly update on downtown here.
Items. D.7 and D.8 would sell City-owned property at 1220 and 1250 West 4th Street (item D.7 and 1510 West 4th Street (Item D.8) to private interests at Fair Market value without first offering them to the public. These parcels are all west of Keystone Avenue and located between West 4th Street and the railroad tracks.
Item I.1 – This concerns an appeal of the Planning Commission’s vote to approve the Rancharrah Village 7 Tentative Map. Read the Staff Report here.
Item I.2 – This item will revisit the appeals of the the approved permit for the Mater Academy, as I wrote about last week. The Council vote was tied on July 24th, so in accordance with City policy, it comes back to Council again this week. You can find the Staff Report with an overview and update here.
If you would like to comment on any of these or other agenda items for the July 31 Reno City Council meeting, you can submit a “Request to Speak” form to the City Clerk if attending in person. You can also submit an online public comment form at Reno.Gov/PublicComment; send an email to Publiccomment@reno.gov; leave a voicemail at 775-393-4499; or 4) register to participate via Zoom at https://links.reno.gov/Council07-31. Be sure to know the agenda item of interest.
Council also meets in their role as the Redevelopment Agency Board on Wednesday, with that agenda posted here.
This Week in the News
A few things I’ve been reading this past week:
“A six-figure income and a struggle to afford a house in a Nevada battleground county” (about Washoe County, Shannon Pettypiece, NBC News, July 27, 2024)
“Council debates ‘Safe Scapes’ compliance, calls for service” (Kelsey Penrose, This is Reno, July 25, 2024)
“New artist renderings, video released on Grand Sierra Resort's 'Reno Arena' project” (Chris Murray, Nevada SportsNet, July 26, 2024)
“How much does Washoe County spend per person each day at Cares campus homeless shelter?” (Mark Robison, Reno Gazette-Journal, July 26, 2024)
That’s it for this week. Be sure to tune into some of those meetings, and let me know what you think—either before or after—in the comments.
Be sure to check out my Citizen Guide for helpful resources and links for anyone hoping to become more informed and engaged in issues related to urban development (& more) in Reno.
As always, you can view this and prior newsletters on my Substack site, subscribe to receive each new edition in your email inbox, and follow the Brief (and contribute to the ongoing conversation) on X, Facebook & Instagram. If you feel inspired to support my writing and research with a financial contribution, you can sign up for a paid subscription through my Substack site or contribute to my Venmo account at @Dr-Alicia-Barber or via check to Alicia Barber at P.O. Box 11955, Reno, NV 89510. Thanks so much for reading, and have a great week.