Not So Fast, Please: More Time Required to Relaunch Reno Redevelopment

A surprise new reintroduction of the Redevelopment Agency, selling the City’s Record Street Properties, and much more are on tap for Wednesday, August 14

Aug 12, 2024

Today marks the first day of school for the Washoe County School District, so please be vigilant as you go about your day, and let’s also send our thoughts to those affected by the fire near the California border now being called the Gold Ranch Fire.

Among other important topics facing the City of Reno this week, last Thursday City staff just posted a hugely consequential item on the agenda of the Reno Redevelopment Agency Board: It’s the proposed relaunch of the Reno Redevelopment Agency complete with new planning districts, newly defined goals, and an array of new programs and procedures through which developers and investors can apply for financial assistance using redevelopment funds.

This is a big topic, so I’ll devote a lot of space to it today, but at the end I’ll list some items to be addressed by City Council, plus updates on prior items. As always, scan the full calendar of this week’s City meetings here for what interests you.

Sweeping Changes Proposed for Redevelopment

Item B.1 on Wednesday’s Redevelopment Agency Board agenda is titled “Discussion and Adoption of the Redevelopment Agency Status Report, Participation Program, and Application Form,” but it is in fact a complete relaunch and reconfiguration of Redevelopment Agency programs after approximately 14 years of dormancy, all conceived without any public input or specific direction by the Agency Board.

The Redevelopment Agency Board, if you’re not familiar, is comprised of the members of the Reno City Council, who convene as that separate body on the same days Council meets. There are a lot of documents included with this item, and I’ll be focusing primarily on the Redevelopment Agency Status Report and Redevelopment Agency Participation Program and Processes.

These materials have clearly been in the works for months, although the documents themselves don’t reveal how they were put together—at whose request, by whom, and with what outside consultation, if any. They have just appeared, packaged, designed, fully formed, and ready for action, like Athena springing from the head of Zeus.

I’ve already identified a wide array of concerns, which I’ll group into five issues:

It was not undertaken as a public process and was conceived without any community, stakeholder, or Board engagement. In fact, the only “stakeholders” referenced are the property owners, developers, and investors who would be able to apply for Redevelopment Agency funding should these policies be adopted.
It does not identify who the City of Reno is now considering to be “Redevelopment Agency staff,” and yet it places that entity in charge of reviewing applications for Redevelopment assistance, presenting their recommendations to the Agency Board (Council) for final approval, and more.
It does not propose the reinstatement of the Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board (RAAB) or any citizen body to advise the Agency Board (Council) on desired projects to be prioritized or undertaken in the redevelopment areas.
It divides RDA#2 into seven new “planning districts,” each with a new (and in some cases, questionable) name, assessment of current conditions, and delineated goals, needs, and development preferences with images of “Sample Properties.”
It proposes that the Redevelopment Agency adopt five different “Participation Programs,” each of which is incredibly complex and warrants individual discussion in great depth and detail in order to determine whether the Board and greater community agree that these constitute desirable project types for each or any of these areas, and agree with how staff proposes to evaluate and fund them.

It’s highly surprising to me that this item isn’t being presented as an information-only presentation, or as a draft or workshop. Rather, the staff recommendation is for Council (sitting as the Agency Board) to adopt all of it, without either they (I’m presuming) or the public having been able to see any of it for more than a few days.

I am suspecting that these documents will be presented as “data-driven” (a term we have been hearing a lot from staff lately), but while they do indeed contain a great deal of data (albeit largely uncited), they are also the product of an astounding number of subjective assessments, assumptions, and decisions that should raise a lot of questions for residents, property owners, and of course our elected representatives.

The proper forum to discuss a relaunch of the Redevelopment Agency, in parallel or sequential order with the Redevelopment Agency Board’s own discussions, would have been the Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board (RAAB), but the City of Reno dissolved it approximately six years ago, in the middle of the so-called “dormancy” period for Reno Redevelopment. If that period of dormancy is now ending, then the proper course of action is to immediately reinstate the RAAB and run any new programs and policies through them, so that Advisory Board can then advise the Redevelopment Agency Board as they did for 27 years—not just pretend that the RAAB never existed, that it isn’t needed, and that no one cares about its return.

When it comes to Redevelopment in particular, you have to keep in mind that it is primarily motivated by the intent of reducing blight and increasing the economic value of property. That may, to some, seem to be a straightforward data-driven assessment based primarily on assessed property values, but any human who cares about a place knows that notions of “blight” and “value” can be quite subjective—just like the notions of the “highest and best use” of a piece of land, which when conceived solely in economic terms will almost always favor the shiny and new. And the decision of what kinds of development should receive public subsidies in specific areas of Reno should, one would hope, prioritize what the public actually wants to see there.

I’ll do what I can to explain why the components of this relaunch raise some concerns for me, taken in the same sequence that I introduced them above.

Issue #1: It was not undertaken as a public process in association with any community or Redevelopment Agency Board engagement.

Because Reno’s Redevelopment Agency has been essentially dormant since 2010, none of our sitting Councilmembers or the Mayor have sat on the Board when fully operational. That same lack of familiarity certainly extends to most City staff and a large number of local residents. Relaunching it is a big deal.

Residents might naturally be asking if the Redevelopment Agency is projected to start earning more revenue in the coming years, what expenditures of those funds should be prioritized? Paying off debt? Funding the maintenance of prior Redevelopment projects (some of which I wrote about last week)? The last formal Redevelopment Plan is clearly out of date, and doesn’t answer these questions with respect to the current status of the Agency and its funds.

Ward One Councilmember Jenny Brekhus has been calling for the City’s Redevelopment Plan to be updated for years now, and almost three years ago wrote a Substack post about Reno’s “Vampire Redevelopment Agency,” which you can find here and which I encourage everyone to read. She’s thought about this more than any sitting Councilmember, and raises a lot of excellent points and questions.

As Councilmember Brekhus states in that post, she was informed by City staff years ago that an updated Redevelopment Plan was not required to get the Agency moving again, just a current statement of goals and initiatives. That is apparently what is happening here, but the goals and initiatives are so different than what came before them that this essentially constitutes a whole new approach.

Issue #2: It does not identify who the City of Reno is now considering to be “Redevelopment Agency staff.”

This is critically important, in order to understand not just who wrote all of these documents, including descriptions of the various redevelopment areas and what types of development are most desirable there, but just as importantly, who would actually be running the Agency and evaluating all the applications for its funded programs.

Most residents may not know that the Reno Redevelopment Agency once had more than a dozen dedicated staff positions all to itself. As I wrote earlier this year in my initial post advocating reinstatement of the RAAB, the number of Reno’s Redevelopment Agency staff was gradually reduced as revenues declined. In 2008 it had 17 staff, cut to 6.5 in 2009, with the loss of the final staff members in 2011.

The current position of Revitalization Manager held by Bryan McArdle was created in 2015 specifically to assist the Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board (which I’ll discuss next) after all the rest of the staff positions had been eliminated. The RAAB had continued to meet, because of course even without revenues, there was still activity in the redevelopment areas and with redevelopment projects. Its dissolution was never explained or justified.

Redevelopment is now apparently lodged in the Economic Development section of the City Manager’s office, so who exactly is that, and what expertise do they hold? The recent budgeting process identified a number of positions working for the Revitalization Manager: an Activation Coordinator, an Economic Development Marketing Program Manager, and a Property Development Analyst (RDA). Is this the current “Redevelopment Agency Staff” or is some additional reconfiguration anticipated? Who is being considered the Redevelopment Agency Director or Administrator, positions that used to exist but were eliminated years ago?

Issue #3: It does not propose the reinstatement of the Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board (RAAB)

In the section of the Status Report dedicated to the history of the Redevelopment Agency, the RAAB is mentioned as part of that history, under an era titled “Strategic Development and Community Involvement (1990s-2000s)”:

The section titled, “Expansion and Modernization (2000s-2020s)” states that “The plan also focused on encouraging further public participation in redevelopment activities and promoting the general welfare of residents.”

The RAAB was active until 2017, when the City quietly dissolved it. So have those in charge now determined that formal community involvement should no longer be central to Redevelopment and that City staff and the Redevelopment Agency Board (City Council) should now be solely responsible for all decisions made?

If so, this is a major problem. The RAAB served a critical advisory role for the Redevelopment Agency Board for 27 years. It was the forum through which the public discussed and even helped to formulate projects in the redevelopment areas and conveyed their concerns and recommendations to City leaders. It was the hub of extended, lively, and informed discussion of the redevelopment areas and all activities occurring in them, both public and private.

I did find a reference to the “Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board” on page 12 of a section on evaluating “Catalyst Developments,” where it is stated that in substitution for a community meeting, a developer could consider “attending a Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board” as meeting this requirement. So, does that mean the RAAB actually would be reinstated? If so, that needs to be specifically addressed, with its role clearly explicated. There are a few references to “public meetings” as part of the review process, but with no elaboration. And individually scheduled public meetings for a specific proposed project are no comparison to an ongoing, regularly scheduled meeting of a citizen advisory board, specifically focused on redevelopment.

Issue #4: It divides RDA#2 into seven new “planning districts”

The Staff Report states that “This report provides a comprehensive overview of the agency's mission, the mechanics of TIF, the agency’s goals, detailed data on the designated redevelopment areas, the agency's historical context, current projects, future plans, and financial projections.”

And it does do that. But what it doesn’t say is that the Redevelopment Agency Status Report has also stated new goals. It has divided the two RDA districts into eight areas (Downtown for RDA1 and seven new sub-districts for RDA2) and for each one has included a description and an indication of what types of redevelopment could improve those areas, stating that “each district has different character and needs,” and that “the smaller size of each district will also allow for more effective application of general neighborhood planning and common design standards within each area.”

Detail from image of proposed planning districts, *City of Reno*

What does that mean? Some of these areas are expansive and diverse and do not have any defined “design standards.” Who is defining that character and those needs? Some of the redevelopment goals expressed in terms such as the “most pressing needs” for each area are clearly subjective, containing statements that I would greatly caution City Council against immediately accepting as the City’s official priorities for them.

For instance, for the “Downtown” area (RDA1), we’re told that “The most pressing needs in the district include attractive multi-family and mixed-use properties to increase the number of long-term downtown residents.” Where did that come from? Does this area also potentially need new non-gaming entertainment and tourist destinations? Could it benefit from the addition of university-related projects? Focused revitalization and re-envisioning of City-owned facilities? The priorities expressed in these individual plans will dictate how applications are ranked, so shouldn’t they be conceived with a great deal more community involvement?

A new “district” named “Keystone” extends from west of Keystone Avenue all the way to Evans Park, and while I’m pleased to no longer see anything north of West 5^th Street being called the “Neon Line,” I’m concerned by language such as “The few remaining single family residential parcels are gradually giving way to larger multi-family properties, adding population density to the area. Similarly, the vacant commercial parcels not under construction are attracting development inquiries that may help fill available vacant land over the next few years.”

Are these single-family parcels “giving way” to larger multi-family properties due to the demolition and forced relocation of some of Reno’s oldest and most historic homes? And what is the source of the information that “vacant commercial parcels in this area are attracting development inquiries”? That seems an odd, fleeting, and somewhat questionable claim to justify the existence of vacant land.

The name of “Brewery District” is given to a huge and varied area south of Interstate 80 extending from around University Way (N. Center Street) on the west side to Galletti Way on the east side, and as far south as Mill Street. I get the desire to brand the area surrounding East 4^th Street as a Brewery District, but this extends far beyond that. I’m also concerned to see language such as “The Brewery District is characterized by typical indicators of urban blight” and “This district represents an area of significant opportunity for increased land value given the number of vacant and underutilized properties and the ubiquitous disrepair of occupied properties” (p. 29). What specific part of this large area is being described this way?

Additional descriptions, assessments, and goals accompany sections regarding “Midtown,” the “Lake District,” the “Convention District,” “Grand Sierra,” and “Boomtown,” which should each be scrutinized for the nature of its descriptive language and stated “needs.” What is included there now reads like the conclusions of a real estate property analyst, which is likely what they are, but I’m concerned at these becoming the official assessments of the current status and official City goals for such broad areas—particularly with no community input.

Issue #5: It proposes that the Redevelopment Agency adopt five different “Participation Programs” that require intensive scrutiny.

The Staff Report says that “This program outlines how the agency will partner with property owners, developers, and investors.” The document, itself, Redevelopment Agency Participation Program and Processes outlines five such programs:

Building Façade and Tenant Improvement Program
Tax Increment Financing Assistance Program
Catalyst Project Assistance Program
Capital Improvement Project Assistance Program
Property Disposition Program

Each one of these proposed programs deserves its own discussion to determine how successful (or not) they have already been in Reno and elsewhere, and whether they should indeed be included as Redevelopment options in any or each of these newly defined planning areas. If we’re going to be relaunching Redevelopment in Reno after nearly 15 years, shouldn’t we be approaching this much more deliberately? I can’t possibly review all of the issues with these, but here are some initial thoughts.

Building Façade and Tenant Improvement Program

This program is so new, it is impossible to evaluate its success here. I had expected this program to focus on the restoration of historic storefronts, as such programs do elsewhere and as the image on the ReStore webpage depicts (it’s not an image from Reno). Instead, this program has seemed to fund primarily new signage and tenant-specific improvements, which might be great for that individual business but do not necessarily improve a property in perpetuity, should ownership or uses change.

As described, this program would provide bonuses for buildings listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places. Why not the City of Reno historic register? And who would ensure that any such improvements did not detract from the historical integrity of those properties? Has anyone been ensuring that any improvements funded by this program thus far have not damaged that integrity? Whose job is that?

Tax Increment Financing Assistance Program

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a highly controversial tool for financing urban redevelopment, for a number of reasons, many outlined in “CityLab University: Tax Increment Financing” (Benjamin Schneider, 10/24/19). Here’s an excerpt:

The “but for” problem looms over nearly every TIF program that is intended to spur economic development. How can a city predict whether new investments or developments will take place if they do not create a TIF district? The existence of TIF might create a self-fulfilling cycle, where developers will only invest in certain places if they can access TIF subsidies. Competition—between major cities, within a region, or even within a city—can be a major impetus behind TIF, creating the possibility of a “race to the bottom” on incentives.

Councilmember Brekhus also explains some of the underlying reservations about TIF in her Substack post. It has a spotty record in Reno, which should be discussed.

Catalyst Project Assistance Program

A major issue with this one is the whole notion of catalysts. Recall the whole sequence of revitalization projects that were envisioned and subsidized based on the premise that they would for sure, definitely catalyze revitalization of the surrounding area: the National Bowling Stadium, Events Center, the Freight House District….none of it happened (and in fact, I’m very concerned for the fate of the historic Freight House itself, which has been neglected for years). Might the Agency be able to more realistically assess potentially transformative projects today? It might; but I think an examination of the means by which they hope to do so deserves scrutiny.

This document goes on to outline Eligibility Requirements for Prospective “Participants” (property owners, developers, and investors). Each program has its own proposed procedure, further developed in a Redevelopment Agency Participation Program General Application that interested parties would submit for evaluation by Agency staff. Those are worth a deep analysis, too.

And I’ll reiterate, again, my deep concern regarding precisely who constitutes “Agency staff.” This group of people is being given enormous power here—to meet with prospective applicants; review applications for “project viability” and “area benefit”; engage with “third-party advisory firms”; and prepare negotiated agreements with developers. All final agreements would require approval by the Redevelopment Agency Board, of course, but that’s a lot to be happening outside of public view, to potentially appear solely on one public agenda.

And lastly, should this entire relaunch be occurring while Reno is still seeking a new City Manager, locking this massive program in place before they are even hired?

I do hope everyone who is interested in Redevelopment, or the future of any of these redevelopment areas, will look through these documents and forward your thoughts to City Council (in their role as the Agency Board). You can attend the meeting in person or virtually by registering at https://links.reno.gov/Council08-14. Public comment can be delivered in person, by submitting an online public comment form at Reno.Gov/PublicComment; (2) emailing Publiccomment@reno.gov; (3) leaving a voicemail at 775-393-4499; or 4) participating via Zoom.

Reno City Council Items for Wednesday, August 14

The full agenda for the August 14, 2024 City Council meeting can be found online here. Be sure to read through it in its entirety, and I’ll highlight a few items. Public comment can be delivered using the same links and contact information above.

D.2 – Staff report on the status of the search for new City Manager. The primary question here appears to be how many candidates City Council would like the recruiter to bring forward for consideration. View the Staff Report here.

D.3 – Bill Draft Requests. What Bill Draft Requests should the City forward to the State Legislature? Giving the City the power to raise the Capital Projects Surcharge? Changing the City Charter? Others? Materials include a Staff Report and the Charter Committee’s final report. This is Reno had a great recap of the July 29^th joint meeting of the City Council and Charter Committee here: “City Charter Committee pushes for representation in joint meeting with Council” (Kristen Hackbarth, 7/31/2024).

D. 4 - Disposition of the City’s CAC Properties on Record Street. As the Staff Report indicates, City staff is bringing forward their rankings for four proposals for developing this site, and may choose to enter into an exclusive agreement with one of them. There are a lot of materials to view here, including the proposals, rankings, and other information, and you can access all of those via the agenda. Some of my questions on this echo my concerns about the proposed Redevelopment Relaunch: i.e. who decided on what should be prioritized for this particular site, and when did that occur? The proposals range from 100% affordable housing to 90% workforce housing to rehabilitating the buildings as non-profit space to repurposing shipping containers.

E. 1 – The Ordinance to Prohibit Trespassing Upon [or near] Railroad Tracks. This was rescheduled from the original date of July 31. I previewed this in my July 29 Brief, which you can read here. The Staff Report this time can be found here.

Updates & assorted development-related news

On the City’s proposed ADU ordinance

“City Council moves forward with ADUs” (Kelsey Penrose, This is Reno, 8/3/2024)

“Reno council advances accessory dwelling units proposal, new ordinance coming next year” (Ben Margiott, News4Reno, 8/1/2024)

That’s it for today—take care out there!

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 Twitter, Facebook & Instagram. If you feel inspired to contribute to my efforts, 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.

The Barber Brief

Discussion about this post