The Grand Sierra Resort arena, budget workshops, redoing Rancharrah & more
The GSR's redevelopment request and other news for the week of May 5, 2025
Well, it’s been quite a week. I’ve already published two Briefs over the past four days, and I hope you’ll be sure to read both of them. They address some troubling actions being undertaken by the City of Reno pertaining to our citizen Boards and Commissions, among other updates and recent news related to our community:
April 30: Prioritizing Public Process. From the ADU ordinance to permit applications to a questionable legislative bill to regulate the Planning Commission
There’s just been too much urgent news this week to fit into a single weekly Brief. But I can’t keep this up, so if developments continue at this breakneck pace, we’ll need to figure out a more sustainable way to ensure that residents are sufficiently informed in advance of what the City is doing and deciding, beyond the big-ticket items that get glitzy front-page treatment from the Reno Gazette-Journal.
For now, here’s a taste of what’s going on this week in the world of local development. I’ll cover the week’s full schedule first, followed by a spotlight on the GSR Arena.
City of Reno meetings: Week of May 5, 2025
You can view this week’s regularly scheduled City of Reno meetings with full agendas, staff reports, and informational packets here.
Mon., May 5, 10am: Budget Workshops for the Reno City Council & Redevelopment Agency Board
I discussed Monday’s budget workshops a bit in my May 2 Brief. The City has now posted a 43-slide staff presentation for the City Council budget and an 11-slide staff presentation for the RDA Board. More materials are linked from those agendas.
Wed., May 7, 10am: Reno City Council & Redevelopment Agency Board
Wednesday’s regular City Council agenda includes the following:
C.1 - update on regional fire collaboration efforts
C.2 - presentation on “current City of Reno public engagement practices, and updates regarding the launch of a public process to strategically prioritize engagement methods and practices” (this relates to the City Manager’s decision to place staffing for more than 12 citizen Boards and Commissions on a 90-day hiatus, but it’s curiously not an action item, so it looks like City Council can’t give her direction on what they’d like her to do about it, which should be their right).
C.3 - presentation & discussion on the adoption of the 2024 Building Codes and related items, with next steps for an ordinance update to Reno Municipal Code
C.4 - presentation of an external audit report on Employee Benefits
D.1, D.2, and D.3 - These all relate to a proposed Planned Unit Development Master Plan Amendment & Handbook Amendment for Rancharrah. You can read the overview of Rancharrah’s plan here. It would involve replacing the Equestrian Center with “Village 8,” with a capacity of 29 units. Among other things, the proposed revision would eliminate all references to equestrian uses, which was a major selling point of the original development. Here’s a 2023 article for background.
As usual, you should consult the full agenda for items of interest to you.
The sole action item on the Redevelopment Agency Board agenda is Item B.1 - consideration of TIF financing for the Grand Sierra Resort’s arena (see below).
To comment on any items on the May 7th Reno City Council or Redevelopment Agency Board agendas, attend in person or virtually by registering here. You can also submit public comment via Reno.Gov/PublicComment; by emailing Publiccomment@reno.gov; or by leaving a voicemail at 775-393-4499.
Thurs., May 8: Civil Service Commission (3:30pm) and Reno Planning Commission (6pm)
The Planning Commission has a seriously packed agenda due to the sudden cancellation of its prior meeting (power outage). In addition to public hearings for eight applications ranging from parking variances to a major site plan review, they include discussion of the revised Sign Ordinance:
5.1 - Recommendation to City Council): Case No. TXT23-00002 (Title 18 – Signs) – Ordinance amending the Reno Municipal Code Title 18, “Annexation and Land Development” in multiple sections related to signs. The agenda has links to the 10-page Staff Report, the Sign Code Ordinance, and public feedback as of 4/22/25. The Staff Report includes detailed discussion of the section regarding digital/animated signs for schools, the subject of a recent Scenic Nevada alert.
In-person “Community Forum” on Tuesday, May 6
On Friday, the City announced that a “Community Forum” will be held on Tuesday, May 6th at 5:30pm in Council Chambers. No word of who will be there except Ward 3 Councilmember Miguel Martinez and volunteers from the wonderful Good Neighbors Warming Center. A rep from Talus Valley? City staff? Who knows?
It doesn’t look like it will be streamed or recorded—like those meetings held by the Mayor and City staff about Live Entertainment Zones. They weren’t official scheduled meetings, so there were no agendas, minutes, or recordings. And here we go again.
REDEVELOPMENT: The Grand Sierra Resort’s Arena Project
As many are likely aware, the decision of whether to enter into final negotiation of terms to grant Tax Increment Financing assistance to the Grand Sierra Resort’s arena project heads to Reno City Council (in their role as the Redevelopment Agency Board) this coming Wednesday, May 7th.
There’s obviously been a great deal of coverage of this project, so I won’t be summing it all up here. The University of Nevada’s social media crew has been doing its own full court press this weekend with a series of Instagram posts instructing people precisely how to submit public comment for the meeting in support of the deal. I’ve never seen anything quite like it. I mean, look at this one.
As one commenter pointed out, “We, as students, were never surveyed about this proposal - very rich of you to project that we’ll be ‘enthusiastic’ when there’s nothing backing it up besides some opinions from suits that have zero contact with the student body.” That supports what I found, too—in seeking out some gauge of student sentiment, I came up entirely short. They don’t appear to be part of this conversation.
Rather, this is a plan undertaken from the top down, as seen in recent op/eds from GSR owner Alex Meruelo himself and UNR College of Business professor Frederick Steinmann, plus a well-timed front page feature, all in the Reno Gazette-Journal.
Involving UNR in this proposal is smart partnering on Meruelo’s part. If not for the university’s involvement, I suspect that public sentiment toward granting redevelopment financing to a special events venue at a casino resort owned by a billionaire might be looking quite different right now.
And it’s easy to see why Nevada Athletics is giving this their all, with the opportunity for their men’s basketball team to play in a state-of-the-art arena that UNR doesn’t have to construct. This is largely about securing future revenues, as outlined in one of the dozens of articles about the project published by Nevada SportsNet. But even those projected revenues involve substantial speculation:
The prospect of playing in a new arena might help UNR to recruit better men’s basketball players and tournaments.
A new arena might increase the number of spectators at UNR men’s basketball games (although the new arena would be smaller than Lawlor).
More attention being paid to UNR men’s basketball games might inspire more donations to UNR’s Athletics Department.
On the flip side, this would mean moving men’s basketball games from the center of campus to a casino resort’s arena that would have to be leased for every game. UNR won’t control the arena or the cost of food and beverages, what happens around it, or what else is built there—or, one presumes, what it is ultimately named (naming rights for arenas go for a premium, so I wouldn’t expect the words “Reno” or “Nevada” on it). And, of course, students living on and around campus wouldn’t be able to walk to it, although the university has mentioned guaranteeing some kind of transportation.
Apparently UNR Athletic Director Stephanie Rempe plans to make a final plea to the Redevelopment Agency Board on Wednesday, as reported by Nevada SportsNet:
“Rempe said her final pitch to the seven-person redevelopment board panel that will vote on the project Wednesday centers on how the arena would impact Nevada athletics' ability to navigate the increasingly more challenging financial landscape of college athletics.”
Now, let’s be clear that the university doesn’t have anything to lose here. I suppose if things didn’t pan out, they could always return the men’s games to Lawlor Events Center, but that’s if they don’t decide in the interim that the site it currently occupies wouldn’t better be devoted to some new project (if they could relocate women’s basketball elsewhere). I mean, look at the size of the Lawlor footprint (bottom left).
I get UNR’s enthusiasm for a brand new arena that they could use without paying for its construction. But here’s the thing (and I say this respectfully):
This is not the university’s deal.
Of course, the City of Reno and its Redevelopment Agency consider UNR to be a strong community partner, but the Reno Redevelopment Agency was not created to boost revenues for Nevada Athletics. The City of Reno does not owe UNR this or anything (in fact, after the City changed the name of historic Center Street to University Way, permanently recolored the Reno Arch silver and blue, and legally altered its own skyway ordinance just so UNR wouldn’t have to have its pedestrian footbridge over Ninth Street reviewed by an architectural design review board, I’d say UNR is actually the one that needs to step up its reciprocity at this point).
No matter how many goals they might share, a stated benefit to UNR is not necessarily a benefit to the City of Reno, or technically a “public benefit” at all, which is the test these projects must meet, if they’re not actually improving blighted property (that’s according to the City attorney at the April 21 RAAB meeting).
With that in mind, the Redevelopment Agency Board must set aside any potential benefits of this arena to the University of Nevada and its Athletic Program. It’s simply irrelevant to their deliberations.
The UNR men’s basketball team is a potential tenant of this proposed arena, but UNR is not a financial partner in the potential deal between the Reno Redevelopment Agency and the Meruelo Group. Whatever arrangement UNR might itself work out with the Meruelo Group is entirely between them. It could work out or it could go south next month, next year, or five years from now. At this point, all we know is that this arena might house UNR Men’s Basketball, just as it might eventually house a hockey team. Or ice shows. Or Lady Gaga. As I’ve said before, we’re in a speculative era when a lot of people are banking on their bright new ideas panning out, but it’s unquestionably a time of great uncertainty, economic and otherwise.
Listen, I’m not part of the hype squad. I have no skin in this game. And it’s clear to me that the high status of the major players in this deal can make it difficult for many to fully express their concerns. So allow me to help lay out a few key questions that are still being asked, and to share some of the answers we’ve already been given.
QUESTION: Could the GSR Arena project REALLY not happen without TIF assistance?
From Alex Meruelo to the UNR Instagram account, we’re being told that this is a no-risk proposition because the tax increment that would be refunded to the Grand Sierra Resort is money that would never have existed if the project were not built. As a result, the public wouldn’t be out any money, because if not for (“but for”) this deal, there would not be any project, and therefore any new property tax, in the first place. (If you need a primer on TIF, Downtown Makeover has a fabulous explainer here.)
The “but for” test asks whether the Meruelo Group could afford to construct this project without the assistance of the Redevelopment Agency. That’s a critical question to answer accurately in order to determine whether the public is actually losing money here, because if the Meruelo Group had never approached the Redevelopment Agency at all and just financed this project without its help, then all of the increased property tax generated by the project would become public money, and be available immediately to direct toward the rest of Redevelopment Area (RDA) 2.
That’s all of the areas shaded below in pink (plus more; click here for the full map).
That determination was supposedly already made, and yet the questions have continued, including at the April 21st meeting of the Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board, which you can view on YouTube (there’s some relevant public comment at the beginning, and the GSR discussion starts around the 1 hr 4 minute mark here). That meeting (which Mayor Schieve did not attend, even though she is the RAAB’s Council liaison—in fact, I don’t believe she’s attended any of them) was covered in great detail by an April 21st Nevada SportsNet article that I strongly encourage you to read, as it lays out many of the stated concerns about revenue projects, project eligibility, and the question of whether this project could move forward even with TIF assistance.
The City attorney in attendance pointed out that you don’t actually have to show that the applicant couldn’t fund the project without these funds, since tax increment financing actually works as a reimbursement; in other words, the developer has to pay the entire cost of the construction up front regardless, and only gets the tax increment afterwards. According to the SportsNet article, “[GSR’s Andrew] Diss said the GSR has financing in place via a third-party loan that is contingent on TIF financing and the loan would materially change and might not be available if not for that TIF funding.”
Another issue here is that the ever-increasing estimated construction cost of the arena project exceeds even what the tax increment refund (a maximum of $68.1 million) would provide, prompting the question of how exactly the Meruelo Group plans to make up the difference. And if they can close that additional gap through other means, why can’t they just secure the full amount without RDA assistance?
To quote the April 21st SportsNet article:
"Does it solve the gap?" Hunden Partner project executive Mike Thiessen asked. "It does not solve the gap. That's a risk-reward the developer and city have to make. To say it doesn't solve the whole gap ... we've all taken a leap of faith."
To say there was skepticism about the TIF assistance at the RAAB meeting would be an understatement. Around 2:41 it’s clear that no one was terribly eager to make a motion, and no one wanted to recommend any of the three deal options suggested; in the end, they voted to “recommend the approval of a deal at the Council’s discretion,” which could include other options not currently listed, which was seconded and approved with significant hesitation (and after some RAAB members had already left).
QUESTION: Would the public benefit to the City of Reno truly constitute a net gain, all things considered?
The conclusion that TIF assistance would result in substantial public benefit requires concluding that this project would result in a net gain, not a loss, for the City. Again, this takes you back to the economic estimates as well as the assessment of what other businesses, initiatives or areas might suffer were this project to move forward (and therefore whether it’s wise for the City to be partially responsible for it).
As Nevada SportsNet reported, the City-commissioned Hunden Partners report expressed "1,000 percent confidence” in their prediction of $2.6 billion in total net new spending in the city of Reno from 2028-55 with $74.2 million in net new local tax revenue if all components of phase one are operational by 2028. Several RAAB members expressed skepticism about the projections and concern for “displacement” of events that might otherwise be held in existing venues including the Downtown Reno Events Center.
Hunden argued that the Events Center wouldn’t be impacted because it hosts a “lower caliber” of acts (and now Mayor Schieve wants the City to stop financially supporting it, if you recall last week’s article). Assessments of displacement from UNR-area businesses that currently profit from campus-based basketball games varied, too.
In the end, I think our City Councilmembers are going to draw upon whatever arguments they find most persuasive. They’ll believe the numbers or they won’t. They’ll prioritize union jobs, or state that in a time of budget crisis, we need to do everything possible to get more taxes of all kinds, or they’ll argue that can happen without RDA support. They may argue that this sets a concerning precedent for TIF requests from private entities or other casino properties, or they’ll be unconcerned.
That extreme subjectivity is a problem that we could have avoided. As I’ve stated before, I think City Council made a big mistake in moving so fast to adopt the whole slew of new redevelopment policies and “Participation Programs” that City staff sprung on them last summer, without any Council or community discussion of more specific goals for each of the redevelopment areas or the “districts” staff divided them into. Instead, they admittedly used as their models cities like Boise and Toronto, whose redevelopment areas don’t have multiple corporate-owned casino properties.
We could really have used some community discussion last year about precisely what types of privately-owned projects, casino-owned or otherwise, would constitute the required public benefit (and no, it shouldn’t just come down to “more jobs” and “more tax revenues,” which would basically qualify pretty much everything).
This is Item B.1 on the Redevelopment Agency Board agenda and there are a LOT of supporting materials including a new response by the City’s consultant, Hunden Partners, to the competing analysis commissioned by a Coalition of other casinos.
I want to end with Mike Van Houten’s smart Downtown Makeover article in which he suggests a wide range of “community add-ons” that the Redevelopment Agency Board could consider, should they be determined to approve the TIF request. They might help to mitigate any potential displacement the project might cause and help to secure the true “public benefit” that redevelopment deals are supposed to achieve.
Have a great week, everyone—and thanks so much for your support and kind words.
Be sure to check out my Citizen Guide for helpful resources and links to help anyone become more informed and engaged in issues related to urban development (& more) in Reno.
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 contribute, you may purchase a paid subscription through Substack or contribute via Venmo at @Dr-Alicia-Barber or via check to Alicia Barber at P.O. Box 11955, Reno, NV 89510.
Public benefits from helping a billionaire get his way aren’t a thing
As far as UNR thinking that a new stadium will make their basketball team better and recruit better players….
One just needs to look at our neighbor to the south when the radiers came in and used taxpayer funded money so a billionaire could build his stadium. The promise was that unlv football would be playing in a new stadium and that would drive more recruits to the college.
The radiers are terrible and unlv football is still terrible. A new stadium doesn’t make the team. Neither do outrageous salaries to college coaches (but that’s another topic)
If GSR wants a new stadium for their use, they should do it without subsidies from the city that is struggling with their current budget. The “amount of new revenue” is questionable as we are entering a recession and things are about to get worse for everyone, including the city.
Thank you Alicia for all the work and insight, and making us aware of the questionable goings on with those who are in charge of our city. It is a dizzying amount of people, agencies, and departments that have their hands in the till, let alone the billionaires getting richer by the day off of us “the little people.” It’s just never enough for them is it? And it seems that no one has a conscience anymore! I know I’m not the only one who doesn’t understand everything that’s going on!!! But you do! Please keep hovering over those who aren’t looking out for our welfare and our Meadows! Make them look over their shoulders! Unfortunately, you have become our first line of defense.
On behalf of many life long residents… Thank you!