Reno's Annexation of Cold Springs

This is the very temporary page for info on the ~~proposed~~ annexation of 7,045 acres of property by the City of Reno, submitted by Lifestyle Homes.

We live in the Cold Springs valley and chose this area, among other things, to avoid the fiscal irresponsibility of the city. We also like larger lots, minimal traffic, minimal industry, lower taxes, inexpensive water, better roads, and better and more friendly law enforcement. The proposed annexation is an affront to all we love about this area. It is also simply for the financial gain of a developer and the city and not for the best interests of the people, the city, or the county.

In January 2005, Summit Engineering, working for Lifestyle Homes, reactivated an annexation proposal that had been on hold with the City of Reno. It had been placed before the city council in June 2004 and then shelved by the applicants. It is named the Granite Peterson Peavine Annexation because it extends to each of those mountains/ranges. It is a resurrection of a proposal in October 2002. It currently asks for 7,045 acres or 11 square miles of land to be taken from the unincorporated county. The land stretches from Red Rock Road and Lemmon Drive around to White Lake dry lake bed in Cold Springs and on to the California border by the pallet plant. It continues south another 2 1/2 miles from there. An equivalent area would encompass McCarran and Keystone to Oddie and 395 to Kietzke and Moana to Cashill, like this. It is a checkerboard of properties that would be advantageous to the developer. Only one dwelling is included in the proposal and it belongs to an applicant. The land is all sagebrush, jackrabbits, and coyotes. The developer cannot build on developed land and homeowners can fight for their right to remain in the county, so it is easier this way and less fuss. They can take our property later, once they have the surrounding land.

The obvious reason for the applicants' desire to have Reno annex their land is simply: Money. The allowed density of housing within the city is much higher than within the county. The Regional Plan (and Settlement Agreement, I believe) does not allow housing more dense than 3 dwelling units per acre in the unincorporated regions of the county. Land within the city can be rezoned to allow much more dense population and business use.

The obvious reason the city staff and city councilmen voting for it are in favor is simply: Money. The city limits moved to encompass seven thousand acres of property is seven thousand acres of new found property taxes. Even the property zoned for one dwelling unit per forty acres will bring in taxes. Without housing or businesses on that land, city services required will be almost nil. Obviously, the owners will ask for zoning changes which will improve the property's development potential. That is also what open land property taxes are based on. So do you suppose the councilmen voting for the annexation (money) will also vote for zoning changes (money)? For the people currently paying city taxes, this sounds great. Help get those streets fixed and such. The problem is that residential property taxes do not match the cost of city services required for that residential area. Once housing is built, the project actually becomes a draw on the city. Unless there are many businesses also built, the whole seven thousand acre tax windfall could well become a loss to the city tax spreadsheet. Now ask the city staff how this is good for the city.

A voluntary annexation (which this is) involves property owned by parties who want their property to be annexed. There only has to be a corner contiguous with (touching) the existing city limits. There is even less than that in this case. The gap is bridged by Washoe County land to the north, which fulfills the requirement by statute. An involuntary annexation is more difficult and the city can expect the affected owners to fight it. An involuntary one must have 15% contiguity with the existing city limits. Note that, although the current proposal is a voluntary annexation and would not have the required 15% to be able to be involuntarily annexed, if this annexation passes the land next to this annexation property (including the developed property that many of you live on) would be prime for involuntary annexation afterward. Bottom line: If this comes to pass, don't be surprised if your property is annexed against your will eventually.

The land is currently zoned as Open Space (OS), General Rural (GR), and Medium Density Suburban (MDS) per the Washoe County plan. MDS allows building residences at an average of 3 dwelling units per acre. Woodland Village seems actually more dense than this and the developed areas are (2.3 per acre), but if the open space and greenbelt is included, it averages out to 3 houses per acre. The county does not allow more dense housing than 3 dwelling units per acre. It is simply not in the plan for unincorporated "rural" land. As said earlier, this is part of the reason we live here. Of course, if this were truly acceptable in the plan of Lifestyle Homes, there would be no need for annexation. They have already received the blessing to build out to the county's liking. The problem is that the land would be worth much more if they could build more on it than 3 residences per acre. Think strip malls and apartment complexes.

Lifestyle Homes (and its namesakes, such as Woodland Village North LLC) owns over 3,770 acres (49.8%) of the annexation land. As a developer, Lifestyle Homes has a lot at stake financially in this annexation. They initially proposed the annexation back in 2002, but the Regional Plan was being fought and a settlement was still in the works so they shelved it.

Picturing that 640 unit apartment complex north of the Woodland Village town center? Better put up a traffic light at Crystal Canyon and White Lake. A couple more at the Bordertown exit and on ramp. They say that there might be less traffic on the freeway with all the building. With another 6,860 dwellings proposed, that would take one heck of a lot of industry for all those people to work in this valley. All that residential and industry adds to the traffic, noise, ambient nighttime light, nitrates in the water, and smog. And, most importantly, more development draws off the limited water in the valley. Ready for watering only on your assigned day? Maybe wash your car if you're lucky? Water bills climbing? Those on septic being forced onto a sewer system because the fertilizer drives the nitrate levels up?

Maybe Lifestyle Homes and the other landowners just want to pay more property taxes, but not build on the land...

The actual annexation proposal folder is available to look through at the City of Reno Community Development at 450 Sinclair St, Reno, third floor. Note the fiscal analysis. As I recall, the whole thing is worth over $5.6 billion to someone over 24 years. Note that a new fiscal analysis has not been prepared by the city staff to account for the 500 acres of land removed from the proposal in January.

Bonnie Weber is our county commissioner. She does support holding this annexation off, but I do recommend you write to her to give your opinion, ask questions, and encourage her to attend the City Council meetings and voice our opposition. Write to her at bweber@mail.co.washoe.nv.us. Keep in mind, though, that the county has absolutely no say in whether the city council annexes this property.

This annexation is on the heels of others, including Verdi. Because the City of Reno is in a massive land grab, this should be of interest to anyone within 10 miles of the city. Get this information to anyone you know who is in the county, but has not yet been annexed. They will likely be involved soon. If we all can bring this to a reasonable pace now, others will not have to fight on their own turf later.

On January 26th the city council had the first reading and vote on this issue. The final vote was 4-3 in favor of annexation.
Voting in favor of annexation were: Dave Aiazzi, Dwight Dortch, Dan Gustin and Mayor Bob Cashell.
Voting against annexation were: Jessica Sferrazza, Sharon Zadra, and Pierre Hascheff.

Note that Dwight Dortch is the councilman for Stead (Ward 4) and, thus would be responsible for the annexed area.

The final hearing and vote were originally scheduled for February 9th. County commissioners Bonnie Weber and Jim Galloway requested the council hold off on that final vote for up to 45 days to allow completion of the area plan which is in process. According to the city's web page on the annexation, the extension was accepted and the final vote should be on March 9th.
The city council now meets at City Hall, 1 East 1st Street. Park for free in the Cal-Neva garage (access on Center St.) and walk around the corner to the N. Virginia entrance to City Hall.

March 9, 2005 - Well, they made their final vote and it was FOR annexation. The same councilpersons and mayor (Dortch, Aiazzi, Gustin, and Cashell) voted the same way they did in the first hearing.
-To our contention of "Why annex this undevelopable property now?" Dortch and Aiazzi reply, "Why not?"
-To our adamant insistence that the community does not want this right now, they say, "So?"
-To the point of "Logical Extension of Boundaries of City Limits" they say, "It's close to Reno, isn't it?"
-To the point of "Location of Existing and Planned Water ... Service" they say, "Someone is talking about importing it, aren't they?"
-To the point of "Community Goals That Would Be Met By the Proposed Annexation" they say, "Well, maybe nobody in that community wants it, but MY community in Reno needs the money."

Prepare for the next battle: The rezoning of the land. Oh, wait, since you probably "aren't affected by the actions" you have no say over that, either.

My Summary of Facts page.
The map is here. Note that this is the original request and the 500 acres removed from the current request are not shown.
The county's press release about the June 2004 actions is here. This debunks some of the illogical explanations given by Summit and the city staff.
The county staff report with their recommendation is here. Note that the report on Verdi's problems with the city are part of this document.
The Washoe County Community Development Dept has done wonderful things about this. They do the research and reports for the commission.
The City of Reno has a page on their site with some Q&A to try to get some good PR.
The City of Reno's staff report praising (and recommending) the annexation is here.
The phone numbers and e-mail addresses for the City Council members are here. I recommend contacting all of them.
The archived page of this site from the July actions.

Meetings and Important Dates:
1/26/2005 City Council Meeting - first reading and vote
3/09/2005 City Council Meeting - final reading and vote ***Annexation final***

Reno Gazette-Journal articles:
1/27/2005 Reno gives initial OK to annex at Cold Springs
1/14/2005 Residents invited to give feedback at workshop today
1/14/2005 Washoe landowners seek annexation
7/13/2004 Area near Cold Springs might join city
7/10/2004 Meeting set to discuss Cold Springs annexation
7/05/2004 Citizens to discuss area development at council meeting
7/05/2004 City, county postpone development meeting
6/26/2004 Public needs its say in Cold Springs plan
6/26/2004 Judge orders Washoe County, Reno and Sparks to rewrite their planning standards
6/23/2004 County opposes Reno annexing Cold Springs
6/23/2004 Officials consider questions for ballot
6/23/2004 Joint meeting slated on annexation
6/20/2004 Reno eyes thousands of Cold Springs acres for annexation
4/23/2004 Would-be residents line up for new homes
1/01/2004 Residents fear water projects could bring more growth
2/14/2003 Planners adopt interim water policies
1/18/2003 Washoe County officials doubt regional planning will be effective
10/15/2002 Regional plan settlement unanimously endorsed
10/07/2002 Washoe officials want growth to mirror water capacity
4/06/2002 Washoe proposes compromise on Reno expansion plans
2/18/2002 Survey: Most don't like dense housing

As this is our take on what is happening, we may need some help on specifics. If you have info that is not seen here or questions, please e-mail us at coldsprings@midmore.com.