Reno redevelopment advisory board recommends three physical‑improvement resolutions, declines sponsorship for one‑day 'Dancing in the Streets' event

The Redevelopment Advisory Board recommended approval of three resolutions directing redevelopment funds toward physical improvements, rejected a redevelopment sponsorship request for the one‑day Dancing in the Streets event, and tabled a broader activation program for further study.

Board member Pani moved to recommend approval of resolutions b4, b5 and b6 — items focused on building‑level and public‑realm improvements — and member Mike Van Houten seconded. The motion carried by voice vote and the board recommended those items to the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) for final action.

Why it mattered: several members said the physical‑improvement items clearly fit the agency’s statutory redevelopment purpose. “It’s focused on physical improvements. It’s increasing the tax base and addressing blight,” one member said during debate, arguing those items align with chapter 2.79.

The board also considered a separate request, labeled b3, to sponsor the Dancing in the Streets event. Staff and the assistant city manager (acting as legal counsel) told the advisory board that Dancing in the Streets did not meet the activation‑program criteria because it is not a new, multi‑day or recurring activation and is a single‑day, tourism‑oriented event. Staff noted the RDA budget had already included a $60,000 request for Dancing in the Streets (split as $20,000 over three years) and that the event has previously received roughly $25,000 in room‑tax funds to cover city costs such as police and street closures. The assistant city manager said, “Staff does not believe that Dancing on the Streets meets the activation program based off of two primary reasons. The first being it’s not a new event ... and the secondary is it is a single day episodic event.” The advisory board voted to recommend that the RDA not authorize the redevelopment sponsorship for b3.

On the broader activation program (b2), board members were split about delegating broad, evergreen authority to the executive director. Some members supported recurring activations as a tool to build neighborhood identity and encourage business formation; others warned a blanket delegation could lead to program creep away from redevelopment’s statutory focus. Member Colin Robertson moved (seconded by Ben Houten) to table b2 so staff could return with more specificity and examples from peer cities (Henderson and Las Vegas). The advisory board approved tabling b2 and asked staff to return with detailed application criteria and case studies.

What happens next: the advisory board’s recommendations — approval of b4–b6, a recommendation against b3, and a tabled position on b2 pending follow up — will be forwarded to the Redevelopment Agency board. Staff said the intended RDA hearing date for the items is 07/29; any programs will remain subject to annual budget appropriations.

Votes and motions recorded in the transcript were taken by voice; the meeting did not record individual roll‑call tallies in the transcript for these items.