Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners decline to approve easement swap tied to 420‑unit project after training‑center safety concerns
Summary
Developers sought an easement and waterline across Washoe County's Public Safety Training Center to enable a 420‑unit project; developer Kevin Grant said the full build would be about $120 million and that the easement would make 420 units feasible versus 200 without it. Executive board users raised noise and long‑term interference concerns; the commissioners recorded motions not to approve that did not reach the statutory majority, and ultimately no easement agreement was approved at the meeting.
Washoe County staff and the developer Dandini Spectrum Holdings LLC presented a proposed easement and purchase‑and‑sale agreement for an emergency access road and underlying waterline across County property that houses the regional Public Safety Training Center.
Assistant County Manager Dave Solaro reviewed the easement history and mapping and said alternatives had been considered. Developer Kevin Grant told commissioners the project could provide up to 420 apartment units with an estimated project cost of about $120,000,000 and that the easement would reduce site costs and the per‑unit price. "We can do 200 units as it stands without this easement," Grant said; "420 units... it's a $120,000,000 project."
Training‑center representatives and the center’s executive board expressed concern that a route through the middle of the training grounds would impair training operations, noting outdoor shooting ranges and other facilities that could be affected and warning that new residents might later object to authorized training activities. Solaro said the executive board had previously opposed granting the easement and that the route chosen was intended to be the least disruptive option among limited engineering choices.
Chair Andrea Andriola moved to not approve the easement purchase and sale agreement; the motion and a subsequent repeat motion each produced a 2‑1 vote among members present. County legal counsel advised that, because the full board consists of five elected officials and only three were present, certain motions required a majority of the full board membership to carry; the motions failed to meet that statutory threshold. As a result, no easement agreement was approved at the meeting.
Commissioners noted the region’s housing needs, the developer’s financial modeling and the county’s interest in protecting training facilities and public‑safety assets. Staff and the developer said they would return with additional information and engineering analysis if the parties pursue revised approaches.
