New Page 1

Background: Currently, a private property owner can request the City of Reno annex their property. Reasons for doing this are to gain access to city services or to subsequently apply to the city for high density housing or commercial zoning which the city is eager to extend. This can be done to your neighbors property without input from you. If you moved to Washoe Valley with the understanding it is rural with county low density zoning, it could be arbitrarily changed right up to your property line without any input from you. It is a sad fact that it is large corporations (developers) that drive much of Northern Nevada's government- not the citizens. What is developed and what is not is not really up to the citizens of Washoe County.

This is usually defended by the statement: "Development brings jobs and that benefits the citizens". That could be only half right. Say, for instance we have a 5% unemployment rate. A developer comes in and says, "My development will create 1,000 jobs and eliminate unemployment". That is essentially what they are saying but you know when it is worded that way, plainly, it is not going to happen. Why will unemployment still be 5% during and after the project is built? Because "development brings jobs". Reno gets to be known as a place where there is development and thus workers are attracted to the area. So the population increases 5% and we still have a 5% unemployment rate but that is ok because the next development will eliminate it.

Another argument developers make is "Because of the state's tax structure, he said the cities must expand to have the money to provide services." I would like to have someone explain how all that works. It is my understanding that when a development is built the streets and utilities are turned over to the city and the city taxpayers pay to maintain them and build schools, firehouses and police stations. The state (NDOT) even pays for intersection improvements. So that makes the developers statement sound like an endless argument for development: The city must expand so it has the money to support expansion. With all this economic development why is there always more pressure on the existing citizens to provide more taxes to support infrastructure?

Recently, the rural area just west of Reno, Verdi, was involved in one of these "hostile annexations". This article from 2001 before the Verdi annexation will give some background. Cold Springs to the north of Reno was the next victim. This article from 2004 gives some insight into that land grab.

One of the biggest points of contention with annexation is contiguous annexation. As bad as that is to residents living next to the existing city limits noncontiguous annexation is even worse. That could create "islands" of city surrounded by Washoe County. That will create such a mess in the administration of police, utility and other services that it will eventually create a necessary super government merge of Reno and Washoe County laying the entire county open for urbanization.

Present Situation: Assembly Bill 160 (AB160) will prevent noncontiguous annexation and also give residents affected (surrounding residents) a voice and a vote in annexations. Reno is supporting an opposing bill (AB287) that will permit noncontiguous annexation. Even conservative columnist Jim Clark writes in the North Lake Tahoe Bonanza of this threat:

"Reno's at it again. For the second legislative session in a row the City of Reno is pushing legislation which would permit annexation of non-contiguous areas. The measure would only apply to Washoe County. Two years ago they pushed this so they could annex Cold Springs but the bill didn't pass; this time the target is Winnemucca Ranch but I imagine their appetite for Cold Springs is still there. The question is, if this becomes law, when will Reno start eyeing Incline's $1.6 billion of assessed value to supplement city property tax income? As the bill now reads any annexations would have to be voluntary but that could change quickly. Be sure to watch Assembly Bill 287 like a hawk."

You are writing to: Cyndie Carter, Committee Manager, of the Assembly Government Affairs committee.

"We have been threatened by certain Reno politicians that if they couldn't get the Winnemucca Ranch, they would come south hope they think long and hard before embarking on such an action. "

Well i'll be dawged, here we go again with the "Good Ole' Boys Syndrome" lucky for you political spokesholes that I did'nt hear that statement..! My gut feeling, if these so called reps have any sense left they will drop the south valley's issue altogether. Shame on you fella's, using mobsterlike tactics of old is not in good taste!......Maybe this is the right time for the WV & PV folks to move in and nip this in the bud..! In the not so distant past, political crooks were usually found dangling from a tree branch. Yes Sir, I am aware that we are now deemed as civilized people, well to some degree. Now then, it's really quite simple to handle the politicians gone astray, let's simply toss the ball back in their court, and start a South Valley's Signature Campaign to have them bounced (removed) from office (aka re-call) . What goes around comes around, let's be fair about this and give these reps advanced warning that we do intend to take "their" livelyhood away if they don't stop pushing the SV Planning issues.
Afterall, we are civilized, ain't we...... "

"Just a quick note to let you know that AB 160 died in the Senate. However, Bonnie Parnell, Assemblywoman for part of East Washoe Valley, was able to get some of the language into a bill allowing for a General Improvement District for the Winnemucca Ranch area north of Reno.

The bill went back to the Assembly as amended and was allowed to die in committee. So we didn't get our annexation language and the North Valleys didn't get a Winnemucca Ranch development.

We have been threatened by certain Reno politicians that if they couldn't get the Winnemucca Ranch, they would come south. I hope they think long and hard before embarking on such an action.

"I have just learned that AB 160 will be heard in front of the Senate Government Affairs Committee next Wednesday, May 9 at 1:30 PM in Room #2149. As it stands right now, it is second on the agenda so it should be heard not too long after 1:30. E-mails supporting this bill are essential now. They should be sent to Senator Warren Hardy, Chairman, Senate Government Affairs Committee, at whardy@sen.state.nv.us.

If you can get this information out as quickly as possible, it is greatly appreciated. With the South Valleys Area Plan on the near horizon, it seems like everything is starting to happen at once."

"AB 160 (with minimal amendments) passed the Assembly unanimously and is on its way to the Senate where it will probably encounter much rougher sledding. The Senate hasn't quite finished work on all its bills, but, as soon as it has, the working group is laying plans to meet with the chairman of the Senate Government Affairs committee to start the campaign for passage.

E-mails to the committee in support of the bill will, of course, be essential. When we have names, etc. nailed down, I'll let you know. But, at least for a scant few moments, we had a victory."

Developers, large landowners and progress-at-any-cost government officials are hard at work coming up with devious ways of subverting those who appreciate quality-of-life here in Washoe County according to this RGJ.com article.

Now, these forces have come up with their own bill that Sparks Mayor Geno Martini describes as an end run around Assembly Bill 160. AB 160 is the bill sponsored by our own Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell that would put annexation in the hands of the community. Assembly Bill 513 would force Washoe County to create general improvement districts that could be automatically annexed at the whim of the cities. Yes, the bill requires areas of 5,000 acres but that could easily be revised later and the Sparks mayor already wants it reduced to 2,000 acres.

Add this to AB287 that is a direct assault on AB 160 and we are in real danger of being outmaneuvered by those who want to create a "Las Vegas North" and move on.

Monday, April 9th, the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs voted on AB 160. The vote was a unanimous "do pass". Now the bill will be sent to the full Assembly for a vote. That meeting is not yet scheduled. If it passes the Assembly, it moves to the Senate. AB160 gives property owners in rural, unincorporated Washoe County the right to be notified, and the right to protest a noncontiguous annexation near their property. It also changes the makeup of the city annexation committee to a more representative group. One that will give our county representatives a chance to be heard, as the bill is now written, the county is outnumbered by the cities 2:1. AB160 does not put an end to noncontiguous annexation, aka Leapfrog annexation. But it does give the rural communities the same rights as everyone else in Washoe County.

Our most sincere thanks to Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell for sponsoring AB160.

The opposing bill AB287 was a "no action" and probably will not move on to the Senate.

This RGJ.com article reports on the efforts of our Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell and a group of Washoe Valley residents who are trying to head off the possible threat of annexation by the City of Reno. They introduced a bill (AB160) into the state legislature that would give residents more of a say in the proceedings. The article relates that about 50 residents were in attendance at the introduction of the bill in the assembly. The bill reportedly received support from the legislature.

The bill will go through committee and if it is recommended as a "pass" then the sponsors will need to have support from the residents in the way of letters, emails, visits and other methods to show that the community supports and wants this legislation. We'll keep you posted. Check out the AB160 page under "Hot Topics" for a running log.

Current annexation policies, it is your editors understanding, allow the city of Reno to annex unincorporated areas of Washoe County at the request of any property owner. We received the following correspondence on a group of citizens effort to protect our valley from this:

On February 23, 2007 Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell introduced a bill, AB160, to revise the law on annexation by request in the unincorporated areas of some counties. This bill was initiated by a group of east Washoe Valley residents. In a nutshell, it revises the membership of city annexation commissions, and will no longer allow the city annexation commission's duties to be transferred to the regional planning commission. It also gives property owners in the unincorporated areas the right to be notified and to protest a proposed annexation.

Bonnie Parnell met with John Hestor of the City of Reno, who suggested this bill goes against the Settlement Agreement. As a result of that meeting, the bill has been sent to Judge Hardesty for his opinion.

Ab160 is a bill by citizens of unincorporated Washoe County who were not involved in the Settlement Agreement, and who's representative government is prevented by the Settlement Agreement, from representing those citizens on annexation issues. This bill will give all property owners in unincorporated Washoe County the right to be heard on noncontiguous annexation near their properties. We will be given the right of notice and the right to protest annexation, something none of us now have.

AB160 will positively effect conservation issues by giving the people a right to protest inappropriate land uses, and demand protection and conservative use of our natural resources. Landowners concerned about and most familiar with open space, wildlife, water and air quality, and recreation in Washoe Valley, will have a say in what happens in their own neighborhood.

Information on what you can do to support AB160 will be posted on washoevalley.org.