"Community planning in the Truckee Meadows has failed to keep pace with environmental and economic impacts of growth. And, as a result, the quality of life in this oasis is in danger of being suffocated by growth-related problems. But that's an old story in America where, for decades, cities have endured explosive growth, then rotted at the core and become virtually unlivable."
(Nevada State Journal, April 9, 1978)

Breaking News

Those of you who care about the Mt. Rose Scenic Corridor, need to read the articles below.

Did you know?

  1. Washoe is subsidizing Reno with free Crime Lab (at $1.4 million yearly) , Raven Helicopter, Homeless center support and other free services while Reno sues Washoe and refuses Automatic Fire Aid? Think of the deputies in Incline that could support.
  2. Reno Police and Fire career personnel are the highest compensated in the USA.
  3. Reno is $500 million in debt and is the highest taxed city in Nevada!
  4. Washoe County has the highest property taxes in Nevada!
  5. Washoe Schools want to raise your sales tax to 8.265% ... which are the highest in state.
  6. We have a plan to greatly increase deputies in Incline and Mt Rose area at very little cost. Ask us!
  7. The developers want marijuana shops along Mt Rose Highway.
  8. Water and wells continue to be a matter we watch closely.
  9. For even more information, go to the Reno Public Safety website.

Just Say NO to 632+ Cluster Homes

They snuck this is. 632+ homes at the south end of Fawn with traffic going into Callahan Ranch! So many issues. We had a great community turn out on this years ago with Matera Ridge. Now it's Ascente: https://ascentenevada.com

This was on the last CAB as info only and they were cleaver and didn't put the location, just APN. Thanks to Dr Parker for bring this to our attention. We really need to rally and oppose it. Traffic, no sidewalks, a possible thoroughfare from Galena HS, water, sewer, fire protection. It's on sloped hills and the homes congested. "open space" in developer speak means too sloped to build on. First meeting put on by them is June 25, Saturday. Next CAB is in July and maybe we can get it on there. Per Washoe County Planning they have no applications. I find no such business so we don't really know who "they" are.

As I said last time, if they want one home per acre consistent with the rural setting, OK but not clustered tract homes. At the time the County approved the zoning change, the developer made lots of promises: schools, parks, solar power, LEED (energy). Since that was a basis for approval, they should stay with the land and again be required. Dust off your old paperwork if you have it! The last developer sought to take over the adjoining 375 acres of our USFS land. We need to watch it again this time!

I'll be updating the website as time permits.

Help defraying the costs of post cards and flyers is appreciated.


Community Information


APN: 04525211 Active 6/11/2016 2:11:11 AM

Current Owner:







Taxing District


Geo CD: Legal Description

Township 17 Section 1 Lot Block Range 19 Subdivision Name _UNSPECIFIED

*Also Associated with Wild Island

*Lots of Gary Nelson LLCs, unknown if related to this Gary Nelson.

There are annual filings from 182 to present I can’t pull up online.


Manage this Business Business Entity Information

Status: Active File Date: 12/22/1982

Type: Domestic Corporation Entity Number: C7658-1982

Qualifying State: NV List of Officers Due: 12/31/2016

Managed By: Expiration Date:

Foreign Name: On Admin Hold: No

NV Business ID: NV19821014089 Business License Exp: 12/31/2016

Additional Information

Central Index Key

Registered Agent Information


Address 2: City: SPARKS

State: NV Zip Code: 89434

Phone: Fax:

Mailing Address 1: Mailing Address 2:

Mailing City: Mailing State:

Mailing Zip Code:

Agent Type: Noncommercial Registered Agent



Address 1: 355 BOXINGTON WAY SUITE B Address 2:

City: SPARKS State: NV

Zip Code: 89434 Country: USA

Status: Active Email:


Address 1: 355 BOXINGTON WAY SUITE B Address 2:

City: SPARKS State: NV

Zip Code: 89434 Country: USA

Status: Active Email:


Address 1: 355 BOXINGTON WAY Address 2:

City: SPARKS State: NV

Zip Code: 89434 Country: USA

Status: Active Email:

Director - GARY NELSON

Address 1: 355 BOXINGTON WAY SUITE B Address 2:

City: SPARKS State: NV

Zip Code: 89434 Country: USA

Status: Active Email:


Hello Jeff,

There has been no development application submitted to the County at this time. You can keep up with applications submitted monthly on the Planning and Development page of the County website.

Best Regards,

Roger D. Pelham, MPA, Senior Planner
Community Services Department
Planning and Development Division
775.328.3622 (office)

Show More...


Fire Service Issues: Update

The Fire Services Issue with Reno & Washoe County is complicated. For many years to 2012, Reno Fire (RFD) provided fire services/ emergency medical response but not ambulance to much of populated Washoe County. Some was provided by others: NDF, Tahoe Fire, Airport, other Washoe areas, etc. Sparks has their own department. Some of Washoe was provided by Sierra Fire. In 2012 Washoe County essentially opted to cancel their contract with Reno due mainly to costs. They then essentially merged Sierra Fire with what is now called Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District (TM).

In 2011 and again in 2012, running thru June 2014 Reno applied for federal grants known as SAFER under the joint names and based the applications on the expanded population and size of Washoe; 6000 sq mi while Reno is 100 sq mi. After the split and after getting the grant Reno canceled automatic aid with Washoe and refused to share any of the grant. This would seem in clear contradiction to the promises and requirements of the grant.

Click here to read the entire article

School Bond Ballot Measure


Washoe County voters will be facing a November ballot measure for a massive .54% sales tax increase to 8.26% permanently (higher than Las Vegas and parts of California). About 6th highest in the nation. It would cost taxpayers about $87 million a year forever!

  • Why would the NEA- Teacher’s union donate $300,000 to the SOS pro-campaign run by a slick PR firm? Could it be pay raises?
  • Why would special interests like the Nevada Association of Realtors & Affiliates donate $200,000 and builders donating as well? Put their burden on your backs?

As you’ll see below, the School District has simply lost credibility.

I can provide more info on request but the $781 million (that's a lot!) figure quoted in the media is simply 100% false. That is the figure proposed by the research group and at meetings I attended but then a bait and switch occurred and the present ballot measure:

1. Never ends- no sunset- billions after the $781 is reached:

In testimony before the Nevada Legislature, an expert, the Carole Valardo, President of the Nevada Taxpayers Association wanted a 20 year cap on the tax to which on the record: “Joshua Hicks, representing Southern Nevada Home Builders Association: It is always great testifying right after Ms. Vilardo because I can say I agree with everything she said…”

EDAWN gave similar support in a legislative power point and an EDAWN editorial from 2015: “For example, a temporary sales tax increase of 1/2 cent for 10 years would get us there…”

2. Has no mechanism to shut it off or reduce it after building needs are met

3. Allows SUPPLANTATION (google it): add to the top and take off the bottom (Nevada Dept of Taxation supplantation letter on request)


4. Can be used for EXISTING salaries and costs before a dime is spent on new schools (as long as salary or portion is related to capitol project- building or repairs).

From News 4 Story: “They will transfer the existing salaries, everybody from the plumber, the maintenance guy, to the director of repairs, all that including their benefits comes out of what they are paying now, and goes into that new fund," said Church.”

Etchart confirms the Nevada Revised Statute 387 does allow for salaries, but they would be required to be jobs that are directly tied to the construction, repair and renovation of schools.”


From: RSutton@WashoeSchools.net

Date: Sep 29, 2016 11:02 AM

The school district is not an expert on state law regarding ballot questions. I suggest you speak with the Legislative Council Bureau.

5. THEY HAVE THE MONEY: The $781 was the cost (pork filled**) for 9 years of school needs. It did NOT say we had a shortfall and did not address where the money comes from, i.e. existing budget, etc...

They already have most the money need, it's called SB 207 passed in the last legislature giving them $315+ of your property tax (please google it too). So that's half of they need if you cut the pork. Then add in existing funding such as the .35% tax for schools hidden in the Commerce Tax and increasing revenue and you are about there, especially if you go with private build/sell. Via C Tax and growth and rising property tax etc: the WCSD revenue is already increasing at about $17-25 million yearly. But there is even more: see below: the inflated figures are CONTRARYT to testimony before the legislature and media. * Detailed Proof on request. The WCSD Oversight Committee in 2015 authorized up to $35 million in bonding this year. A minimum of $20 million- as requested by WCSD was set for repairs. The additional $15 million should they want it for repairs. Per WCSD money is not the problem,

“While we could have used the additional bonding capacity to fund more repairs and renovations, we do not currently have the staffing capacity to plan and oversee those projects. … We’re trying to hire additional folks now.”

That’s pretty clear. Money not an issue, staffing to oversee it by the dysfunctional school board is! So what good is it to give them more money under WC1? Where’s the money? Are they sitting on it for political purposes?

6. The building costs are highly exaggerated, highest in USA outside of NYC. * Look it up!

7. NO STUDY TO JUSTIFY THIS: The $781 figure included a lot of pork and only projected out 9 years. There is no study to justify the tax beyond that. To the contrary, the Nevada Guinn Report lists lots of other options.

8. Even if it passed today, the "some call it extortion" tactic of double sessions won't be affected. It will be 4+ years before the first school is built and available labor limits us at most building 2 schools at a time! With a current teacher shortage of 40- 100positions, it would be impossible to staff 6AM double sessions!

9. Private Build Sell or lease could save millions and reduce building time by 30% or more.

10. Most growth is in the north-south outlaying areas but still there may be an existing building or two that could be used as has been done elsewhere for govt buildings..

11. The last legislature approved SB302, the E.S.A. (Education savings Account: similar to voucher) program to take off the burden and give parents funds to send kids to private schools.

12: WCSD enrollment is down, yes down 2% over 10 years and now rebounding at less than 1% and many parents-students will opt for ESAs, charter and private, home schools, distance learning, etc.

13. With the economy booming and a shortage of labor, the fact is we may have to face this objectively and look for temporary alternatives unless the boom levels out (or busts). No one can predict 20 years out or even 10.


From the Cunningham Report that listed the $781M figure:

“The recommendations developed here were generated without any public input or discussion and should be subjected to a broader public dialogue. This discussion should be included in any further advancement of solutions to the projected enrollment growth.”

They project the cost of schools at $25 million for an elementary, $60 million for a middle school and $135 million for a high school! (Another slide lowers a High school to $110 million, etc). Then explain why Damonte Ranch High School cost $35,378,740 and Depoali Middle cost $39,910,900. In 2015 they said a high school cost $85 million! So how did we go from $35 M to $85M to $110M to $135M. Doesn’t pass the smell test.

Google it yourself- please: “Cost to build a high school”. You’ll see sq ft figures @ $75 to $220. The Guinn Report out of Las Vegas listed a current estimate at a high $300 per sq ft. So what does that mean? It means to say Damonte High School would cost $72 million. The math on the Cunningham report $135 figure (for 2400 students) comes out to an incredible $450 per sq ft. Waste and abuse!

It gets worse. The proposed addition to Damonte Ranch High School comes in around $700 a sq ft!

Research shows these are highly inflated by 30 to 50%. Even in highly regulated California a recent high school was $105 million, an elementary by Sacramento was $18.5 million. Averages are closer to $50 to $75 million for a High School. And sq foot costs $76 to $221 (sq ft)- around $165 sq ft.

In a RGJ article in favor of SB 207, WCSD Mr Etchart said they only needed $600 million not $780 and that the cost of school construction was E/M/H: $23M. 52M. $85M. Quite a question of credibility. (Reno Gazette Journal 11:41 a.m. PDT June 10, 2015) “The district needs a minimum $600 million over the next decade to build new schools, Etchart added… The district's current construction cost is $23 million per elementary school, $52.5 million per middle school and $85 million per high school.”

But then the same WCSD expert and supporters spoke before the legislature. Pete Etchart (Chief Logistics and Operations Officer, Washoe County School District): Senate Committee on Revenue and Economic Development April 9, 2015: “the passage of the bond rollover extension provides … roughly the amount the District requires for critical repairs to existing schools and to continue the process of renovating the 40-plus-year-old facilities.” And “Therefore, the District will need $50 million a year over the next 9 to 10 years.” (That’s 450 to 500 million not $781M and he seems to indicate that buildout might be complete in 9-10 years, nothing to suggest or justify beyond that).

To be clear: WCSD testimony at the 2015 said that SB207- which they got- would give them all they needed for existing repairs and renovations but now they claim they need money for repairs and renovations.

**Pork: “Inflation escalation – $100M” Cunningham Report page 36. The about 15% of the $781 was “inflation”! If inflation kicks in then cost of goods go up and tax revenue goes up. No need to add this ridiculous figure.

In February 2015 an EDAWN study/editorial said: “For example, a temporary sales tax increase of 1/2 cent for 10 years would get us there,” Now we get a bait and switch with no study to justify it.

What are the alternatives?

1) They already have the money for most the needed building! (SB 207, Commerce Tax, new building)

2) More revenue may be generated from fund raising and donations.

3) The district can encourage rather than fight Charter Schools, ESAs (vouchers), distance learning, specialized trade skill centers (converted existing buildings), etc.

4) New tax revenues may be obtained from (as done elsewhere in Nevada):

  • Real Estate Transfer Tax
  • Transient Lodging Tax
  • Residential Construction Tax: property taxes and construction fees rolled into mortgages may be tax deductible (mortgage interest).

NRS 387 provides various local options for increased revenue including emergency assistance from the state. NRS 387.3287  (1) for example allows extra property taxes and wisely requires annual review of needs. “1. The replacement value may be redetermined before July 1 of each year…”

5) Go back to the legislature for relief via so many options (prop tax depreciation reform, temp cap increase, gas tax, etc

6 ) Improved efficiency and private buy build/lease options. (savings per experts of 22-34%) Under this concept at 25% saving they have all the money they need to build all the new schools projected by the report.

7) Just give us a well written, limited, temporary county sales tax increase that specifically prohibits Supplantation. No blank check!

8) Build cheaper schools, the figures are inflated. The school district needs new eyes to audit the budget and administrator salaries for waste and inefficiencies. There are millions of dollars to be found there.

9) The advantage to modern modulars on existing campus is the infrastructure in pace. No new principal and staff, no new maintenance staff, no new bus and support staff, no new police offer staff, etc… Water and energy savings etc…

SUMMARY: They already have the money (SB 207, SB 483 Sales Tax, rising tax revenues, etc). They did a bait & switch and the tax never ends and can't be reduced. They denied public input at scheduled meetings. Charter and private schools (ESA) can provide an alternative. Based on WCSD Etchart’s 2015 claims vs today, the current figures are grossly inflated. True needs at most seem to be $285 million not billions. If the need still exists, let's draft a proposal that is adjustable, sunsets, prohibits all supplantation and salary swaps, and is based on a true financial study to justify the need. DRHS cost under $36M and they claimed in 2015 the cost of a high school was $85M but now they want $135 million EACH for three or more high schools!

I welcome input.

Jeff Church - Nevadacop@earthlink.net

*Not affiliated with any PAC or paid advocacy group

Note: Information on referenced Nevada Education Savings Account Program (ESA) may be obtained via the following link:


Additional documentation, legal opinions, research available on each area covered upon request.



The County finally admitted stealing our water and has a plan to compensate Callahan Ranch - Mt. Rose area residents retroactively.

Contact Washoe County Water or see:  http://www.washoecounty.us/water/swtmgroundwater 

Also, if you own property in the City of Reno expect a jump of over 20% in your property tax. For info go to RenoPublicSafety.org or contact us. We’ll show you.

Cathy Bowland, Ginger Peirce, orBeth Honbien are the “go to” people on this. Washoe is switching over to TWMA for water and wells. As I understand it, they pay (partially) for a one time deepening of your well then you are screwed.

TMWA contact: jenloe@tmwa.com or http://tmwa.com
Washoe Well background: www.washoecounty.us/repository/files/10/WellMitigationFramework

Reno Finances

Washoe and others are hurting financially but Reno is really broke. North Las Vegas and Nye County are worse off but Reno is $500 million in debt with bonds it can’t pay (forbearance). That is another story you should look at if curious to see government run amuck. There are various articles on Reno’s financial difficulty, but is it serious. Most deals with the very bad bond decision Reno made (trench, parking garage, event center). Also Reno’s cops and firefighters are by far the highest paid outside of Clark County if not nationally and Reno just gave them a new generous two year contract with no provision to reopen if things get worse. But wait there’s more. In order to give the firefighters a raise, they closed two fire stations! Now that we have Automatic Fire Aid mandated by the state- that adds the disproportionate burden to Washoe & Truckee Meadows. Why not staff those stations with volunteers? Because RFD union contract FORBIDS it! Drive by Skyline Station or the Somersett #19/. Look at the rusting firetrucks inside unattended!.

Check out the website TransparentNevada and look at Reno salaries and North Vegas. Reno has firefighters making almost $300,000 in salary and benefits but it gets worse. These supervisors took no pay cut under the current salary and the 1,000 pound elephant may be health care. Reno, unlike most other agencies, gives police and fire retirees some form of uncapped lifetime healthcare/ medical care. How do you calculate

The Forest Area Plan

In spite of overwhelming community opposition, the county approved this area master plan under Washoe County's unique One Map system where developers were able to sneak in zoning changes. It added sprawl and commercial activity along the Mt Rose Scenic Corridor and a 632 cluster home development at the end of Fawn. That developer made great promises about schools, solar, etc. none of which justified such a large development in a rural area of minimum 1 ac parcels. Of course as the economy went sour, he went bankrupt and the promises went away.

When our elected officials get most their campaign money from pro-development sources, the basic tenets of a democracy are threatened. We need to elect neutral officials and to pass ballot measures that protect urban sprawl and such unethical behavior.

As a result of our fight the county finally agree to do away with the re-zoning procedure done with Matera Ridge (One Map system) and move to the system used by almost all of the rest of Nevada.

Beth Honebein and others continue to fight the good fight and keep us informed. We can't do it alone.

Our Forest Service Land

As part of the plan, the now bankrupt Matera Ridge LLC, working hand in hand with county officials, sought to take over our 375 acres of US Forest Service land east of Fawn Ln. Thanks to neighborhood opposition we fought this back. Developers will surely continue to try to take over this land so we must be vigilant and continue to propose alternatives such as a park similar to Rancho San Rafael. Once it is gone, it is lost forever.

Builders Forum

We have created this page to give the builders an opportunity to present their side of the controversy. If you are a builder who wishes to submit articles, photos, etc., please send them to


We have no articles at this time.

Ugly Photos

The photos below document some of the damage being done to the Mt. Rose Scenic Corridor.