Joint Parks Commission Meeting of Washoe County, Reno, and Sparks - April 30, 2026

The joint meeting of the City of Sparks, City of Reno, and Washoe County Parks Commissions convened on April 30, 2026, to receive a progress report on the feasibility study for a regional parks and recreation service district. The meeting included approval of the agenda and prior minutes, substantial public testimony, and a detailed presentation from Pros Consulting outlining survey results, service level analysis, and next steps toward potentially forming a dedicated parks district under NRS 318A. No formal action was taken on the feasibility study; the presentation was received for discussion.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of the Agenda (April 30, 2026): Approved unanimously by the Sparks commission (motion by Sheena Harvey, second by Jill Short), the Reno advisory board (motion by Cheryl Gynan, second), and the Washoe County commission (motion by Sean Hill, second by Commissioner Daig).
• Approval of the City of Sparks Draft Minutes (June 26, 2025): Approved by the Sparks commission (motion by Sheena Harvey, second by Jill Short).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Julie Conway (Washoe County resident, 19‑year resident): Expressed strong support for the special district proposal, emphasizing the need for sustainable, sufficient, and fair funding for maintenance and operations as well as new facilities. She thanked the commissions for their service and urged continued progress.
• Iris Julie Peppard (Executive Director, One Truckee River): Stated that her organization’s 31‑partner coalition had reached consensus in May 2023 supporting sustainable and sufficient regional funding for parks, trails, and open space. She expressed excitement for item six (the feasibility study) and looked forward to future action.
• Second public comment period (after the presentation):
  • Julie Conway: Commended the consultants and urged continued collaboration, noting that Bozeman, Montana successfully created a district in about five years. She stated that doing nothing is not an option.
  • Mac Rossi (Reno resident): Suggested that apartment owners should contribute additional revenue for park use by their tenants, possibly a few dollars per unit.
  • Tina Knappy (near Rancho San Rafael Park): Expressed excitement but questioned the statement that “maintaining existing parks must come before expansion,” arguing that the region needs more parks, open space, and trees. She urged clarification.
  • Karen Mullen: Thanked the team and encouraged the board to move forward, noting that 1,400 similar districts exist nationwide. She emphasized livability for young families and the importance of passing on a quality system.
  • Iris Julie Peppard: Reiterated that the Truckee River provides 85% of the region’s drinking water and that the district would benefit river improvements.

Discussion Items

• Feasibility Study Update for a Regional Parks & Recreation Special Service District (Item 6):
  • Presenter: Leon Younger (Pros Consulting), along with Andy Belknap (Baker Tilly) and Mike Shellito (formerly with the City of Roseville).
  • Context: Nathan Olivet (Reno Parks & Recreation Director) introduced the presentation, noting that this is a milestone in a process started over a decade ago. The study is a feasibility evaluation, not a final recommendation.
  • Survey Results: A statistically valid survey (748 responses, margin of error ±3.6%) found:
    • 70% of residents believe a single district would improve efficiency and service quality.
    • 72% support a dedicated funding source (very supportive or supportive).
    • 94% agree equal access to quality parks is important.
    • Most respondents comfortable with $25–$50 additional annual household cost.
    • “Very likely” to vote to establish a district: Reno 70%, Sparks 65%, Washoe 55%.
  • Level of Service Analysis: The region falls short of national standards in acres per 1,000 residents, trail mileage (29 miles short), and indoor recreation space.
  • Operational Assessment: Current per‑capita investment ranges from $21 to $58, well below the NRPA median of $77. Staffing levels are stressed, with varying FTE per acre across jurisdictions.
  • Legal Framework (Andy Belknap): NRS 318A (enacted in 2017) authorizes a parks, trails, and open space district but has never been used in Nevada. Formation requires a service plan, public hearings, consent from affected local governments, and no majority property owner protest. The initial board of trustees would be appointed by the local governments, transitioning to elected positions.
  • Guiding Principles (Mike Shellito): The district should improve service levels, not just maintain status quo. Current funding from cities and county should be transferred to the district, augmented by new revenue (potentially via voter‑approved assessments). A consolidated organizational plan should avoid adverse effects on employees.
  • Next Steps: Over the next few months, consultants will develop a framework including: menu of services, district boundaries, funding and governance structure (multiple options), staffing transition plans, asset lifecycle inventory, and a service plan with public engagement milestones.
  • Commissioner Questions:
    • Concerns about personnel (75% of budget) and efficiency were addressed; partnerships and evaluation of asset use can help.
    • Questions about how the district’s trustees would interact with existing planning commissions; answer: they would still go through local planning processes, and agreements can be embedded in founding documents.
    • Concerns about funding contribution levels and future flexibility—consultants agreed and noted potential need for state legislative changes.
    • Questions about employee unions and land ownership complexities; consultants stressed that employees would not be made worse off and that land dedication constraints would be respected through leases or agreements.
    • A question about heat mitigation planning (AB 96) was raised; consultants acknowledged the district would need to be a partner in regional climate planning.
    • In response to a question about dissolution, consultants confirmed that districts can be dissolved, but it is not easy; agreements in founding documents can address exit scenarios.

Key Outcomes

• The agenda and Sparks draft minutes were approved by voice votes in all necessary jurisdictions.
• The feasibility study presentation was received for discussion; no formal action was taken to approve or reject the district proposal.
• The commission acknowledged the complexity and directed consultants to continue developing a framework and service plan over the coming months, with further public and elected official engagement.
• The meeting adjourned at 7:38 PM.