Joint Parks Commission Meeting on Regional Park District Feasibility - October 26, 2026

The special concurrent joint meeting of the City of Reno Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the City of Sparks Park and Recreation Commission, and the Washoe County Open Space and Regional Parks Commission convened on October 26, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. The primary agenda item was a presentation and discussion by Pros Consulting on the feasibility of forming a regional parks, trails, and open space district. The boards reviewed findings, heard public testimony, and discussed the funding framework and next steps.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Julie Conway, a Washoe County resident and former Reno parks and recreation director, expressed strong support for the initiative, stating the current system is "broken" and offering her expertise from 25 years of experience.
• Iris Jalee Papard, Executive Director of One Truckee River, formally conveyed the consensus support of the One Truckee River Partnership Council and Board (representing 188 entities) for the feasibility study and requested investment in the Truckee River Corridor.
• Mac Rossi, a former Reno Parks Commission member, supported the district and argued that renters should pay a small fee to contribute to park maintenance.
• Sean Sullivan introduced himself as a candidate and expressed interest in further analysis.

Discussion Items

• Consultant Presentation: Leon Younger and Mike Celito presented their framework and findings. They concluded the park systems are comparably underfunded, residents strongly favor a regional approach, and a unified district is a feasible solution.
• Funding Framework: The proposal includes a baseline tax share agreement (~$25 million annually from member agencies) plus a voter-approved parcel assessment (~$20 million at ~$8.33 per month per parcel), creating a total budget of ~$57 million. This would bring per capita funding to ~$107, in line with national benchmarks.
• Questions and Deliberation:
  • Commissioner Dake questioned the adequacy of the current state statute on development impact fees (NRS 278.4983), which has not been updated since 1973, contributing to a funding deficit.
  • Commissioner Hill clarified the governance model, stating the district would initially be a dependent government agency with appointed board members.
  • Commissioner Joel expressed concern that forming the district should not be made entirely contingent on passing the assessment, citing potential efficiencies of a regional approach.
  • The consultants and Chair Jones emphasized the critical level of deferred maintenance, noting 75% of new funds would likely go to maintaining existing assets.
  • Commissioner Baker distinguished between the assessment fund (for operations and maintenance) and development impact fees (for new capital construction).

Key Outcomes

• The boards unanimously approved the meeting agenda for October 26, 2026.
• No binding vote was taken on the regional park district proposal.
• Chair Jones directed all three boards to agendize this item at their next regular meetings to determine if a formal recommendation should be made to their respective city councils and the county commission.
• The consulting team plans to return to the individual commissions in December 2026 or January 2027 to seek a vote on advancing to the service plan development phase.
• The meeting was adjourned at 7:21 p.m.