In this election, residents of the Warms Springs and Palomino Valley areas north of Spanish Springs will vote on whether to create an unincorporated town for themselves.
Unincorporated towns are not the same as cities. While most have a town board, they don’t have city councils and are not responsible for providing services like police and fire and street maintenance. Rather, an unincorporated town board reports to the county commission and continues to receive these types of services, albeit in a sometimes limited capacity, from the county. There are several unincorporated towns in Nevada—and they operate in slightly different ways under the guidelines of Nevada Revised Statute 269. Examples include places like Virginia City Highlands, Mound House and Pleasant Valley.
Washoe County Question 1 asks:
“Shall the Washoe County Board of Commissioners create by ordinance the unincorporated town of Warm Springs Valley for the purpose of providing streetlights pursuant to NRS 269.575(1)(k), in the larger defined petition area; and which ordinance imposes a special tax levy, establishment of a user fee schedule or a combination of both; creates a five member Town Advisory Board, members of whom will be initially chosen by appointment by the Board of County Commissioners, thereafter, by election determined by NRS 269.017? An affirmative vote carries with it the assent to be taxed for the provision of streetlights.”
The proposed boundary includes the Warm Springs and Palomino Valley areas north of Spanish Springs but remaining west of Pyramid Lake and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Reservation and east of the North Valleys planning area.
A second ballot question, Washoe County Question 2, would also create an unincorporated town in Warm Springs, though a smaller one. It’s meant as a failsafe in the event WC1 does not pass—though, obviously, WC2 might not either. According to proponents, however, the residents in the smaller area are among the most fervent supporters of the idea of an unincorporated town.
Both petitions for the proposed unincorporated town would require a special property tax levy of approximately $.00011 per $100 value for the residents that will be residing within the designated boundaries of the unincorporated town and that the exact amount will be refined by the county. Proponents claim this is necessary so the town can claim some type of service—in this case, the cost of maintaining what they say is the only streetlight in the valley. They say this will cost just over $200 per year and the remaining monies would go into the town’s coffers, potentially to be used to aid in the work of the Warm Springs General Improvement District.
However, things may not be so simple as they’re being described.
Residents disagree on pros and cons
According to county documents, the Washoe County Treasurer completed an initial evaluation of the list of parcels provided in the first petition for WC-1, and “current year assessed values multiplied by the proposed .00011 tax rate (assuming per $100 assessed value), would generate approximately $6,709 before accounting for exemptions or abatements.”
However, the review also “indicates that a majority of the parcels in the petition’s boundary description appear to be in tax district 4400. For those properties, the tax rate is already at the 3.66 maximum rate allowed by NRS 361.453. This would affect the ability for a newly created town to levy a property tax rate on those parcels, further limiting this as a revenue source.”
Proponents of the measure say the creation of an unincorporated town would give residents in the area a seat at the table in local government and a larger voice to help make decisions about the area in conjunction with Washoe County. They also say it would prevent the area from being annexed by either the City of Reno or the City of Sparks. Additionally, they say, according to ballot question language “as an established government entity, the unincorporated town will be able to seek state and federal funding for the possibility of a rural medical clinic to enhance the quality of life and begin the process of getting a Post Office in the valley.”
Opponents claim an unincorporated town would create an additional, unnecessary layer of government for Warm Springs residents. They also say the unincorporated town could lead to higher taxes than what proponents have claimed and that funding for a post office and/or clinic is unlikely.
The petition for “Warm Springs Valley” was filed with the Registrar of Voters in February. Signatures underwent verification in June, and a decision to place it on the ballot was made by Washoe County Commissioners in August.
Ethical concerns raised–anonymously
In September, This Is Reno received an email from a person who wished to remain anonymous and thus was not interviewed for this story. The email claimed that as a real estate broker, Washoe County Commissioner Jeanne Herman–who also represents residents in this district–had a vested interest in seeing an unincorporated town formed for development purposes and was not properly disclosing this to the commission. It also noted that Herman has put some of her own money into advocating and advertising for the ballot questions.
While it is true that Commissioner Herman brokers large plots of land in the area, she said issues of disclosure do not exist and that fighting to give residents of Warm Springs a voice in local government is, in fact, what led her to sitting on the commission in the first place.
“I’m a commissioner, and I’m the one that brought it to them, so I don’t know why they would say that,” Herman said. “They know me better than that. I’m for less development. I’m a weird realtor, I’ll tell you. I enjoy selling the large parcels and helping people get settled in on a large piece of land.
“They know who I am,” she added of the county commission. “The board passed it, so we’re OK there. All we need to do is get the people to vote.”
Of putting personal money into the push to have the town formed, Herman said she had.
“And then we started getting a little help from the folks [out there],” she said. “And then I bought the banners for the advertising after we got it on the ballot. And, so, yes I am quite interested in it, and I wanted to do whatever I could to help. Now, it’s up to the people. There are a few people that are against it. Like I said, it’s going to be up to the people.”
The email sent to This Is Reno also claimed that Herman’s significant other serves on the Warm Springs Community Advisory Board. She said he did at one time but does not any longer.
She added that she thought a town board would be better able to represent the citizens of Warm Springs and Palomino Valley than the current citizens advisory board (CAB) has been.
“Because the county commission has kind of been against—it’s kind of a four-to-one kind of vote when it comes to CABs,” Herman said. “So, I’ve always been for the CABs…but they really don’t have the teeth that the unincorporated town would for the folks out here in the country. So that’s why I started, and that was a couple of years ago.”
She added that the CAB in Warm Springs, to her knowledge, held one meeting over the past year.
“And the CAB meetings are supposed to be once a month,” Herman said. “We have quite a few CABs in my district. We have the most CABs of any district. We have one in Gerlach, one Sun Valley, the North Valleys, Warm Springs. Verdi has one. And I just feel that the people will take a lot more interest if we can get it back to a regular, once-a-month meeting. And it will give us a lot more voice.”
The threat of annexation
According to Herman, she finds the threat of annexation into either Sparks or Reno real and thinks it would be a disservice to the people of Warm Springs and Palomino Valley. She referenced the 2016 annexation of Lemmon Valley and flood mitigation problems that have persisted there as more homes have been built in the area, saying she would hate to see anything similar happen to residents in Warm Springs and Palomino Valley.
This is serious business, friends and neighbors, so sharpen up, pay attention, keep an open mind, and filter what you are told through suspicious ears and eyes.”
“I just don’t want to see anything bad happen to our country or our state or our county,” Herman said. “I just want to have a little bit more of a handle on it, so it doesn’t get done wrong. I think we need a little bit more science and a little more planning before we jump in and do something—because if they get started out here and start doing little spots, buy a 40 or 100 [acres]…and then subdivide it, you know it’s just going to be a mess.”
Opponents are both verbose and vague
This Is Reno was unable to speak directly with anyone who is behind organizing efforts against the unincorporated town. While there is a website called protectourrurallifestyle.com purporting to be the work of “Palomino Valley neighbors,” attempts by This Is Reno to contact its creators were unsuccessful.
The website created in opposition to the Warm Springs Valley unincorporated town leads off in large, bold lettering with this statement:
“We, a group of concerned Palomino Valley neighbors, oppose the Warm Springs Valley Unincorporated Town Ballot Initiative. (The UT.) We looked deeper into the arguments advanced by the proponents of ballot question WC-1, and found that far too much misinformation has been cast about.
“We are neither concerned with, nor convinced by, conjecture, hopes, and wishful thinking on this matter. Rather, we are concerned with facts. We also have serious concerns about what unintended, potentially irreversible consequences of adding another layer of governance to our lives might be. This is serious business, friends and neighbors, so sharpen up, pay attention, keep an open mind, and filter what you are told through suspicious ears and eyes.”
The opening statement is followed with a quote from founding father and outspoken Anti-Federalist, Patrick Henry, who opposed the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which he felt put too much power in the hands of a national government: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.”
At times both verbose and vague, the website nonetheless touches upon some discrepancies between what proponents say and what the realities of an unincorporated town in Nevada mean—in regard to both how properties might be taxed and the powers that might be vested to its town board.
“We’ll explore the additional costs to run a town in a minute,” the opponents’ website reads. “Our legitimate concern here is that the tax rate of 0.00011 [per $100 of assessed value] stated on the proponents petition 1 (as amended) and on the ballot question, is woefully inadequate.”
It asks readers to look more closely at the language of the ballot question, which reads: “An affirmative vote of this question carries with it the assent to be taxed for the service indicated by virtue of a special property tax assessment not to exceed 1.5% of the assessed property value, the establishment of a user fee schedule or a combination of both.”
The website goes on to state that per “NRS 269.115, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will have the power to levy a tax rate of 1.5% per year (maximum). We believe the BCC will recognize that the tax rate of .00011 will not raise the funds necessary to operate the town, and will, in turn, impose a much higher rate; possibly the maximum of 1.5%. Let’s do some quick arithmetic: 1.5% is 13,636 times higher than .000111. You read that right.”
Re-reading the fine print
What is not taken into consideration here is that, as per county information, much of the area is already at Nevada’s max cap on property taxes of 3.66% per $100 of assessed value. However, the website does go on to discuss the other key language in this part of the ballot question. That is, “the establishment of a user fee schedule.”
Local government entities can and do establish user fee schedules for myriad reasons ranging from permitting to public works and safety. For example, under the NRS Code 269 governing unincorporated towns, “The town board or board of county commissioners shall, when petitioned by 25% of the taxpayers of any town or voting precinct not maintaining a separate and independent local government, pass an ordinance to prevent the running at large of any horse, mule, ass, kine, hog, sheep or goat in the town or precinct, and provide in the ordinance for the impounding of the animals as estrays and the payment of certain fees and costs before the release of such animals.”
There is, of course, a good chance that few or no user fee schedules would be imminent given the creation of a Warm Springs Valley unincorporated town.
But for an unincorporated town to be formed, it must take over services pertaining to at least one of several categories. These can include a cemetery; dump stations and sites; fire protection; flood control and drainage; garbage collection; policing; parks and recreation; sewage collection; street maintenance; street light maintenance; swimming pools; television translators; water distribution; or the acquisition, maintenance and improvement of town property.
In the case of Warm Springs Valley, the idea is ostensibly to take over the upkeep of a single streetlight. Though this could be expanded to include other services for which user fees could be charged.
While it was particularly worth noting in this story that both proponents and opponents of the unincorporated town seem to have some misunderstandings concerning tax structures and current realities of taxes in the Warm Springs and Palomino Valley areas, the opposition website’s information is too lengthy to fully cover in this story—especially since This Is Reno has been unable to speak with its creators to ask pertinent questions about its content.
Its main claims, however, are that an unincorporated town will only be another “layer of government;” that residents will be “controlled and regulated by a five-member board;” that annexation by Reno or Sparks is “a preposterous scare tactic;” that services which are allowed to be set up or sought by an unincorporated town, like a fire station or petitioning for a U.S. Post Office in the area, will not happen.
These main points of opposition are in addition to lengthy sections discussing things like the “timeline of troubles that have plagued” the valley to the potential reasons citizens might not attend CAB meetings or town board meetings which are—according to the website—”synonymous with ‘root canal’” in the eyes of some.
In a few weeks, residents will decide for themselves whether or not to join dozens of other communities in Nevada in forming an unincorporated town.
