Burn scars are still evident along McCarran Boulevard where the Pinehaven Fire in November raged through the area, quickly burning 500 acres and five homes.
A developer, however, seeking to build homes on more than 1,000 acres at the former Ballardini Ranch location sued the City of Reno late last month. The lawsuit comes after the Reno City Council denied approval to annex the property in May of 2020.
City staff in May estimated about 600 homes could be built at the location.
Evans Creek, LLC, a Minnesota-based company, in late December filed a lawsuit in District Court seeking to build on the land. The developers say, however, area governments and local citizens are conspiring against their plans.
“[For the past] two-plus decade time period, Evans Creek has faced a brazen pattern of obstruction by local government, including the City, that has sought at every turn to maintain Evans Creek’s private property as public, open space for the illegal and uncompensated use by neighboring landowners and local residents,” Evans Creek attorneys wrote. “To accomplish that un-American purpose, the City has repeatedly undermined and blocked Evans Creek’s efforts to develop the property without any legitimate basis and in direct contravention of applicable laws, regulations, and, most recently, the recommendations of the City’s own staff.
“The end result is that Evans Creek and its principals have been treated differently than all other similarly situated property owners simply because they are residents of another state who own what should otherwise be an exceedingly valuable parcel of land that has long been coveted by an amalgam of wannabe stakeholders.”
The council denied annexation in part because of the acreage being so fire-prone.
The Caughlin Fire in 2011 similarly burned 1,900 acres and 43 structures in just about the same area as the 2020 Pinehaven Fire. The Pine Haven fire of 2006 also burned 600 acres.
“If we annexed it at some future date, then it would become our responsibility as a city to serve that area,” Councilmember Devon Reese said in May.
Councilmember Naomi Duerr also raised concerns about the fire danger in the area.
Developer says citizens hostile, threatening
The developer said local government and citizens are conspiring against the company.
“Annexation, a well-established procedure by which municipalities incorporate new territory into their domain, is the critical first-step a landowner must undertake to start the process for future development and commercial use of its property,” the company’s attorneys wrote. “By refusing to annex the subject property based on a handful of pretextual reasons—an extraordinary event which rarely, if ever, occurs—the City eviscerated any chance Evans Creek had to develop its land for commercial use and drove its economic value—literally—into the ground.”
The company planned to develop the property as far back as 1997, originally planning to build more than 2,000 residences. But “based on the overt hostility and threats from community members and government officials from the City and Washoe County, Evans Creek withdrew its initial applications to develop the Property,” attorneys said.
Washoe County entered into negotiations to purchase the property for use under the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. Evans Creek withdrew acquisition plans, but, without the company’s knowledge, the Bureau of Land Management approved the purchase of the ranch under SNPLMA.
Evans Creek’s Jeffrey Nielsen, through an attorney, demanded that the property be removed from consideration for purchase. He ultimately sued Washoe County.
Nielsen is listed online as Evans Creek’s registered agent, and Timonthy Nelson in 2005 testified to the Nevada Legislature on behalf of the company.
Nelson said “Washoe County was wrongfully trying to use the power of eminent domain for the benefit of a handful of wealthy, neighboring landowners at the expense of county and federal taxpayers.”
Washoe County and Evans Creek settled for $13.5 million. The company then proceeded with attempts to get the property annexed into the city.
From the lawsuit:
In early 2014, former Reno Mayor Bob Cashell strongly encouraged Evans Creek to submit another application for annexation and advance the Property towards development. As a result, Evans Creek agreed to apply for annexation and sought guidance from City staff to ensure that this latest application was not futile. The City staff feigned support and even reviewed Evans Creek’s proposed application prior to submission for compliance with the required guidelines.
The company claimed damage by its inability to develop. They also said their personnel are being abused.
Because of the City’s ongoing refusal to grant annexation, Evans Creek cannot develop the Property and has been wholly deprived of any viable commercial use. Moreover, Evans Creek faces daily trespass and vandalism of the property as local residents illegally trespass on the Property, fences and posts are routinely cut and damaged, metal gates are chained and torn down, firearms are illegally discharged at the risk of harming livestock and personnel, and “No Trespass” signs are ignored and damaged. Evans Creek personnel are routinely abused by local residents when they attempt to prevent unlawful entry onto the Property or protect Evans Creek’s livestock from harm. Despite Evans Creek’s repeated pleas for protection, no government authority has ever taken steps to address the near-constant trespass and property damage suffered by Evans Creek.
An economic analysis found the annexation would create a $9.4 million surplus — generated through property taxes, business licenses and fees — to the city’s general fund. The company would maintain the streets within the development.
“A higher-end development, such as Evans Creek, is going to generate higher than average property tax revenue when compared to less expensive developments, while having the same costs as these lower priced developments,” Eugenia Larmore, an economic consultant, wrote about the project.
Evans Creek is seeking thousands in damages and attorney fees.
“While we have no general comment about the suit because of pending litigation, we will have a vigorous defense,” city spokesperson Jon Humbert said in response to the lawsuit.
