Reno City Council members on Wednesday voted to move forward with negotiations with Ulysses Development Group to redevelop the former Community Assistance Center (CAC) properties. The vote comes several months after a contentious meeting where council members were presented with an unsolicited proposal from Bash Capital and developer Brianna Bullentini to purchase the property.
Prior to that April council meeting, council members had yet to publicly discuss what to do with the properties, which had fallen into disrepair due to city neglect. Community members in April accused Reno City Council and city staff of conspiring behind the scenes to sell the CAC without public input, something confirmed by public records obtained by This Is Reno. The meeting ended with the council asking staff to release a Request For Proposals (RFP) for all qualified project proposals.
The properties, located at 315 and 355 Record St., are city-owned and were built in 2008 for $20 million. It contained a women’s shelter, family shelter and triage center.
However, in 2021, Washoe County opened the Nevada Cares Campus, which left the CAC underused and vacant. The last tenants left the building in February 2023, and since then, it has been broken into multiple times and ransacked.
Bash Capital proposed purchasing the property to create workforce housing with units renting at prices attainable for people earning 80% of average median income.
The city received four proposals, including the one from Ulysses, the Bash Capital proposal submitted through Baxter Construction and one from local developer Marmot Properties. A proposal called The Blocks was deemed unqualified due to a lack of information submitted and was not discussed.
The Baxter Construction proposal was similar to the previous one from Bash Capital, which offered $600,000 to create 116 mixed-income units, 10% of which would be affordable at 60% Area Median Income. The project would include bike storage, rooftop activation, a gym and workspace, among other amenities.
Ulysses Development Group offered a $3.4 million seller’s note to be paid out over 15 years to create 136 affordable units at 60% AMI and would include 2,000 square feet for a childcare facility.
Marmot Properties offered $1 million to turn the property into a non-profit office hub at 50% market rent.
The Blocks proposed to build an urban “street” themed container complex that would be leased out to restaurants and retail stores for satellite locations. However, they did not provide financial information, previous project experience or project team information.
In a memo accompanying the agenda item, staff recommended approving the Baxter proposal.
Council member Jenny Brekhus said she received an email from someone at Washoe County who stated they had spoken to someone at the city who said, “The city has another idea for the property other than a place for social services.”
However, city staff denied speaking with anyone from the county about the CAC.
Brekhus said Washoe County Commissioner Mike Clark also said the county would have been interested in submitting a proposal, but the 45-day limit for RFPs did not give enough time for additional proposals.
“It’s not like we don’t have a social services need,” Brekhus said. “Here we have a purposefully built building for social services, and someone at the city is discouraging the social services agency of the region from putting in or responding to this RFP. I don’t get it, and I’d like to know who they talked to.”
Brekhus further stated she believed it was a “tainted proceeding.” She has railed against city staff and other council members for what she said is the lack of proper process in dealing with the CAC. She requested, in September 2023, to discuss the future of the property and its potential uses during a council meeting, but her request never materialized into an agenda item.
Mayor Hillary Schieve cautioned Brekhus about making accusations toward council members or staff, adding that the conversation needed to focus on what was happening at the meeting.
“This is where we get to make the decisions, so let’s keep it here, and you give your direction, and not worry about what other people are doing,” Schieve said.
Council member Meghan Ebert said she too was concerned about the email because it seemed as though the county could have been interested in bringing forward a proposal, but it was discouraged from doing so, which could be a “missed opportunity.”
Council member Miguel Martinez asked about what the timeline was, since the purpose of opening an RFP was to make sure everyone who wanted to had the ability to submit their project ideas about the site.
“It seems that there was ample time for anyone who had interest,” Martinez said.
Bryan McArdle, the city’s revitalization manager, said discussions began in April when Bash Capital presented their proposal, and that 45 days is not “too big of a time crunch” for interested parties to put together a proposal by normal standards. McArdle, however, had been emailing with members of the Baxter Construction proposal team—Bullentini and project manager Troy Keeney—about their plans at least eight months before they presented their proposal. 
Council member Kathleen Taylor said she wanted a project that is “real,” which is actually going to get built while benefiting the community. She said she had concerns over some of the funding sources proposed by some of the prospective developers.
Schieve said she was concerned about some of the low offers, such as Baxter Construction’s $600,000 proposal. She said she was also concerned about whether the developers are local. Council member Devon Reese said he did not believe there is a need for more office space, though he said he respects the projects Marmot has completed within the city. Reese also said there should be mixed-income housing instead of all-affordable or all-market-rate housing.
“Any project we place there should have mixed-income housing … I think there’s benefit to having mixed incomes living under the same set of circumstances,” he said. “Studies show that various ranging of income and ability lifts all the boats in the property.”
Reese said they were also searching for around the 20% mark for affordable units with proposed affordable housing projects in the city, while Baxter is only proposing 10%.
Council member Naomi Duerr said she was not a fan of Ulysses’s seller’s note proposal as she does not believe the city should be financing projects. However, she liked the idea of potentially using redevelopment funds.
She said she would also be interested in waiving sewer fees to help fill funding gaps. However, according to staff, the city has reached its cap on how many waivers it can provide at this time.
“While we do have [to consider the] fiscal impact, our biggest driver is to provide affordable housing,” Duerr said.
During ongoing discussions, Brekhus continued to interrogate staff and council members about the possibility that someone had told the county not to bother applying. Schieve said that at no point has anyone from the county come forward to say they were interested in the property.
While discussions continued to favor the Ulysses proposal, Taylor said she was still concerned about the risks of a seller’s note, as opposed to selling the property outright to a company. If Ulysses pulls out, she said, the city gets nothing back.
Ashley Turney, assistant city manager, said they had “copious notes” with which to base potential negotiations.
In the end, the Council voted to move into negotiations with Ulysses, focusing on the offer price and financing, reviewing the length of affordability to extend it as much as possible and developing a timeline.
The motion passed 4-3 with Reese, Martinez and Taylor voting against it.
