City council approves other affordable housing projects

Several residents of the Vintage at the Crossings affordable housing complex attended the Reno City Council meeting on Wednesday asking council members to refuse a requested $1.4 million in sewer reduction fees until the complex’s issues could be fixed.

The sewer reduction fees were requested by Greenstreet Development, a developer proposing to create a new affordable housing project with 180 units for low-income seniors at or below 60% average median income. As a part of the project, dubbed Stoker by Vintage Apartments, Greenstreet requested an affordable housing fee reduction for up to $1.46 million in sewer connection fees.

Greenstreet’s Dane Hillyard said that while his company built the Crossings development, its partners at Vintage manage the properties.

“You just can’t keep doing this. You can’t keep granting this company money to build apartments that they can’t take care of.”

“We’ve developed about 2,500 affordable housing units in the valley,” Hillyard said. “We are Greenstreet, and we develop the properties, but we don’t manage them; our Vintage partners operate the properties after they’re built. Some properties we have ownership in, some we don’t; we don’t have any ownership in [Vintage at the Crossings], we built that about eight years ago.”

The city council has approved sewer reduction fees for several Vintage properties including Vintage at Washington Street, Vintage at Redfield, Springview by Vintage and Vintage at the Crossings.

People providing public comment at the meeting said there were two main issues with the Vintage at the Crossings complex: failure to maintain the property and failure from management to address resident concerns.

Residents claim threat of eviction

Gary Melancon said he has lived at Vintage since it opened seven years ago. He told council members that he and other residents were threatened with eviction if they attended the city council meeting to discuss the state of the complex. He said some didn’t attend the meeting out of fear.

This is not the first time concerns about Vintage properties have been made public. In 2022, residents—including Melancon—went to the media after they learned they were facing rent increases despite what they called the complex’s numerous maintenance issues, including sewage problems, broken locks and overflowing trash.

Residents said the problems have not been fixed despite promises at that time from management.

Melancon said the building has not been cleaned in the seven years since it was first opened, and the carpets are caked in “dog urine and throw up.” There are rodent infestations in the walls and there has been an ongoing trash issue, he said. He said the managers are essentially “slumlords.”

“It’s got to end,” Melancon said. “You just can’t keep doing this. You can’t keep granting this company money to build apartments that they can’t take care of.”

Another Vintage resident, Pat Ammon, said management has promised to have the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system serviced, but they have never sent anyone out, and she can hear “grinding” throughout the system.

“This is what we get all the time. All the time they make promises and they don’t do anything,” she said. Ammon said she has had to pay several late fees after management repeatedly lost her rent check.

This same thing happened to another resident, Ninita Sinclair, with even more dire consequences. Sinclair said she received an eviction notice after she could not pay the $60 late fee she was given after management lost her rent check.

“They’re very interested in fixing all these problems.”

Sinclair said she provided her rent check on Aug. 1, which was signed as having been received by the complex manager. On Sept. 3, she was told she was charged a late fee because the manager had not deposited the check on time.

“I told them I cannot pay $2,274 on that day,” Sinclair said. “I told them I have to wait until my survivor benefits come on the 11th. They said okay, but guess what? After two days they sent me an eviction letter.”

Sinclair said she is a senior citizen who cannot work often and needs affordable housing. She questioned if Vintage was trying to kick out its residents to create more homeless individuals on the streets.

“You’re saying you paid your rent, but you still got a $60 late notice, and then you couldn’t pay that so you got a letter of eviction?” Council member Naomi Duerr asked. “Has this been straightened out? Has it been refunded?”

Sinclair said the issues had not. She said she has also been trying to downsize to a one-bedroom unit for years because she cannot afford the two-bedroom, but has been ignored by management.

Residents also said there were safety issues at the complex. Blake Melancon said he has been repeatedly harassed and threatened by another resident. Management has told him and another individual to “write the resident up,” which he has done, but he said management has never done anything to deal with the issue.

He even went so far as to seek a restraining order against the other resident, which was denied because they live in the same complex. According to Blake, the judge said the other resident would need to be evicted. “That tenant is still in our building today,” Blake said.

Ammon said she has dealt with similar issues. She said she has been repeatedly threatened by another resident but management has refused to take action.

“There is a tenant who has threatened me and another person,” she told council. “We’ve done everything that [management] has asked us to do, and nothing has been done. I can give you an example. [The tenant] picked up two rats the other day and waved them in my face going like this [Ammon pointed to council members, then herself] like I was going to be killed. She looks at us, threatens us, has gone to our apartments, and they haven’t done anything. It’s really bad.”

Hillyard said Greenstreet’s partners at Vintage hire the property management company for each complex. He said they just learned of the issues residents are facing on Monday, and that yesterday, Vintage issued the management company a 60-day termination notice if corrections are not made.

“They’re very interested in fixing all these problems,” Hillyard said. “They manage several thousand units for Vintage, not only here but in other states, and Vintage has threatened to remove them from all of the projects.”

Project postponed

Hillyard asked that, given the public comment, the item on the new project be postponed until the next council meeting so he can address some of these concerns. He said he and other Greenstreet representatives plan to go to the development, as well as other properties, and do walk-throughs with residents to find out what the issues are because “it’s the right thing to do.”

“Given that this $1.4 million that we’re asking for makes or breaks the 180 units, and given the nature of what we heard, we’d like to spend the next two weeks to meet with people and go to the property,” Hillyard said.

Council approved the request to continue the agenda item to a future meeting. Duerr asked that any residents who are facing issues reach out to Monica Krch, director of housing and neighborhood development.

Other affordable housing projects approved

Council members approved a connection fee reduction request on another affordable housing project. The reductions include $21,120 in building permit fees and up to $451,186 in sewer connection fees for the Line Drive Apartments. The project, located at 700 Line Drive off of Fourth Street, will provide 50 units for individuals earning under 30% average median income.

Council members also voted to support the proposed Skyline Flats affordable housing development, which, if approved, will create 402 units on Dandini Boulevard. Developers required the council’s support to receive tax-exempt funding from the state. However, discussions surrounded whether a declaration of support should be provided, given that the council is anticipating an appeal of the project. Ultimately, the council chose to support the project.

If approved, the project will have two-, three- and four-bedroom units within 15 three-story buildings and will house individuals earning 60% or below AMI. The proposed location is on a 58-acre parcel northeast of Truckee Meadows Community College.

“I’m sensitive to the issue that, if we receive an appeal, I don’t know how to handle that,” Duerr said. She suggested approving the item, but holding off submitting the approval until after the deadline for the appeal.

Council member Jenny Brekhus agreed, stating it was “good practice” to hold off. Duerr said they were alerted about a possible appeal, though she said she doesn’t know much about the project or what issues potential appellants may have with it.

The city’s Angela Fuss said the city planning commission approved the project in a 3-2 vote, and there were three or four individuals who provided public comment on the project.

Duerr asked what would happen if they submit an approval, but an appeal is then submitted afterwards. “The challenge is, we don’t know when this would come to council on an appeal,” Fuss said. “Depending on when we receive the appeal determines when we can get it on an agenda.”

Ultimately council voted to support for the project, which will allow the developer to secure financing from the state, regardless of a potential appeal.