The County voted to let the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada (EDAWN) act as a “convenor” and intermediary in deciding what happens to County-owned land — including a dozen surplus parcels, downtown properties, and long-stagnant sites like the Court Street lot.
County Commissioners Garcia and Andriola supported this change, and Garcia is also a member of the EDAWN board of directors.
The political messaging was simple: EDAWN will “move faster,” “bring in the private sector,” and “mitigate County risk.”
Link: The Economic Authority of Northern Nevada
When you take a deeper dive, the picture looks very different. This arrangement is a shift of public authority into the hands of a private business league nonprofit that:
does not develop land
does not value land
does not plan land
does not broker land
is not bound by public transparency laws
is funded by developers, banks, contractors, engineering firms, and local governments.
In other words: EDAWN is the least qualified of all possible entities to manage the future of taxpayer-owned land — yet the County just handed them the keys.
Washoe Board of County Commissioners meeting, Tuesday, November 18, 2025. The discussion about EDAWN begins at 2:22, when Assistant County Manager Dave Solero introduces the item, and EDAWN President Taylor Adams justifies the proposal.
EDAWN’s Mission vs. Land Development: A Direct Mismatch
EDAWN’s Actual Mission
Legally, EDAWN is a 501(c)(6) “business league.”
Its fundamental mission is:
marketing Northern Nevada to employers
recruiting companies to the area
promoting business-friendly conditions
workforce development
hosting business events
connecting companies with local resources
EDAWN is, in effect, a regional business advocacy and recruitment agency.
What EDAWN Is Not
EDAWN is not:
a real estate broker
a land planner
a civil engineer
an appraiser
a development consultant
a public development authority
a licensed entity capable of structuring land transactions
In the meeting, Commissioner Clark stated it bluntly: “Nobody at the County or at EDAWN has a real estate broker’s license.” EDAWN did not dispute this.
What Land Management Requires
To sell or develop public land, a County typically needs:
licensed commercial brokers
certified appraisers
planners
engineers
development feasibility analysts
entitlement experts
RFP/RFQ procurement specialists
environmental assessors
developers
attorneys specializing in land use
EDAWN does not have any of these functions in-house. In short:
EDAWN’s mission and capabilities do not match the technical demands of public land development.
Legal Risks to Washoe County
1. Conflicts of Interest
EDAWN is funded by:
developers
banks
construction companies
real estate firms
engineering contractors
logistics companies
local governments
If EDAWN influences which developers get access to public land, its funders gain disproportionate access. This creates severe conflict-of-interest risks.
2. Lack of Transparency
EDAWN is not subject to:
Nevada Open Meeting Law
Public Records Act (NRS 239)
procurement regulations
financial disclosure requirements
conflict rules that bind public agencies
Transferring land-disposition functions to EDAWN effectively moves decisions behind closed doors.
3. Improper Delegation of Public Authority
Nevada law requires:
public bidding
appraisals
open processes for land sales
Using a private nonprofit as an intermediary risks violating:
NRS 244.281 (sale of county property)
NRS 237 (impact on small business)
NRS 338 (public works procurement)
If EDAWN influences land selection, developer vetting, or negotiations, legal challenges become likely.
4. Developer Challenges
Developers who are not EDAWN members could argue:
unfair access
unequal treatment
biased processes
improper steering
This exposes Washoe County to lawsuits or unsuccessful RFP protests.
Why EDAWN Is the Weakest Choice: A Comparison
Option 1: Hire a Professional Brokerage
This is how most counties dispose of land.
Brokers:
are licensed
run national marketing campaigns
evaluate pricing
manage offers
negotiate terms
ensure competitive bidding
Advantages: fast, transparent, market-tested, professional
EDAWN alternative: cannot legally list, price, or sell land
Winner: Brokerage
Option 2: Hire a Real Estate Development Consultant
Cities usually use firms like:
Kosmont
HR&A
EPS
ECONorthwest
These firms:
structure public-private partnerships
Run Request for Quotes (RFQs)
Evaluate developer capacity
coordinate public policy and land use
produce feasibility studies
Advantages: deep expertise, no conflicts, clear contract roles
EDAWN alternative: no experience, no staff, no tools, no models
Winner: Professional consultant
Option 3: Create a Public Development Authority (PDA)
This is the standard for civic land management.
PDAs:
are regulated
have public meetings
Issue formal Requests for Proposals (RFPs)
partner with developers using transparent, legal processes
ensure transparency and accountability
Winner: Public development authority
EDAWN by comparison:
weakest qualifications
fewest legal safeguards
highest conflict risks
funded by the same private sector that wants the land
no track record in land management
lowest transparency
EDAWN is the least appropriate model.
Follow the Money: Who Benefits?
1. Developers who donate to EDAWN
They gain:
early information
preferred access
influence over site selection
visibility into County discussions
a seat at the table without public scrutiny
2. EDAWN itself
They gain:
expanded political power
justification for increased funding
ability to hire new staff
relevance and influence
a new funding stream from the government or developers
3. Commissioners aligned with EDAWN
They gain:
political cover
Someone else to blame if deals fail
support from developer-aligned donors
a narrative of “doing something” about housing or development
4. The County bureaucracy
It avoids:
setting up a professional real estate office
running public RFPs
navigating a burdensome procurement process
Who does NOT benefit?
taxpayers
small developers
neighborhoods
transparency advocates
non-EDAWN-member businesses
public accountability
The Hidden Cost of Giving EDAWN Power Over County-Owned Land
To manage these responsibilities, EDAWN must hire:
real estate project managers
analysts
planners
support staff
Estimated annual cost:
$350,000 to $600,000 in new salaries.
Where does EDAWN get that money?
Option A: The County pays them
(taxpayer subsidy)
Option B: Developers pay “facilitation fees.”
(conflicts and ethical problems)
Option C: Corporate donors fund it
(influence-buying risk)
Option D: Cities and County increase EDAWN contributions
(hidden regional tax increase)
No matter the path, taxpayers or developers will foot the bill.
Who Funds EDAWN — and Why It Matters for Land Deals
EDAWN’s funding comes from: Developer memberships, construction firms, banks, engineering firms, trucking and logistics companies, casinos, large regional employers, cities, and counties.
EDAWN is structurally dependent on the same industries that want land released for development.
That means corporate funders who stand to profit may benefit from privileged access to County-owned land.
This is why using EDAWN in this role is uniquely problematic.
The Real Reason Washoe County Wants EDAWN in the Middle of Land Sales
It is not expertise, it is not efficiency, it is not capacity; it’s politics.
1. EDAWN gives political cover
Commissioners can blame EDAWN for bad outcomes.
2. EDAWN makes the process appear “neutral.”
Even though it is structurally biased.
3. It avoids hiring County staff
Cheaper up front, riskier long-term.
4. It avoids public bidding
A huge red flag.
5. It shifts conflict away from the Commission
EDAWN becomes the lightning rod.
6. Commissioners close to EDAWN support the arrangement
Commissioners Garcia and Andiola are on EDAWN’s board.
Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent
Giving EDAWN power over public land is not a minor administrative change. It is a fundamental shift in who controls taxpayer-owned assets.
EDAWN is the weakest of all possible choices.
It is the least transparent.
It carries the highest legal risk.
It introduces the most significant conflicts of interest.
And it hands private influence over public land to a nonprofit funded by the very people who want to develop it.
Washoe County should hire:
a commercial brokerage for sales
a development consultant for feasibility
a public development authority for oversight
This is a political move by EDAWN. Inserting EDAWN into the middle of land deals — with no expertise, no licensing, and no public accountability — is a decision taxpayers should question loudly.
You can support local journalism. Click to donate: Mike’s Reno Report.
Michael hit all the high points... and the low points. The foxes are clearly guarding the henhouses and doing as they please. The swamp widens and deepens.
Thanks for breaking this down so clearly. Huge red flags abound in this deal. First, public land belongs to the public, and any decisions about those assets should be made in the open, with licensed professionals, not behind closed doors. EDAWN plays an important role in business recruitment, but it isn’t a land-development agency, it isn’t bound by transparency laws, and it isn’t equipped to evaluate or manage taxpayer-owned property.
Second, when we move public authority into private hands, we lose accountability. That’s how communities get cut out, how small builders get sidelined, and how the people's trust in government erodes. Growth and development are necessary, but they have to be done the right way, transparent, fair, and with qualified oversight. Washoe County deserves nothing less.