And I'm gonna call the Regional Transportation Commission to order.

May I have a roll call, please?

Chair Bagwell.

Here, Vice Chair Shooty.

Here.

Commissioner Costa.

Here.

Commissioner Maloney.

Here.

Commissioner Novak.

Here.

A quorum is present.

Thank you so much.

I'm now on agenda item number three, our opening public comment.

Is there any beginning public comment?

Okay, seeing none.

We'll move on then to approval of our minutes of December 10th.

Do I have any corrections or changes by any member?

Seeing none, I'll accept a motion.

I'll do your I I'll get yours on the end.

Okay.

Okay.

I move to approve the minutes of December 10th as presented.

I will second.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no.

Any abstentions?

Yes.

Let the record reflect.

We have four yeses, zero no's and one abstention, please.

Uh thank you.

We'll now move on to agenda item five A.

This is the discussion and possible action for what we just did in the other meeting.

Um, to elect the chair and vice chair.

Um, the chair has to be um a board of supervisor members, so you don't get a lot of choice there, but uh maybe that's easier on you as to not have choices.

Um so do we have discussion on is everybody okay with who we've had been doing it?

It's been Laurie and Lisa, but is anybody jumping at the you're on the campo and we'll do the RTC?

Yeah, you get to take care of the money question.

So then uh Greg, did you want to make a motion?

Yeah.

I move to appoint Lori Bagwell as chairperson for one year term expiring at the first regular meeting of the RTC in 2027.

I move to uh appoint Lisa Shooty as Rice Chairperson, vice chairperson for one year term expiring, the first regular meeting of the RTC in 2027.

Okay, do I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no, or I let the record reflect that was unanimous.

Thank you.

Um this is a discussion and possible action regarding the submission of an STPG application for $901,100 for district three with a 5% match.

And $325,000 for Curry Street, complete street project.

Uh Ms.

Shuty, may I have your disclosure, please?

Yes, you may.

NRS 281A.420 requires me to disclose conflicts of interest and abstain from voting when I have a disqualifying conflict.

My nephew is Chris Martinovich, who is employed by Carson City and will be presenting this item.

Chris and I are not receiving compensation of any kind directly related to this item.

It will not foresee impair or enhance the terms of his service with the city.

And we are not affected by the outcome of this item to a greater degree than any other resident of Carson City.

NRS 281A.420 only requires abstention in clear cases.

And the independent judgment of a reasonable person in my position would not be impacted by my familial relationship.

Therefore, I do not have a disqualifying conflict, and I will be voting on this matter.

Thank you so much.

Okay, Mr.

Martinovich, the highlights, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As noted, Campo is released to call for projects with an estimated $2.1 million available in STBG surface transportation block grant funding to fund various projects within the Campo boundary.

Carson City in response to that plans to submit two applications to Campo, the first one being to the District 3 Fairview Drive Preservation Project.

This project in particular is uh one that we've had and looked at.

It includes safety improvements as well as pavement reconstruction preservation on the east side of Carson Fairview between US 50 and 5th Street.

This project is already federally funded using HSIP funds, so the addition of additional federal funds doesn't add any agreement or effort or regulations that we wouldn't already be going through on this project.

The addition of $901,000 will replace uh local funding that is currently programmed in the in the project and allow us to move that local funding to other projects uh either in this district or in other districts such as uh district one adjacent.

So that's the reason we're asking for that.

Our second project request is for Curry Street project, Korean Please Streets project.

This project we requested HSIP funds back about a year ago in spring of 2025 through uh grant submission to EndOT.

Endot did not approve our submission for that project, and so we're we're looking for other opportunities, and this one came along, and so we're requesting uh funding to backfill that amount that we we didn't get.

Uh so this project curry street is also heavily federally funded with STBG funds.

So it again there's no additional requirements or federal regulations associated with adding this funding.

The call for projects is a tash as well as the start of two applications.

These are not finished.

I will note that, uh, but we're gonna continue to flush these two applications out and submit them ahead of the deadline to Campo.

And with that, that concludes my comments.

Thank you.

Does any member have a question?

Mr.

Costa.

I'm trying to get this right, maybe if I'm back far enough.

Um I had a question about the Curry Street project.

I understand that's a complete streets project.

Um driving on Curry Street um frequently, it looks pretty narrow as it is, and then we're talking about complete streets and is there any um plan to widen Curry Street or you know obtain uh right-away inform or anything to go ahead and make that wide enough to go ahead and do all this work.

Mr.

Costa, I think you bring up a good point that uh staff has been thinking about the Curry Street project, and we do plan to bring an item in the spring, uh a discussion item for this board to you can see the preliminary designs and how it's going and all the details will be doing that.

Um I can say that look for more detail in the spring, but generally we are looking at a variety of options to widen the street in some cases, but not get too wide such that we get massively expensive.

So more to come on that project.

Okay, thank you.

Any other members?

Okay, is there any public comment on this item?

With that, I'll bring it back up here for a motion.

I will move to approve the submission of the STBG applications to CAMPO as presented.

I will second.

I have a motion and a second for approval of submission.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

Okay, let the record reflect it was unanimous.

Thank you.

We'll now move on to agenda item 5C.

This is for discussion and possible action on the determination that Sierra Nevada construction is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder uh for project 2630228, which is Airport Road and East College Parkway pavement.

Rehab project for this is big.

2,284,07.

Good evening, Casey.

Are you going to give us a little highlight of this one?

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Casey Sylvester, Transportation and Traffic Engineer.

So the contract is for a total of $2,284,007.

This includes crack repair, patching, and resurfacing of Airport Road and College Parkway, and a bid alternative to replace existing temporary barrier rail with permanent barrier rail along Airport Road at the curve near College Parkway.

An 8% contingency brings the total not to exceed amount to $2,466,727.

Are there any questions?

Does any member have a question?

Mr.

Costa.

Yes.

I had a question on was there any other bidders for this project?

Um I was looking through here.

I didn't see any indication for other bidders.

There were no other bidders for this project.

It was only Sierra Nevada construction.

That is something that we have seen on some of our other preservation type projects that have come in recently, such as Stewart and Fairview that we talked about at the December board.

That is something that the project management staff have been looking into, and I can come back at a later date and talk a little bit more about that.

But that is something that we are aware of and thinking about internally.

Okay, this would be good to get another bidder to maybe get a better price involved with that or you know, have maybe new technology involved with that that we can take a look at.

I did have a question also about this bidder subcontractor information.

Sierra Nevada had it self-listed as a subcontractor and no other subcontractors.

Didn't know if I was misinterpreting the form or if it was they just listed themselves.

Which packet page is that on?

Um 68.

Good evening, Darren Schultz, public works director.

Uh that just means that Southern Nevada construction or Sierra Nevada construction will not be using any subcontractors.

They will be performing all the work.

Okay.

Thank you.

And the last comment I had, um, I was looking through some of the projects that they did in the packet.

And I noticed for the city of Hanford.

Um they did some filming or using some type of film involved.

We don't ex I really don't expect you guys to know that because they had the literally dozens of projects listed there, you know, to look at that.

But it'd be interesting to see if some of that um using film or some other type of material besides just asphalt is finally making its way into California and Nevada for that.

So one of the things I'd like to talk about in the future is you know, future technologies that we might be able to use.

Anyhow, that's just a comment, not anything that you guys really have to answer.

Uh just uh to kind of answer that a little bit.

Staff have been thinking about this and comments have been made previously at the RTC about looking for alternative pavement types and staff have reached out to some of our resources we have on available to us and have been talking about doing some research on that, both as part of some of our other preservation projects as well as an independent um effort as well.

And so we don't have anything to add to that at the moment, but that is something we are looking into and can talk about further in the future.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

Okay, there's no other members.

Is there any public comment on this item?

Okay, seeing that I'll bring it back up to the board for a motion.

Greg?

I move to award the contract as presented and to authorize a public works director to approve expenditure of the contingency if needed.

I second.

I have a motion and a second for approval.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

Thank you.

Okay, we're now on to agenda item 5D, which is discussion and possible action on an amendment for interlocal contract, CETS number 28673 between the state and Nevada, acting through the Department of Health and Human Services of Healthcare Financing Policy that got a great new name.

CETS number 28673 between the state and Nevada, acting through the Department of Health and Human Services, of health care financing policy.

They got a great new name.

And so therefore everything has to be boy, they must have a bunch of work changing a lot of things, because I know it's not just us.

It's like, whoa, this is not a good idea.

Okay.

Um so did you want to just walk us through this a little bit, Marcus?

Is there anything that's just that's not administrative?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh Marcus Myers, Transit Coordinator.

This is the first amendment to an interlocal agreement between the Department of Health Care Financing and Policy, now Nevada Health Authority, and the Carson City RTC, which provides ongoing funds for the non-federal share associated with paratransit services for Medicaid eligible recipients.

As mentioned, the amendment includes a change to the public entity's name, increases the maximum amount from 51,721, excuse me, 51,721 to 122,536 due to higher than anticipated ridership and related costs, as well as a revision to attachment A, the scope of work to clarify indirect the indirect cost rate percentages and changes broker to brokers.

That concludes my comments.

Does any member have a question?

Mr.

Costa Yes.

Um, this is apparently good news in the sense that people that need this type of service, there's gonna be an increase or at least additional funding that we they can go ahead and get that.

Um I was wondering if there's any, you know, a couple things.

Is there a per charge trip?

Um a charge per trip that's we're reimbursed getting reimbursed for.

Um I see mention here of their cost allocation plan.

And um, you know, how do we determine that that amount is needed?

Is it enough or is it too little?

So we we are reimbursed.

Um per trip, it averages out to about six dollars and fourteen cents is what we're we're reimbursed.

Um, and it equates to roughly eight thousand dollars per quarter at this point.

Okay.

Do we have a head count as how many people have been using it or expected to use it over the upcoming year?

I I don't have an exact head count of the amount of people know.

I can get that to you though.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Ms.

Maloney.

Um Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, I was I was just gonna ask Marcus, can you this is a really important service for our community, and um you do a lot of work on the back end that people don't see related to this service and the reimbursement for this program.

Can you give us like a high level just a description of what this what this all looks like, how this contract works, just for everybody to understand.

Yeah, um, so we currently work with MTM to um provide the service they assign us the the trips or have trip requests uh for those Medicaid eligible recipients, and then um we reconcile those currently weekly and a quarterly report then goes to the state uh to be reviewed, one from us, one from MTM, and they reimburse us for those trips at that point.

So the the public that needs a ride calls their normal provide the this MTM company to book the trip.

MTM then works with our staff directly, right, to make that trip happen.

We record all of those details, and then later we go back and we reconcile with MTM to confirm that the person did take the trip to seek reimbursement.

It's a lot of work that our staff are doing for this really important service.

And if demands going up, it means work's going up.

So thank you for all you're doing behind the scenes.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Excuse me, is there any public comment on this item?

I'll bring it back up here for a motion.

Ms.

Maloney, um, I move to approve the amendment as presented and to authorize the transportation manager to sign the contract and future extensions of time or changes in funding amounts not to exceed 10% of the present amount.

I second.

I have a motion and a second for approval.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

Thank you so much.

Uh we'll move on to agenda item 6A, which is uh the transportation manager's report.

Uh Mr.

Martinovich.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chris Martinovich, Transportation Manager.

As this board is probably already aware, but I'll highlight it just in case you don't know that the Board of Supervisors approved uh the change of name and continuation of the V infrastructure tax.

It'll be the street and highway infrastructure uh fund going forward and it'll be dedicated to exclusively local road uh projects here within Carson City.

So that's exciting news that does uh does put a little bit of work on us.

So we're going to continue to prioritize our local roads.

We've prioritize projects in districts two, three, and we're working on four, and we'll have those to you likely in March as to what those local roads will look like.

We do plan to read bring the regional roads still on our regular schedule back in June.

So look for that in March as a prioritization process of local roads using this uh additional revenue source for our streets in Carson City.

Good news on that one.

We are also in coordination.

Uh well, I'll talk about other projects first here related to some projects.

A number of projects are out to bid, Roop Street uh between Fifth Street and Robinson.

I think we opened bids a couple of days ago, so we're working through the details and funding of that project.

So that one will be coming to you all in the coming months, maybe next month.

Uh, out to bid right now is our Carmine Street project as well as our vulnerable user safety improvement project on the west side of Carson.

Those are currently out to bid, and so we'll get our bids back and we'll see how we can fund those with the very variable funding sources that we have to deliver those.

Off the project topic and related to coordination.

We are in coordination with the state legislature and a legislature latest legislative council bureau on on coordinating our projects on Stewart Street and Fifth Street with their projects on Stewart Street and Fifth Street.

So we're meeting with them regularly and figuring out how their utilities are going to affect our pavement and when our pavement schedule can come in and what sidewalks they're widening and reconstructing and crosswalk details.

So we're working with them on all those items to make sure that nobody builds something that we then the other has to come in and tear it out.

So trying to balance that and share share resources where we can.

We do want to make sure that we preserve access and preserve safety for those uh people who do who do travel here in Carson City.

So that coordination is ongoing.

We are also working on data collection for our North Carson Street Complete Streets Corridor study.

Uh we've been working with the city primarily on collecting that information, doing right-of-way research, utility research.

We are starting to draft some of the public outreach efforts and plans.

Uh, many of much of that will come to this board, the RTC, for input and feedback along the way, just kind of similar to what we've done to the RTP at Campo is getting those check-ins periodically to make sure we're on the right path and and working on that project, you know, in line with the vision of you all as well as the community.

So working on that, plugging away on the North Carson study.

We also are in internal review of the transit development and coordinated human services plan.

So that is internally being reviewed by staff.

That likely will go public for a public comment period in late January, early February, and hopeful adoption at this board, likely in March is our tentative plan right now.

And with that, uh that concludes my report.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much.

Okay, we're on agenda item 6B, which is our street operations and control systems report.

Mr.

Martinovich, is there anything you'd like to highlight?

There's two things.

Oh, one thing I'd like to highlight on the street operations report.

It's uh in the third paragraph, third box, I guess, concrete repair and maintenance ADA ramps.

We completed two ADA ramps in November.

Those were over on uh Patton and Terrace on the kind of the western end of Fifth Street.

You know, I think doing ADA improvements is is important, especially as we start talking about local roads and making sure that we are able to achieve our you know requirements of of repairing and making ADA compliant access.

And so our street crews are out doing that.

We do that as part of our projects, and uh just wanted to highlight the the work that our street crews do, as I know you have mayor as well across the city.

And so ADA ramps are a good one for our our guys to do when they're out doing concrete work in the area.

Other than that, uh nothing specifically I wanted to highlight.

I just wanted to highlight for the public.

Um, I get a lot of comments from individuals that you know the city doesn't repair sidewalks, and I thought, well, if they look at this sidewalk report, you see that we actually do.

Is there enough money to do all the sidewalks that need repair?

No, but it I think it's imperative that people realize you know, year to date, we've done 8,703 square feet in sidewalks.

So we do to the best of our ability work on sidewalks too, but just they were all happy about the new sales tax for the roads, and it's when are you gonna fix my sidewalk?

I'm like, oh I would say I'm working on the pothole, but now when am I gonna do your sidewalk?

And I'd say in general, city crews do it cheaper than a contractor would.

Absolutely.

So you're stretching the money as as good as you can.

Yep.

Yep, very much so.

I wanted to note, madam chair, that that at a standard sidewalk width, that's approximately 2200 feet of sidewalk, linear feet.

A lot more than people think.

We do a lot of them.

But it's also really hard for uh the public to understand that if you have a sidewalk in your yard, you know, in front of your house, it's not really the city's responsibility on that sidewalk.

Is that correct?

It's theirs.

That's my understanding.

Right.

And so it's just something that they don't like it very much when I say that, but it's like, well, let's see whose sidewalk this is, right?

And who has the responsibility to um when it's snows, you better shovel your sidewalk, right?

You know what?

I think that's actually a good comment or discussion sometimes to just put on the record.

You also have the responsibility to shovel your sidewalks, and there are a lot of um infirmed individuals that that's really an impossible feat.

Right.

There they just can't get out and do that.

But I'm assuming again that the objective for that rule is because you want people to be able to walk on the sidewalk safely, and if there's snow, not gonna get to do it, but sometimes it's snowing so much I'm not sure shoveling it every 22 minutes is a good idea either.

But um, just again, it's good to remind the public of the processes.

Well, something else with sidewalks.

I know in board meetings we've had discussions about funding and local road funding, and it has been brought up that um you know, there are folks who just want to fund the preservation of roads and not address sidewalks, right?

There's been the discussion about how really sidewalks are a part of the road and the whole safety element, and so I think it's a really important conversation to have the pros, the cons, and the whys.

Yep, absolutely.

Okay.

Uh we'll move on then to agenda item six C.

This is just anyone have anything to share, Mr.

Costa.

Um, I have a couple items that I'd like to see addressed in um future meetings.

One is that um one of the comments I made on the RTP was regarding or related to the five district system we have for pavement maintenance.

Um for repairs.

Currently, we have five districts, and they get visited once every five years for um repairs and maintenance.

And I was informed this the RTC would be more appropriate to go ahead and address this.

So I'd like to discuss possibly changing that um because once every five years is a long time.

And as we discovered with the additional money formerly used for VNT bond repayment, um, we have uh a million to go ahead and get started with maybe doing some catch-up on some of the districts that um need repair and not have them having to wait three, four or five years to go ahead and get service.

So I'd like to go ahead and discuss that at a subsequent meeting.

Um second thing is that I'm very interested in the new technology that staff has been researching, and um like to go ahead and hear a progress report on that too in a few months or when they're ready to go ahead and talk about that because I think it's gonna be important for our future projects that we're having to decide on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else to share?

All right, then we will move to our final uh public comment.

There's a lot of people still left.

I thought maybe somebody would jump up.

No, okay.

All right, with that then, uh thanks for a great meeting.

Uh we are adjourned.

And welcome, Mark, and thanks for your participation.

Uh,