May I have a roll call, please?

Chair Bagwell.

Here.

Vice Chair Shuty.

Here.

Commissioner Acosta.

Here.

Commissioner Maloney.

Commissioner Novak.

Here.

Accorum is present.

Thank you so much.

We're now on to opening public comment.

We have some today.

Come on up and you'll push the button.

It'll turn green around the uh-huh.

Green it is.

Okay.

State your name and then go ahead and give us your comments.

Right.

My name is Cynthia Homburg.

And I uh I purchased a property on David Street, and I did a major, major uh rehab on that property.

And I uh in doing so I met a lot of different city uh personnel and everything was permitted.

And so I was I have a property uh on uh Carson Meadows Drive, and I had some concerns about the parking there.

So the city the city people told me to attend an RTC meeting and bring up my concerns.

So Carson Meadows, though there are a number of apartments there, and it's a high density neighborhood, and when I go there at night, I have to park away.

What I mean out and and it's a far walk, and especially if there's snow.

And I notice that around uh city, the city council area you have angular or angle parking.

And I'm wondering, I'm here to ask how do I proceed to to make that request to change the parallel parking situation into an angle situation, and that would give people well that would give us more spaces, and I lost some spaces when I was come I complied with the city to make room for wheelchair, so I'm really short on spaces.

So I didn't know what the the process was.

Be happy uh uh appropriate staff is in the room so they can just take a look at that area and see if it would be possible or not.

Okay, and specifically it would be in front of 300 South Carson Meadows.

Okay, and then if you'll if you step out, maybe one of the staff can grab your phone number or something from you and they'll contact you.

Okay, thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Do I have any other public comment?

Seeing none, then we'll move on to agenda item 4A, which is our minutes of March 11th, 2026.

Does anybody have any corrections or changes?

Seeing none, I'll accept a motion for approval.

I move to approve the minutes of our last meeting.

I second.

I have a motion and a second to approve.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

We're now on to our uh first action item, and this is on the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for the federal fiscal 27, not federal fiscal, state fiscal US.

Uh 27 budget supplemental requests, capital requests for the regional transportation, transit, street maintenance, street high, and highway funds.

Ums Benaboo, and she brought Jamie as a helper reinforce.

Because she prepares these budgets and she works so hard that I'm gonna have her present them.

She should absolutely.

All right, Jamie, take it away.

All right, uh, Jamie Stevenson, accounting manager for the record.

Um, I was gonna start with transit because that was the first one in the packet.

Um, so the transit fund is used to account for transit grants, fares, donations, and additional city funding to be used solely for the purpose of providing public transportation services within Carson City for revenues uh to budget grant revenue, anticipated expenditures are first determined, then a determination of the grant match required for those expenditures is calculated based on the grant requirements and terms.

Operating expenses are generally 50 percent reimbursable, capital expenses are generally reimbursable at 80 or 85 percent.

Once the expenditures and matches are found, grant revenue expected can be determined.

The fund maps in your packet on pages 20 and 21 show the anticipated match and federal reimbursement for each expense account of the transit budget.

The fund map includes the required adjustment for the operating contract for fares and state grant revenue.

The match for the operating contract is determined after reducing by these revenues.

The fund map also allocates the revenues that will cover the match requirements.

The fiscal year 26 re-estimate is included as a tool for determining as best as we can what the beginning fund balance will be for creating the fiscal year 27 budget.

It is estimated that 246,204 will remain available in the fund to use towards fiscal year 27 expenditures.

Fair revenues were estimated based on prior year data.

An increase of 3% was included in the budget for the transfer from the general fund.

The amount budgeted for advertised advertising was provided to me by our transportation manager Chris Martinovich.

For expenses, uh we have salaries and benefits budgeted to increase $3,462 for our contractual employee increases and our expected benefit increases.

Services and supplies are budgeted to decrease $9,726 because of lower internal service charges for fleet maintenance.

This is for vehicle replacements and sidewalk and bus stop upgrades.

The supplemental requests that were submitted but are not included in the current tenative budget, are for an increase of $41,241 for our operating contract and an increase of $12,000 for RTC inner city.

These are both due to expected cost increases.

Another supplemental request of $1,000 for small furnishings for office equipment and bus stop items such as garbage cans was submitted.

If the board approves these supplementals, they will be added to the final fiscal year 27 budget, and a decrease would be made to the undesignated projects line item.

A supplemental request was also submitted to increase the contribution from the general fund to the transit fund in the amount of 172,601 dollars, but is not being recommended by IFC for funding.

Are there questions on transit funds?

Are the supplemental requests in the packet?

Not she went over them, but you didn't include what the the supplementals are not in the packet.

So I was gonna say you have gave us the dollar amounts.

Something for garbage.

Oh, 12,000 and something for a contract.

Yes, for as fast as we can.

Sorry.

41,241 dollars for the operating contract.

I have a copy of the supplementals.

Are we being asked to take action on the supplementals?

And are we allowed to do that if it's not in the packet?

We do not typically ask that anybody take action on supplementals.

You're just um approving the tentative budget.

It's not what the action item requests.

Oh that's not what the motion says.

Yeah.

Well, and the capital we're supposed to be getting all of it.

So there isn't any way.

This is a particular fund that we do the full recommendation on and then have final authority to expend.

So I think that's probably pretty accurate what you're saying everywhere else, but this one's a final authority board.

So the three the supplementals that are being recommended, what is the total?

Because we have 103,335 currently and undesignated the supplementals that are being recommended are $54,241.

And so it's to do the contract for the transit services because did we went out to bid, right?

And they came back and told us how much more it was going to cost.

Is that correct?

I think it's for the drivers, so they have a bigger increase in their contract.

Subcontract.

Yeah, yeah.

And then you set another one for $12,000.

The RTC inner city.

That's with RTC washop.

And why is that one increasing?

It says to reflect more actual costs.

If you look at the year or the fiscal year 25, you could see that has been coming in higher than we've had budgeted.

Can we get, I mean, can we make copies right now?

Sure.

Is there a copy machine?

I think we can, and then we can um add them to the site, I believe, after the meeting.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

I was just going to clarify that the supplementals are contained within the action item uh in the agenda title.

So it is okay for this board to take action on those supplementals today.

I was going to recommend making copies and providing them to the board as late materials and then uploading them later for just a list.

We do not have the capital items with us today.

Um are we recommending capital their vehicles, right?

Two vehicles.

Yes, we are recommending the capital.

With what dollars?

Because that we have to have a match.

It's small, but that one's already in the budget worksheet, the capital.

That's what I was gonna say.

Which is so that's the 66.

Yes.

What page is that on?

Um you guys have totally lost me.

I'm sorry.

The capital is on page 19 of the budget worksheets.

We have the yeah, is he got a key to open up for the copier?

Or you can go online to the packet thing and send it over to the printer.

Either one.

Oh, it's not in the packet, so that's not our work.

I don't think Eric's still there.

Um 669,277.

Right.

They're in saving the day.

Okay.

It's gonna try.

So on RTC, if you look on packet page 18 and go like one, two, three, four, five, six from the bottom of that one.

You see the RTC inner city.

So we've already been paying.

Is that a a billing method on that one that just is how many writers we have, or how do we get actually um how do we expense that?

It's not a interlocal contract or anything of that nature.

It's a madam chair.

The inner city agreement is an agreement with RTC Washoe, and it's based on how many miles uh are in Carson City compared to how many miles are in Washoe County, and they bill us whatever their rates are in accordance with our current agreement with RTC Washo.

So the miles aren't changing the rate.

The rates is changing the right based on the fuel prices or things.

So we've known for years that that have we've been short budgeting that.

I mean, it's 89,000 in fiscal 24 actual 87,000.

The reestimate at 75 is probably not all that accurate.

So you're going to 87.

Is that what I heard?

Yeah.

So that one would go to 87K.

Uh there's no currently no year to date actual listed for that, so it's hard to say what pre-estimate.

That actually surprises me.

Yeah, we're almost through the year.

Do they only bill us once or twice a year?

They bill us quarterly.

And so we've had no bills.

And at least two bills.

This is through it.

This uh the reestimate data is pulled in December.

So if we paid the bills from you know, from December to now, we could have an actual.

I can get you that information.

Okay.

But we're looking to go to 87,000 on that.

I think that's what's important for this board to realize that 75 would go to 87, and then the other contract you're saying is the million 649.

You're gonna increase that by 40.

41,421.

41k.

And that's because the proposal is to grant raises to the drivers.

Madam Chair, we don't have a contract.

We have a current contract with our current operator.

This is an estimate of what an increase may be.

We don't know what the actual increase is because we don't have a new we're we're gonna have to procure that this summer, but we don't we don't have that actual number at this point.

Where did you come up with the estimate then for 41,000?

That's a projection of 2% or 2.5% or whatever it is.

Yeah.

Which won't leave.

I I guess what I'm getting to is I just want to warn everyone.

So that's why I was asking.

We have 102 and undesignated.

We're gonna clip out 41, 51, 55, 54.

Something he took my sheet five ish, close enough, close enough for accounting.

We're gonna take about 55,000.

So that'll leave us only about 47,000 in the undesignated.

So there's 219 277 and undesignated.

Oh if you look in the 27 budget column.

Yes, I would thought of it.

Page 21.

Looking at something else too.

I got two minutes.

Yeah.

It's the same 219,277.

Okay, because I'm looking uh oh, I see.

No, I took your fund map and your undesignated 103, 335, but I think it's just the spread.

On page 21 on the fund map.

Well, that's probably partially federal grant and partially map.

That's what I said.

It's estimated it to be a good one.

Which it would be 5050 for these expenses.

Right.

I can take half of that too.

Uh-uh, da da da.

Sorry, can we go back to the supplementals?

We talked about the 12,000 inner city and the 41241 operating at the beginning.

There was discussion of trash cans.

What was the other line item?

There's a thousand dollars uh that they want to increase uh the small furnishings line items to purchase office equipment and uh items for bus stops.

And the example they gave was such as garbage cans.

Thank you, Shadow.

Please make sure there's one for the back table so that we have a small machines will now be one thousand one thousand.

We each just get one and I'll be happy to give mine to the secretary because we have to put one on the back table.

Just in case we have someone in the back.

Thank you.

I think the thing I want to stress enough on the transit fund and and the real discussion on this item, and certainly Lisa can um chime in anything else she wants to comment on that, as we had you know, a board of supervisors meeting, and we're looking at things, and one of the discussion items is certainly the um is Jack, right?

There's a lot of interest in the number of riders, is the 780,000-ish or whatever that we're putting in of general fund to have Jack.

Is it the best use of our money considering all the other um transportation activities or roads or things of that nature that we want, and so there was quite the discussion, and I just want to let the board know what this this commission know that the board was standing pretty much the same as we did the prior year to say we just want to maintain the JAC services, but we're not gonna be looking to expand services.

So if we can stay within our doesn't mean we can't change a bus stop if something's more efficient, but we don't want to give it more general fund.

I guess that's what I I want to impart here, hence my questions of where are we at, and so I'm gonna guess this supplemental request for the hundred and seventy-two thousand really dealt with.

We're not going to increase our general fund obligations, especially in salary areas and things that it just continues to grow year after year.

And so I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood from a that perspective was already discussed at the Board of Supervisors level.

Doesn't mean we can't recommend what we want to do, but I'm just letting you know they already kind of put that out there on the record, unless I'm missing something.

So on the supplemental request, the one that says 172601.

In the justification, it says the total cost of this portion of the supplemental request is 150, 426.

Oh, I get it.

There's a one and then there's a two, and those add up to the 1726.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

Um, we're talking about increasing our match by 172,601, which is being used for salaries.

And we're not recommending that.

We're not recommending that.

Right.

And I I just wanted to tell you what's driving that recommendation of a no.

Okay, because we have concerns, you know, we've been looking at the transit plan, and we see that ridership has been declining steadily by a significant amount, and yet we're looking at spending more money.

But to understand, we're, if I understand correctly, we have the three other categories totaling 54,241.

And is that being that's being funded by the un the undesignated designated, okay.

All right.

Another another factor in in not approving that 179 was um was that we had the money.

We did the mapping and we knew that we had undesignated, and so there wasn't a need for it.

Um the city had almost five million dollars in supplemental requests, and we only had 1.7 million dollars to spend.

So you know, something's got to give.

So if it already had the money that's an undesignated, that was that was cut.

So you you have two different options, then if you're not doing the supplemental requests could be done and changed if you're saying the dollars exist within undesignated, then you just change the the funding mechanism of the item.

Instead of it being a transfer in of additional general fund, we could transfer it from the undesignated line item and roll it up into a specific line.

Right.

So that's really the discussion point.

So I think on this particular budget, unless I'm missing something, is to really read this one to determine what we think of this request.

Um I'm telling you up front the odds of just getting more general fund is probably pretty much no.

Um, but do you want to utilize undesignated dollars for this activity or be concerned?

I'm always concerned when anything has salary attached to anything.

I'm I'm I'm sorry, we just we just got these, so I'm just trying to digest well.

I'm not I'm not seeing anything in here that talks about salaries of city staff, and so I'm confused why we're talking about salaries.

Because it says that the line is where are they gonna put it?

It wants a match and not salaries.

We don't it's two different items.

Okay.

Both of them say salaries, but we don't pay contractor salaries out of salaries, we pay them out of the operating contract.

So can you help us understand why it says salaries?

Well, what is it that we're doing?

This is this is yours, Chris.

Why don't you tell us what the objective of the transit account was for this request for 172,000?

Happy to explain.

Thank you.

Yeah, let's go that way.

We do literally just get it.

First of all, notice that the supplemental requests are put in months ahead of time before we have the budget.

So this supplemental request was put in in February prior to us having understanding of where we would be at the end of fiscal year 26.

So it when we did the initial estimate of taking all the dollars of all the expenditures that we know we have for Jack, running that through the fund map, running that through the match calculations, and programming that out.

We saw a deficit of 172,000 dollars.

And so a supplemental request was created to fund the basic services of transit.

When we get information from finance, we can go through and through the fund map exercise, re-estimate 26.

What are we spending?

What are we not spending?

How does that compare to match?

What have we received in federal dollars?

Apply all that math, all that calculation.

And when it came out in the end, we no longer needed this 172,000 supplemental requests.

We had additional funding at the end of estimated at the end of fiscal year 26 in the amount listed in the fund map.

And so supplemental requests really isn't needed, even if the board doesn't want to recommend it, it really isn't needed to fund our operations in 27.

So my recommendation is to not even consider that.

And the text in there is months old compared to what's been provided in the past.

Gosh, that was easy on us.

Yeah.

That was easy on us.

Yay, we don't need that one.

Okay.

Related to the other supplemental requests.

I will clarify the forms for everybody.

If you look in the table portion of the forms, there's a section one that says personal services.

That's for salaries, other pay, worker benefits, group insurance, Medicare.

That section is separate from the section two services and supplies.

So when you fill out this form, it is somewhat confusing to use, but we're not talking about service supplies.

We're talking, we're not talking about personnel.

We're talking about services and supplies.

And so when we look at these forms and we look at these items, you we're we're talking about the the second part there with operating contract, RTC inner city, and small furnishings.

Operating contract is really, as I indicated, a 2.5% increase.

Um, an estimation by by me, honestly, of what we could see this coming year.

We don't know what we're gonna see.

We're gonna procure in May and this summer, and we'll have a contract in front of you later this year, and we'll see what our contract is.

We've made it very clear to those who are interested in proposing on transit that we have costs, fiscal concerns, and we need to we need to resolve that.

And so we're being very open with people who are interested in bidding on transit, what our constraints are.

RTC Intercity, as I mentioned, that is an item related to uh what RTC Washo charges Carson City, jump around Carson for our for the RTC inner city services through our coordinated human services plan.

We are looking at ways to streamline that.

If we're charged on a per mile basis, does RTC inner city need to drive as much as they are in Carson City, or are they duplicating service that Jack already provides?

Can we look at that?

We are looking at that through the transit development coordinated human services plan.

But right now, we don't have that plan in place.

Next year, we're probably not going to have that implemented.

So we're estimating to true up this based on actual costs.

There's there's the $12,000.

And lastly, on the small furnishings front, many other funds in the city have a small furnishings account.

This is really intended for, and I know it's a it's a little bit incorrect, and I'll I'll take that one on for it's not really intended for bus stop garbage cans and cigarette bins.

That's we have another line item that covers that.

This is for just internal small furnishings like garbage cans for the office, staplers, a chair, things that we use in our our office supply that we can start tracking like other funds separate from operating expenses of transit.

So we have an office, we have costs associated with that office.

I thought if we had a thousand dollars, we could start tracking some of those basic office costs separate from operating costs like buying things for the buses, buying fair media, buying cleaning supplies, things that we need to actually run the service.

So that's the reason for that.

If this board doesn't want to do that, I'm I'm totally fine with that.

Those costs will come out of the operating expenses line item, um, which has a budget uh of uh operating supplies $15,000 in 2026 and 2027.

So if that's not approved, that's where that dollar is.

Is that where you've been buying it from?

And you really just you can establish a different accounting stream if you want tracking purposes at any time by the transfer.

Right.

Yeah, but it's easy for us to budget and account for it in a separate line item now rather than trying to go back and forth through budget transfers and emails and things like that.

So that was the request, but certainly we can do other methods.

Um I think that concludes my comments.

Um, I just want to give Chris props because the um contract services line item has been more accurate than it has in years.

I did a quick estimate today of what I expect to see as of June 30th, and it looks like about 1,633,000.

So that's only 15,000 less than what he budgeted, which is pretty incredible.

He's doing a great job with that.

Yeah.

Mayor, can I make a comment?

You can.

Um, thanks for the explanation.

Thanks for talking slow to me.

I apparently need it tonight, so I'm grateful.

Um I will say the spot historically, the small furnishings line did have money back like in 2017.

The Jack office used to be in the public works corporate yard.

We moved it to the new building, and there was a period of time where I said we just bought all new furnishings, we're not buying any more, and we stopped using that line.

So it makes sense.

Eight years later, you might need a new chair.

So I'm totally fine with these requests.

I think the the carry forward is reasonable, it's a good use.

So I'm good on all this.

Thank you.

So anybody else have a question on RTC?

I mean on transit, just transit.

Okay.

Let's move to fund 250 Regional Transportation Commission.

That's next on our packet.

Okay.

Okay, uh Jamie Stevenson, accounting manager for the record.

Uh the RTC uh regional transportation commission fund is used to account for the nine cent per gallon county fuel tax to be used for the purpose of street and highway construction.

For revenues, a 1% increase to the county option fuel tax was included in our revenue projections.

For expenses, salaries and benefits are expected to increase by $32,598.

This includes contractual salary increases and our anticipated benefit increases.

Our capital is budgeted at $3,056,904.

Planned projects totaling $2,700,000 are for District 4 roads, the Fifth Street Roundabout Project, and safety improvements.

The remaining $356,904 is reserved in our infrastructure capital account.

Oh she's reading.

I was just kind of giving you like highlights.

So the detail of the fund, she's going on 27.

You can see the infrastructure capital and the different capital she's talking about.

Um 26 and 27.

Just helps to see what.

Oh, and uh good news, no supplemental requests were submitted for the regional transportation fund.

That's all I have for that.

And the so the district four projects where it says project pending there on page 26 of 2 million four fifty.

We'll be looking to pick those next month, right?

That one coming to us in May.

That is correct.

That we'll be doing district four local and regional road projects in May.

Right.

So that'll be our newbie money.

All right.

Does anyone have any questions on this?

Go ahead.

I had a question.

Um, we're on the regional transportation commission.

We have um government intergovernmental funds, 788,304 proposed.

Um what fund is that, or what specifically what money is that?

So all of our intergovernmental revenues are grants.

Okay, these are all grants.

Yes.

And these are federal grants or yes.

So well, it could be federal, it could be state, it could be local, it could be passed through dollars from the state as well.

Okay.

So interlocal just means it's passed through dollars.

It could be funding from Douglas County, it could be, yeah.

That's it.

That's all of our you know, local revenue.

Mr.

Costa, if I may.

You can.

Yep.

Um Sherry's right.

The inter intergovernmental includes in this case our safe rights to school program, but this line item also includes the five cent diesel tax, uh, which is not a grant, it is actual revenue from a from our diesel gallon sold.

So I just wanted to clarify that on the record that it is more than just our federal right.

That's passed through from the state.

Okay.

500 and it's on page 24.

It breaks it down if you want to know which ones are fitting in there.

You can see the individual line items better than the rolled up version.

The state has its own forms, but everything is rolled up.

The line item detail we like because we want to see the individual.

And just to be clear, district four.

We start reviewing that next month.

The planning.

Okay.

That's on our agenda for next month.

So anyone else have any questions on this one, Greg?

I've got a question because later on in RTC under 6C, we look at fuel tax revenues, gallons of gasoline sold, diesel sold, sales tax items, and we've heard that the state system is still I don't know, having issues, problems, it's inconsistent.

Does that affect anything that you're doing here?

I sure as hell don't want these numbers to be matching these numbers right now.

We are being very conservative with state revenues in this entire budget due to their new revenue system and and what we're seeing.

Okay, that's a politically correct answer for get your ass in gear.

Okay.

Well, I want to say though, if you actually look at the gallons, it's pretty flat.

So I think it's right to be conservative to say we're not gonna see any big hooray.

Here comes a whole bunch of money.

I think the only one that's really questionable is sales tax.

That's the one that everybody's not so sure that last year's money was correct.

I think that's more of the issue, but I think from budgeting standpoint, we're doing the best we can at just pretty much keeping it flat.

Right.

Oh, thanks for being a good idea.

And maybe we'll get a happier hooray and get some more money, right?

Okay, no more on the regional transportation commission.

Okay, then let's go to next fund 253, which is our renamed uh VNT special infrastructure that's now our streets and highway infrastructure for our local roads.

Jamie Thank you, Jamie Stevenson.

Um the streets and highway infrastructure fund, as the mayor said, is uh been repurposed.

Uh it is used to account for the 0.125% sales tax revenue that was originally um pledged for payment of principal and interest on bonds for the VNT historical bonds, but it is now the street and highway infrastructure fund as approved by the board on February 19th, 2026.

The bonds are now paid in full, and the new purpose of the fund is to fund local road projects.

Oh, okay, and then here I'm gonna confuse you again.

So I discovered while I was preparing the presentation that between publishing for this meeting and uh what's going to the board next week or on the 16th, um there was a little change.

So the totals are correct, but we need to change on your um page 29 of the packet.

Um is the easiest place I think to see it.

The capital outlay in the expenditure section should read for uh proposed 26-27 column, 2,566,828.

And the ending fund balance should actually be $50,000.

We've uh ended up putting more towards capital and less towards uh fund balance because we realized we don't have to keep so much in that fund anymore because it has a new purpose.

We don't have to do the reserves for bond payments.

We just didn't touch it before we put this out here.

So another 500,000 yes to the so we'll make then a corresponding change to the worksheet to the worksheet on page 30.

So total planned project capital is 2,566,828 dollars.

And that is planned for district four road projects as well.

Perfect.

And there were no supplementals.

And again, we'll look to pick what those projects are next month.

Okay, then let's look at So can I interrupt a second?

I'm so sorry.

Um, since you're gonna be talking about projects at the next meeting, um, we are planning there is undesignated in this fund as of today, uh, 498,787, plus there'll be some interest for 2026 that we're anticipating will roll forward.

So I believe the plan is to try to spend 3.1 million dollars next year using those roll forward dollars plus the 2.5 just for next month's planning purposes.

But where is that undesignated amount?

So the undesignated on your sheet is infrastructure capital, it reads 1.5 million.

Now that was when we did this, we pulled this in December.

Since then they've they've um created their projects and move that project revenue up.

So the balance in it today is 498,787.

And there's no other projects that are approved, so we're anticipating rolling that forward plus some interest savings.

So there should be 3.1 million dollars for projects for 27 at the when it all is said and done.

Just so I'd really like to see that lined out uh before next month when we're when we're doing that.

I I don't I don't want to approve a budget with 2.5 million 666828 and actually award 3.1 million in projects.

I'll need to see it a re-estimate number or something that you can put together if you're anticipating that we're actually gonna award 3.1.

We will review this budget with our project requests and uh make sure they align.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's great news though.

It's getting better every time we keep talking.

That's why we have these meetings.

Yeah, okay.

Any more questions on that one?

Okay, let's look at street maintenance, which is 256.

All right, uh streets streets fund.

Just a quick refresher for the public.

Uh the streets fund is used to account for the one quarter percent retail sales and use tax, the one cent per gallon fuel tax approved by the voters in 1986, as well as the 3.6 and 1.75 cents per gallon fuel taxes.

Um, just like with the RTC fund, we budgeted a 1% increase uh to our fuel and sales tax revenues.

Uh we expect salaries and benefits to increase 128,530 dollars for our contractual increases and uh expected benefit increases.

Services and supplies are set to decrease $619,475.

This is a result of decreases to internal service charges for fleet and radio maintenance for long line striping and available funds for street repairs.

Capital is budgeted at $800,000 for vehicles and signal maintenance.

And when I work on the budget for the street fund, we make sure to budget $100,000 to remain in the fund.

Then any additional funding is put in the street repairs line item.

This year there was only $9,583 left to put that pretty close street repair budget.

Uh no supplementals were submitted for the streets fund.

What why is fleet internal service so going down across the system?

What's going on in fleet?

I mean, it's not just here, it's systematically, obviously, but why is this going down so um yeah, it went down a little bit, but not I don't think it was a significant amount across citywide.

Right.

The the biggest decrease for that um is the long line striping line item.

They um reduced that budget, they had it higher for last year in 26.

So the fleet didn't go down the that large number that I read.

I was listing out things that attributed to that decrease.

But traffic signal, so traffic signals is going up an estimate to 400,000.

Right.

So what are we doing in traffic signals that's different than what we've done?

You can see on page 36, right?

We're estimating to spend 22,827, and we're popping up to 400,000.

So what are you anticipating in traffic signals?

During Schultz Public Works Director.

Um there is a there's a lot of work uh related to the signals that we've just been putting off and putting off and putting off because this funding is being pulled in so many different directions, so many different needs.

But our uh that division has spoken to us and said we have got to do this now, or we're gonna be in jeopardy of not meeting federal requirements in some of our signals.

So we put the money back there for this year and said that is a priority.

These other line items will uh we'll do them as we have money available to it, but we have to prioritize the signals this year.

Okay.

Trying to find long line.

Darren, can you speak to the long line at all?

Yeah.

Um I I can.

It's we've we've struggled a little bit with with funding that and then getting it probably back when you were even here, but but the timing of getting that contract out and it going over different years and kind of being in arrears.

So we're we're just we're trying to fix that so that it's it's always the year we have before us, that's what we're funding.

That's when that contract goes out.

We're not gonna blend over years because what uh ultimately happens is we think, oh, well, we'll we'll use some money from next year and put it into the contract so we can get more done, but then we're borrowing from next year.

And so this is a once and for all.

We're gonna fix it, and it's gonna be right every year going after this, and we will fund whatever we can, and what doesn't get done in that contract, you know, we do with in-house staff or whatever we got to do, but that's our goal there.

Well, and certainly that lets us fund the needed lights that we have.

That's where we're gonna come from somewhere.

It's gotta come from somewhere.

That's like you said, it starts to become look at the last few years' budgets.

We've robbed that line item to to work in the other line items, and it just caught up with us.

So, you know, that's really where we're at.

And you know, the the maintenance, the $9,000, that will that will that's where we put our our roll forward funds.

So money will go into that account.

Um, obviously, we can always use more, but I I continue to be very concerned about the lack of funds for street maintenance.

The Board of Supervisors has done a tremendous job in finding money for local roads and the VNT fund repurposing is amazing.

I think what I would hope to see in the discussion in May for the VNT slash whatever it's now called fund is a balance of the way that RTC prioritizes projects, right?

Which is great for the local roads, but also taking into account streets maintenance needs, right?

And if there's a way to stretch them as far as possible because I think there's been a when we fix the roads, we decrease the maintenance needs, right?

So let's pick projects that are you know also reducing street maintenance needs.

I think there's been a right word for it, a lot of discussion on what those dollars can be used for, and we've uh agreed upon it has to be a local road.

We would look at everything else in district four and see if there's any economies of scale.

If we're on a regional road, is there some neighborhood side roads that we could grab and be functional and efficient?

Um but I think there's there's a lot of expectations and different board members have different philosophies on how those dollars are gonna be used.

Um we did get it to where if we were doing a road, we could do the required ADA um requirements, but probably not a regular sidewalk.

Anyway, yeah, what's type of we'll we'll do the best that we can.

Um there's just different opinions on I appreciate that comment, but it's yes, the road we're going like we we looked and they told me between within the last five to six years, the paint that is used for long line, short line has doubled in price, doubled in five or six years.

Well, that I mean, so everything we were doing then, we're getting half of it as it relates to that.

So it's just stuff like that that's catching up with this fund.

So um, I have an issue with this budget.

I got involved with Carson City transportation because of street maintenance and the condition of the roads.

The road in front of the house I moved into into Carson City failed three times.

Um failed in terms of water coming up through through the street and the pavement crumbling.

City reacted very quickly and got emergency services out there and corrected that.

But you know, I started participating in the workshops as a private citizen attending both Board of Supervisor meetings and RTC meetings, you know, talking about this problem.

And it's massive.

Um looking at the information that staff prepared for their educating the pro the public on those two measures that failed by a margin greater than two to one.

Um even with the three million that we're getting from this new formerly VT account.

Um we should still be having a deficit of 18 or 19 million dollars a year for street maintenance.

Um we all our projections showed that our um pavement condition is going to be deteriorating steadily over the next couple of decades.

And this is a problem that needs attention now.

Um I don't see any general fund in this budget.

And um I know we can't.

I listened to what the mayor was saying with the supervisors are concerned about the general fund situation, but we are spending general fund on a lot of other different items, capital improvements.

Um why couldn't we go ahead and spend you know about three million in general fund to cover the salary and benefits for these workers, they're employed by the city.

And you know, we're not gonna go ahead and create fix the problem all at one time, and it's gonna have to be a series of different types of solutions.

There's no silver bullet to do this.

But I think this um the budget here, we're kidding ourselves and we're kidding the broad public if we think that this is a viable budget to go ahead and operate street maintenance with right now.

We have to go ahead and at least highlight, maybe have another category that shows deferred maintenance uh value or something of that nature to go ahead and highlight this problem that's there.

Um these budgets are all tied together for approval based on what I'm seeing here, and I haven't seen any really extensive progress in solving this problem, the street maintenance.

You know, I'd have to vote no on this you know, approval of the budgets because I'm not seeing sufficient progress being made in this area.

That's fine.

Okay.

Does anybody else have any questions or comments before I ask for public comments?

One comment.

Uh we didn't mention it yet, but it looks like there's no new staffing.

FTE stays the same.

I wanted to get that on the record as well.

Correct.

We're we're having very limited.

It's not really within.

I get what Mr.

Costa is saying.

He'd like to see some more money in these funds, so he's gonna vote no because he doesn't think there's sufficient money.

You only can get money from your existing pool if you don't bring in new revenue, if you don't bring something in, right?

So to do what you're talking about and say, for instance, I'm gonna fund the RTC staff out of general fund, it means I have to cut somebody else off and say we're gonna close the parks and get rid of all that staff so I can pay this three million.

It it comes only at a cost of eradicating other services that we provide.

And I'm not saying that discussions maybe don't ever happen that says close a fire department, uh, get rid of the graveyard shift for the police department.

And we're also talking about um entering negotiations for a new city hall, you know, at the same time that you know we're having problems with this.

The money may be not entirely the same, right?

But you know, floating a bond, why don't we float a bond to go ahead and do a massive upgrade on these roads?

Because we're taking it out of a fund that has the ability to do that, which is redevelopment that can't do this.

And I know that's probably the most frustrating thing for the public is understanding buckets of money and uh laws and rules and regulations around those expenditures.

And so while it looks like you're doing something over here, I I can't take that money and put I just can't see because it's regulated.

I haven't seen the projected general fund budget for the upcoming year, but I looked at the one last year and I saw I forget the number, five to eight million dollars of general fund used for various types of capital improvements elsewhere.

So I know that that money is used for capital improvements elsewhere.

But that would be like saying I'm never gonna fix a roof.

So you're right.

We usually I don't know how much we have in this year that you're currently currently we have 26 million dollars in deferred maintenance on our facilities, right?

Exactly.

I saw that too.

So if we don't fix those, then we have nowhere to put employees.

So we have to fix everything.

Yeah, we have here really a crisis where um we don't have the money to maintain our roads and other types of buildings, and it's catching up with us right now.

Just a point of clarification.

We have use redevelopment funds on the transportation system downtown in the past.

It has to be in the redevelopment district use within redevelopment, which is what we've been teaming up and doing um on any of the corridor that fits within.

And we've tried, and we also sometimes route street, curry street, whenever we can, but I can't uh I can't go down fifth street and hit it.

I can't I can't use them there.

But occasionally, if a street fits, we we put it in and try to utilize that.

But it's just not fungible.

I guess that's the way of people look at the general fund amount and think we can just move anything anywhere we want, and we can't.

We just can't do that.

Um we do when we can.

We we took the bullet and said I'm not gonna get rid of that sales tax.

I'm gonna keep it going and I'm gonna repurpose it for the roads.

Not everyone's really super happy about that either, because they thought the tax should go away when the expense went away of the bond.

Well, the people that were here, I was at that meeting where that was approved, and the people that were here from the public, except for a couple, and they almost all including myself approved that measure to go ahead and use the VNT money for local roads.

So I think people, you know, understand they're not entirely um against that.

And I understand about the different buckets of money.

I billed budgets for years for the state, and we had the same problem.

But um we need to go ahead and uh can't do things the same way as we've always done them.

We have to come up with new ways to do that.

Um that's why I've advocated um looking at new technologies that may be um lower expense.

That won't solve the problem by itself, but that it'll help.

Umy uh Maloney, I've I appreciate your comments, and um I think that's good and another idea to go ahead and explore.

Well, we need to look at different ways, and um just going on and creating budgets like this doesn't exist is not satisfactory.

I I think everyone on this board recognizes we have more project need than we have dollars.

I don't think anyone here is naive to that.

Finance understands that as well.

Right.

I mean, but I can't create a budget that says give me 18 million dollars as a transfer from the general fund, and I don't care who you impact.

I we don't have that.

No, I'm not having advocating that.

Okay, but I'm not advocating that, but there could be more reprioritization of funds to go ahead and get more money to repair roads, otherwise eventually it it may not matter anymore.

We won't have the roads to get anywhere for anything else.

You know that too.

You know, and there's some roads that are in a condition where they should be what they call rubbalized and um you know done away with because it's so bad that they'd have to be repaved.

And that was part of the pavement condition report that the staff put together last fall.

I think I think we told the public the truth that there will be roads that could fail and you could lose the road.

I think you're completely correct.

But I think we told that to the public.

I don't think we're hiding anything.

No, we need to keep we need to keep telling them.

Okay.

That I agree with.

And I think you'll get some of that when we're looking at um doing our prioritization next month.

Again, you'll see.

Um I'm just here's 10 million we need.

We have maybe 3.1 million we can spend.

So I'll have a seven million dollar shortfall just in using that as well.

And that and that's a way to address it, which is why I I asked Kelly that question about when are we gonna do this, and um when do we use a priorization method to go ahead and see what we have, and that should be published for the public to see about what we're trying to do and why we are doing the projects that we're doing.

We'll do that next month when we're seven million.

Sounds good.

Yeah, we'll do that next month.

And I wish just as much as you did that I had another 10, 12 million dollars, but uh I don't have it.

I agree too.

I think it's good to get the public's um year on on this stuff because we've gone out to vote several times to increase the gas tax.

It always fails.

We're 80 cents behind Reno.

I mean, I always buy my guess here because seriously, it's so much cheaper.

It is 80 cents difference between Reno and here.

It's um it's amazing.

So, yeah, that's why we're struggling is we ask for a five cent increase and we can't get it to pass.

So, I mean, we have no, I mean, we just have we only have so much money to go around, so roads are gonna suffer.

Before we move on, we've kind of talked about Chris.

Do we still have some STBG money to spend?

There's a balance, and we were gonna be talking about that in the future meeting.

And if I remember right, you might be able to spend that on striping.

Mr.

Novak, um, Campo does have additional STPG funding as discussed last month at the Campbell board, and we anticipate bringing an item forward next month to the Campbell board.

Perhaps some of that money could go to Carson City, and perhaps uh it could go to another county.

And just uh kind of have to compete.

But some of this in perspective raising the gas tax, we've put that for a vote, but is that also an option for the supervisors to approve without a vote?

Unfortunately not.

Okay.

And the property tax, we could still raise that if we wanted to a little bit.

We could um every year I do talk to the board about raising the rate.

And unfortunately, because of the abatement, the amount of actual revenue we bring in is less than 50,000.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

You're welcome.

Okay.

Anybody else?

No.

Excuse me, is there any public?

Any public comment on this item?

All right, I'll bring it back up here then.

Um, so we could take the motion as done with the correction on the record by uh Jamie for the extra five hundred thousand in the special our new fund, right?

I will make that motion.

Okay.

Do I have a second?

I will second.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please say no.

No, the record reflect that was four yeses and one no.

Thank you.

We appreciate you as well as the discussion.

It's that's important.

And I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get angry at you know, financial people.

I know you have a horrible, not a horrible job, but a demanding job.

A difficult maybe maybe horrible after talking to me, but you know, I appreciate the work that you did, and I didn't mean that as a you know, a slight against you.

Absolutely not, and we understand your frustration.

We really do.

Makes sense.

Okay, we're gonna move on to agenda item 5B.

This is discussion only, a presentation on how we're doing on our North Carson Complete Streets feasibility project.

Uh Miss Norman.

Give us some highlights.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Kelly Norman, senior transportation planner.

It is long what Kevin do to you.

Yeah.

He was having difficulty.

There was no doubt about that.

I think he overhit that.

And every time he got it, he hit that again.

And it kept okay.

You turned it on, you turned it off, you turned it on.

Take two.

Yeah.

So I'm starting this this presentation on North Carson Complete Streets feasibility study by giving the board and the public some background and reasoning on on why we're doing the study now.

So in July of 2010, and not relinquished ownership of North Carson Street and Carson City accepted ownership.

The North Carson Complete Streets project was identified as a top priority corridor improvement by Carson City and the Carson City Board of Supervisors through that 2014 plan of expenditures generated from the one eight cent sales tax.

Carson City then adopted a complete streets policy in also in 2014.

The Carson City Master Plan has identified North Carson Street as this underutilized corridor with potential for mixed use development.

There's minimal bicycle facilities connecting the corridor.

Traffic decreased in 2005 when I-580 was extended to William Street, shifting that traffic south of North Carson Street.

The North Carson Street Complete Streets Project is prioritized within the Campo 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.

North Carson Complete Streets Project will be the fourth of the four major complete street corridor improvements after Downtown Carson, South Carson, East William Street, Curry Street was in there as well as a complete streets project.

The North Carson Complete Streets Project spans from medical parkway in the north south to East William Street, a 2.3 mile stretch of roadway, very long stretch.

The annual average daily traffic or AADT, the latest that we can find is 2024 for North Carson Street, averaged 12,100 for vehicles with an average of 174 pedestrians and 30 bicyclists per day.

So next I'll take you through a timeline of what's been done so far, what we're doing now, and then some of the milestones coming up where the board and the public can provide feedback and insight into the feasibility study.

So the kickoff meeting was last December.

Since then, we have been sharing information and data with CA group.

CA groups been working on the existing conditions, traffic analysis, and the public information plan.

Carson City has been working on identifying utility and signal system needs throughout the corridor.

Staff is also looking to meet with Parks Rec and Open Space to talk about landscaping needs along the corridor.

Carson City and CA group have been working on a survey and a comment map that's planned to be released April 20th later this month.

Staff is planning on a corridor walk April 29th.

During this corridor walk, staff will walk both sides of the corridor, will hand out a one-page fact sheet, ask people and businesses to provide input through the survey and comment map, and begin a contact list for all future communications through design and construction and encourage continued communication.

So let's go through that website.

And when somebody clicks on the QR code or goes to the site, this is what they'll see.

This is the North Carson Complete Streets Project website.

You'll get an introduction with a little blurb telling you what it is.

And to the right, here's an example of some of the comments that staff has been make making in order to test out the map itself.

So we can go through the comment map itself by clicking leave comment on map.

And then a map shows up.

It may be slightly delayed because of all of the visuals that have to pop up.

There's directions here on how to leave a comment.

You can leave multiple comments as well.

So you click explore, and if you wanted to leave a comment, you click one of the categories.

There are a number of categories that people can make comments on.

Bicycle pedestrian road, other traffic transit, stormwater flooding, park and landscaping.

So you click on the one that you wanted to make a comment on, and then you click leave a comment, and then you can select.

It will direct you to focus on North Carson Street itself.

You can click and then write in your comment, click submit, and your comment will be submitted.

I'm going to cancel since I'm not leaving a comment right now, just demonstrating.

And you can go back and leave a comment about flooding, um, about landscaping and the medians.

Um if you have another uh comment that you don't feel that um translates into these categories, um, you can you can write in other and we will consider those comments.

We will be reviewing this map uh for pertinent comments.

Um if you needed to go back, we're asking you to click on the top right here.

You go back, and you can also complete the survey.

And at this time, um, you know, this is what the survey looks like online.

There will also be paper versions available in a Spanish version online as well.

Um in um in the exhibit, um, we've also given you an example of what the questions would look like if if the board has any comments or suggestions about any of the questions, we can go through that now.

Is the asterisk mean it's mandatory?

Yes.

Um, I have a I have a question.

Um, going back and I communicated this with um Chris by email before this, and um when transferred Carson Street to us, we transferred, I forget how much, it was at least seven million dollars.

And that's a long that was a long time ago, and the money's probably been spent for something, but I'm guessing it was spent for we're speculating that it was spent for Southern Carson with nothing for northern Carson.

Instead, we're gonna have to come up with another source of funding.

Um, I understand you know, about the buckets of money, we have money tied into this, and um it's a priority item with an average of 174 pedestrians a day and 30 bicyclists a day.

Um but we have 12,000 vehicles going by there per day.

I'm I hope that we keep that in mind as we're doing this study here, as to you know keep a relative proportion of you know where the money should be spent and the improvements made for this um safe streets project or complete streets project.

Um so I don't I don't know, I know we're not there yet, but it'll be interesting to see what what figures that you come up here with this online survey because we did an online survey for um road maintenance too, and we were having the workshops a couple weeks ago and we had an in-person survey too for that.

So um I guess we'll take a look at where the numbers fall.

I would say when we get ready on the design elements to go out to bid on that project, would be our opportunities to really decide what's gonna go into the project, and that would be the best time to really articulate and maybe even at that 30% design, because if you get much, I was listening to some podcasts today that was really interesting on road projects on many other states and things like that, and everyone admitted if you think you're gonna make changes at the 60% design, you're like in the wrong arena because the the horse is way too far out the gate.

So when we get ready to look to be able to bid this project, I think those are our better times to comment because how much do you put into landscaping?

How much do you put it?

Just what you're saying, how much do you put into what components of the project that are necessary and hopefully not where do you prioritize if there's a lack of dollars to complete it all?

And keeping in mind the objective of promoting safety and redevelopment of the area because it is an underused uh area.

Just a point of clarification on the implication that money was taken from North Carson.

But there was a 17 million dollar grant that was used for South Carson.

Yes.

Okay.

If I if I may, I I mean, Commissioner Maloney, you're you're correct.

If there was money for North Carson, I I don't recall I have 2010 well before my time for South Carson and DOT did provide South Carson when that road was transferred, South Carson.

And did provide money, and that money was directly used in in combination with the Tiger grant to reconstruct that portion of the road.

But but 2010 is a long time ago, and I would have to research and I don't have that information available.

But it wasn't North Carson money.

All of all of the corridors were done with the infrastructure, the tax that somebody asked earlier, I think it was you.

It was the one the board could do without the public, and we did it.

But we did that, and that's how we've been doing all of the corridor projects.

And I think even a final piece of that one, if my memory serves me, included some improvements to the community center, but that's last right.

I know I'm right on that.

That I can remember it was included in the plan of expenditure.

The infrastructure tax.

So South Carson, that was that was um the money that came from Endot as part of the transfer of South Carson, they were going to do an overlay project.

And we didn't want them to do that because we were going to tear it all up.

So part of the transfer, they agreed to give us the cost of whatever that overlay was going to cost, they would give that to us and transfer the road over.

That that funding went into.

Yes.

It does seem to be that the discussion for this item is straying off the rails a little bit.

The topic of this discussion should be limited to the North Carson Street feasibility study.

So if the commissioner just be reminded that that is what this discussion should be limited to for the remainder of the discussion.

Thank you.

Okay.

It's a discussion only.

We're not taking any action on the item.

But that and I and I think his question is does the feasibility study cover that component?

And we're just explaining to him it doesn't.

That's all.

It doesn't.

We we haven't said it yet, but this is an early planning corridor study, whatever you want to call it.

And the intent is if it would move forward, that would be a special grant application request.

There's nothing in our overall plan that has money set aside for this actual construction, right?

So we're in the very early stages.

Way early.

And then Chris reminded me that medical park parkway north is still end dots roadway.

And if there's any uh work that needs to be done along there, we might as well keep talking to N DOT as well if we're looking at complete streets.

And then as you move halfway down the corridor where the old uh Kmart building was, that's part of the redevelopment area, if I remember correctly.

So there's some options there.

And then you mentioned you're gonna be talking to the uh parks and rec folks, but I'd also recommend you talk to your planning department to go over their latest zoning in their corridor emphasis, because there's a lot of landowners up and down this corridor, and we want to make sure that everybody's in sync with what's allowed and what's not.

There's always permits coming in to build things along this corridor.

So what you see out there today is not what this corridor is going to look like in five years.

So definitely talk to the other planners.

Thanks.

Well, and I think it's great you're gonna do a walking um discussion with all as many of those property owners along the corridor that you can, because I think it's imperative if they'll do it, especially on your questions like you know, number four and number five, because what those business top three priorities might not match some others in the community of what those will you be able to?

I'm just wondering, can you isolate to be able to say something like the business owners saw it this way, the general public saw it that way.

I'm kind of interested a little bit, you know, like I got 700 surveys of which 200 of them came from people directly um the corridor.

So they will do it on or immediately after April 29th.

So we can section out those.

Yeah.

Because at least then that'll give you an isolation tool that says, oh, we have 200 that were yeses.

So what do those business owners think are the most important aspects versus everyone else or the totality?

Because I'm very interested to see how much how well those align of I'm the general public.

What do I think should be on that corridor versus the guy that's trying to make a living and what they see is the enhancements that are needed.

So I just suggest that we maybe add the question of, you know, are you a business owner on the corridor or something that simple?

It's a yes or a no.

You guys see anything else that you'd like to just throw out there as ideas for the survey that we're missing, that we have a chance to gain data.

I'll just say that one of Kelly's strengths behind the scenes that she should talk about more is how great she is at GIS and this way of collecting feedback that's geolocated is fantastic.

So I don't know if you did it specifically or one of your staff, but it's very cool.

Good job.

I want to give props to Jared Cragan, our transportation planner who who developed the the website and the GIS experience, which which you're viewing right now.

Okay, embedding the comment map and the survey into the website experience, which we can then gain um geo-referenced comments and the survey data to then decide what alternatives the public and the businesses and the board supports.

It's cool.

Anybody else?

Anything else?

This again, it's just a discussion item.

So we're done with that one.

Okay, we'll move on to agenda item 5C.

Thank you for a great job.

Oh, oh, wait, I'm sorry.

Oh, something else.

So that's what we've done so far, and that's what we're going to do.

All this going on.

That's what we're going to be doing this month, but I have a little bit more.

If you want to know how you can participate further, so what should you look forward to?

So in May, um, we will conduct our first technical advisory committee for the North Carson Complete Streets.

And so as um as Commissioner Novak mentioned, um, you know, talking to community development, we'll also be talking to the Chamber of Commerce.

We'll be talking to, you know, um our engineering people, um, utilities, um, getting that whole perspective, um, and members from the board.

So if there's a member from the board that would like to be a part of the technical advisory committee, um, we we would love to have that.

We'll have the medical center, FHWA, NDOT, JAC, all these representatives.

Um we'll talk about the survey.

We'll talk about the comment map, the ones that we received so far, and um any other notes that that people want to um to talk about as well.

And then staff are planning to come back to the board in summertime for a report on that technical advisory committee, and to talk about um start talking about the alternatives analysis.

So, what would um those renovations and the reconstruction of North Carson look like?

And that will lead into the second survey.

So in September, October, we'll have a public meeting with some of those visuals of the potential corridor alternatives and um, and then another technical advisory committee meeting.

We'll come back to the board with an update and the summary of a survey based on those corridor alternatives and let the public and and the businesses um sort of vote for the ones that they prefer.

And um, and then in February, we'll work on that draft document to the board and March for the final feasibility study.

So I'm staff is um is trying to be transparent and give the board the public lots of opportunity for for feedback to make this study um something feasible that can then be um we can have a realistic um understanding of how we take the next steps after the feasibility study, which will like uh Commissioner Novak said, applying for a grant, getting the funding, understanding how much um we need to apply for and getting that grant funding, and then moving forward to design and construction.

Um that concludes my comments.

Kelly, one last thing.

I don't know what the sequence is gonna be, but when do we expect East William to be complete?

Because that'll be the latest example of kind of what we're we're looking for.

Chris, do you have any?

Yes.

Um my estimation, um, I believe talking with project manager is probably looking around fall time of this year.

2026.

October.

They said September, I left and said October.

I give you your fall's excellent fall.

Have a have a beat that expectation answer.

Okay.

It'll give them good examples.

Plus the other corridors are done so they can visualize the potential for what can be done here.

Okay.

We're gonna move.

Thank you so very much, Kelly.

I appreciate that.

We're gonna move to agenda item 5C, which is discussion and at possible action regarding the amendment two with uh DOT for construction funds for the LOMPA multi-use app project.

Casey, are you gonna give us a highlights?

Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.

Casey Sylvester, transportation and traffic engineer.

Um this funding agreement covers additional scope that the project has expanded some items related to coordination with the US 50 project that was presented on at CAMPO.

The EndOt is doing they want to do some work that would involve some throwaway with our multi-use path.

Um, and so we're coordinating with them to get that work done in our project.

This funding was gonna cover that.

So we have an additional 220,000 to be added to the project.

That includes 209,000 in carbon reduction program funding and a five percent match of 11,000.

Are there any questions?

Does any member have a question?

Yeah, right.

I know.

Any public comment on this item?

Seeing none, I'll accept a motion.

What do you want to jump in?

Lucia uh Lisa.

I move to approve the amendment as presented and to authorize the transportation manager to execute the amendment as well as any future amendments to the agreement regarding extensions of time or changes in funding that do not increase the total amount by more than 10 percent.

I will second.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

We'll now go to agenda item 5D.

This is discussion of possible action on highway agreement with Nevada Department of Transportation to partially fund the construction of the district three Fairview Drive preservation project.

Casey, you're gonna give us some highlights of what we're doing here.

Yes, Casey Sylvester, Transportation and Traffic Engineer.

So this funding uh agreement with EndOt is an LPA agreement to include the recently awarded STPG.

I was talked about it a recent Campo meeting, and the previously awarded highway safety improvement program funds to our District 3 Fairview Drive Preservation Project.

The total HSIP funds are 906,342 dollars, and the total STPG funds are 901,100.

Both of these require a 5% match.

So the 5% match total is $95,129 for a total agreement uh amount of $1,902,571 dollars.

How's that get us to the project?

I mean, is that we're there?

So this we're still short.

This funding is for construction only, and this is expected to fully fund the project.

So in the agreement, I believe I have to jump over to the correct page, but it shows there are certain funds that are outside of the agreement that are already um budgeted in the project of $96,794.

Um, and that should well, as of right now, we're expecting that to cover everything in the project, and we already have local funds program for design that is ongoing.

So we might get this done after all.

Yes.

Time.

Time helps everything.

Okay.

Does anyone have any questions?

No.

Is there any public comment on this item?

Seeing that, I'll accept a motion.

To do that one, Lucia.

I move to approve the agreement as presented and to authorize the transportation manager to execute the agreement, as well as any future amendments to the agreement regarding extensions of time or changes in funding that do not increase the total amount by more than 10%.

I will 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.

Really we'll move on to our non-action items.

We're on 6A, our transportation managers report.

Chris, anything to share that we don't already know?

I'm Chair Chris Martinovich, Transportation Manager.

If you've seen across Carson Street, we have our look for pedestrian safety campaign ongoing.

So we have a banner across Carson Street, a number of other items across the city.

Erica's out working with the schools to continue furthering our safety messaging and our campaign across across the region.

I know it's published in the in the paper, it's published at Carson now.

We also have a map, an online map that shows those closures and those detours available.

That link is in our road report link, and I believe it's also published at those locations.

If the board would like that link, I'm happy to send that so that you can see where those projects are.

We've we've had that going for a number of months now.

But as you see closures and you have detours, definitely want to keep keep paying attention to that.

As mentioned a number of times this week or this meeting today, we are working on our district four projects.

We we're pretty much finished with our local road uh projects, cost estimates, priorities.

We're finishing up our our regional roads uh now, doing some scoping and cost estimates for those projects.

I mean it's been alluded to.

We have 10, 12, 15 million dollars of prioritized projects and three million dollars of of budget.

So, you know, what what which ones are the most important?

We'll bring our recommendations and we can discuss those at our meeting next next month.

We're also doing a lot more coordination with Douglas and Line County related to traffic signals.

We're working on some new agreements with those counties uh to better clarify roles and responsibilities and potentially look at funding mechanisms uh to better align what we're spending with their needs, and so there's more activities coming uh on those, and we're we're definitely continuing to do more.

And as you heard at the campo meeting, a number of traffic signals are coming online in Lion County, and and right now Carson City has a maintenance responsibility for some of those signals.

So looking to see how do we and how do we align this, how do we fit in right size what our capabilities are with with the needs of other counties in our surrounding region.

So we're working on that a lot in the background on that item, but eventually things will come to the RTC.

Uh, that was the items I wanted to highlight, so I will turn it back to you, madam chair.

Thank you so much.

Anyone just to have anything out there?

No, okay.

We'll move to agenda item six B, which is our street operation and control system reports.

Chris, anything you want to highlight?

So, one item I was gonna highlight.

Well, two items came to mind.

The tree chemical, this is a large item this particular time of year.

Uh, it's for abatement for elf elm leaf beetle control.

So we're we're trying to do that abatement to prevent that.

So you'll see that's a higher number in the in the month of February, and then also a lot of shoulder work is ongoing uh primarily along Carson River Road.

Uh so crews public works crews have been doing a lot of work out there.

You'll see that next month in the report as well.

And it's back still continuing into this month, so um look for that number to continue to increase over the coming months.

Um that's the shoulder shoulder work on asphalt roads, line item three quarters of the way down the page.

They're doing a good job on that, other than you know, they're stopping me every day from coming to the office or going anyway.

They're doing a great job.

I'm like, oh no, I can't even get out of the neighborhood.

Okay, we are doing a lot of construction.

Does anybody else any questions or comments on that?

But please pass on that they're doing a good job on that.

Okay, six C is there anything to share with us on six C I know Casey's available any project questions, but I have nothing I was going to highlight unless there are uh questions from members.

Thank you.

I think again, when you look at the report though, you see how relatively flat all of it is, right?

If you if you isolate the six months to the six months, I'm not seeing anything jumping out at me that's uh bringing us some more bucks.

Yeah, so that's too bad because we would like it too.

And then Casey, is there anything in the projects that you want to highlights going well, not going as well?

Everything, everything is on target and on time because uh thank you, Madam Mayor Casey Sylvester.

I just want to note two little short things.

So we have two projects that are no longer gonna be on the project status report.

They've closed out retention has been released, and those projects are make sure I get this one right.

The ARPA Menlo Drive project, key 303508 on packet page 133, and the Carson multi-use path project.

Make sure I yes.

I did not note the correct one.

It's the district 241, Casey.

District 2 ARPA district two and four.

And that project is complete, will no longer be on this report either.

On packet page 134.

So these are these are looking at 134.

That one went over.

Oh no, pretty close on the budget.

We had 1 million 157, or do we have a little bit of a bunch list?

Are we gonna have a big 40,000 dollars left?

Uh this project is complete.

Um so there's no more, the additional funds that are left are associated with um the ARPA funds.

So if you recall the American though that group of funding.

Um we had contingency in that project, and then we were able to spend a bunch of that down, but there was a little bit left.

All of the the entire of the contingency was in ARPA funding as opposed to being regional transportation funding or wastewater and such as we would normally do.

And so in this case, the project's complete, all the tasks are done.

We didn't use all that contingency.

That's kind of a win for everybody.

However, those funds are not local funds, and so they won't be coming back to us, they'll be going back in the federal budget.

So we didn't use our regional funds as last source, is what you're saying.

Madam Chair, this project was entirely ARPA funded.

The construction was entirely ARPA funded.

There were no other dollars for the construction.

The the line item for street repairs was for inspection and material testing, which ARPA funds were not eligible to be used for.

So that's the story with that one.

We gave a little back.

9,000.

I like that number I heard earlier.

And then when we look at Menlo.

Is this one totally done too?

So there's totally done, and that one they used much more of the.

This one has 40,000 too, also.

Did we have to give that back out of ARPA?

Or we were able to give some of the other funds back some money.

No, the MEMLO returned 66,000 unspent funds from the wastewater utility fund.

So there was wastewater funds that were part of that contract.

Oh, we used all the ARPA.

The regional transportation side, there was only ARPA funds in that project.

So we able to use up all the ARPA, and again, the regional transportation fund as Chris mentioned, was used for inspection and material testing and things like that.

So out of all the ARPA dollars that we did for the road projects, we gave we spent everything but about 40,000.

Is that correct?

We had the previous quote used up there entire.

Again, it's hard to it's hard to spend to the penny, so but that's pretty good.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, unless does somebody else have a question, Greg?

A question for you.

Well, just in general, the way you guys are doing your projects, I have no problem with.

I still get a little heartburn from developer adjacent work, especially the state of Nevada.

So I don't know if you've got all your schedules and construction notice to proceed and who does what first.

But every time I see the you know, around Fifth Street and this and that, there's more projects coming, and hopefully you guys are staying on top of them, because they do need permits to work within city right-of-way, and their scheduling seems to be totally ignoring what we're doing here.

So anything you can do to keep those discussions going, because they're not done yet, right?

They're gonna put in a new mail facility now across from you know the the courthouse.

And I go, where the hell did that come from?

Right?

So we're trying to get our projects done, and they're acting like they're in another island someplace.

So we have had ongoing coordination with them, including our Roof Street project, which is in construction right now.

Their mail building project is not broke ground yet, but it's coming soon, it seems as though.

Um same thing with their other buildings that are all on the the uh other lot to the south.

We have our little lane project that's been coming in near there.

We don't think there's gonna be a conflict with that project at this point, but uh we are in talks with them for all of these projects.

Well, I I I think the project itself brought up more of the need even to the state to say we have to coordinate because it doesn't do well for anyone if somebody does a piece of a project and the other guy comes behind and has to rip something up that the because it just doesn't do, and they have committed, and to my understanding, um they are meeting with us on a regular basis to coordinate so that we're not wasting taxpayer dollars either direction, right?

Because it's all the same taxpayer.

So I I unless I hear different, I hear it's going well that they're working with us.

Yeah.

If we have some work going on when the legislation legislature and session, so be it.

Lucia.

Is this the item where we can request future agenda items?

It is right.

Um in light of the budget discussions at some point in the near-ish future.

Could we maybe get a report on that RTC inner city?

Kind of this, I I understand you.

I think you get stats on writers and mileage and what the rate is, and there's an interlocal agreement that we have with them that kind of outlines how the program works.

I think it would be nice to have just an update on how it's been going so we could have more background in our back pockets because it seemed like we were looking for that.

Makes sense.

Okay.

We're on final public comment.

Anyone?

Yeah, one more second.

Okay.

No, I know I just want to make sure I have enough time.

There isn't any, but I don't want to get Lucas in trouble or me.

Okay, since we don't have any other public comment, if there's no issues, great meeting, everyone, and we are adjourned.

Good job.