Good afternoon.

I'm calling the Campo meeting to order today at four thirty, April eighth, twenty twenty-six.

Can I have a roll call, please?

Chair Novak.

Here.

Vice Chair Maloney.

Here.

Member Bagwell.

Here.

Member Casanelli.

Here.

Member Costa.

Member Nordlow.

Here.

Member Shooty.

Here.

Member Very.

Here.

The quorum is present.

Okay, thank you.

Moving on to item number three, our first opportunity for public comment.

There'll be several later on.

Do we have any public comment here today?

Looks like I see staff.

All righty.

I don't see any public comment.

We'll move on to item four, possible action approval of our minutes of our March eleventh, twenty twenty-six meeting.

Do we have any corrections or comments on the minutes at all?

I will move to approve the minutes from the March eleventh, twenty twenty six meeting.

Aye.

Any opposed, nay.

Motion passes.

Okay.

We'll move on to next item.

Five A.

This one is for discussion only.

So it looks like uh Chris, are you starting off with this one?

Well, Kevin's gonna be taking this one.

Okay.

Come on.

Now you got it.

Dongles work.

Today I'm gonna give you guys a presentation on both preservation projects that are planned for uh coming out of NDOT.

One being the US 50 Carson project, and then the second being the Dayton Preservation Project.

I feel like I'm doing this wrong.

Okay.

Sorry, guys.

Okay.

No, they don't touch the dongle at that.

And then see if it works down.

Any of it see which ones.

There we go.

I don't know which one it was, so this might be pretty fun.

Um so for each of the projects, I'm gonna cover what the project is, limits, cost, timeline, some of the primary elements, and then ultimately at the end of that uh both um topics we'll we'll have a time for some questions.

Oh my god.

Promise I am not this.

Uh you know, I appreciate that, but I'll get this.

Click that third one, see if it'll work.

Just click on the third pick.

Oh, it'll definitely go there.

I just want to get it back into preservation.

I didn't even there you go presentation mode.

We can see it.

Uh there we go.

Here we go.

So the first project, the US 50 Carson Preservation Project.

Our primary purpose with this project is pavement preservation, but we also include some uh safety and operational improvements as well as some uh multimodal improvements.

As you can see from this slide, you can see the limits of our project.

Um basically just on this side of the interchange all the way out to about a quarter mile past deer run arrowhead.

I'm getting it.

Wait, hold on.

I have to back up one slide.

Uh previous.

There we go.

So this gives you a little bit better uh depiction of the project limits.

Um the project partners and dot and campo.

Campo is included in this as well.

The current cost right now is at 21 million with roughly 300 uh thousand coming in from Campo for some of the path upgrades.

We're currently at 90% plan review.

It's a scheduled dock date of uh this summer with construction beginning in spring of 2027.

We do not currently have a uh project website.

Back to the slide with the uh limits, just to give you guys a picture of what that's gonna be.

Some of the safety improvements include upgrades or updates to the non-compliant ADA ramps within the corridor.

Uh we're also constructing some raised median islands east of LOMPA.

This is in line with some of the um corridor study that Campo performed on this on the US-50.

We're also including in this project 20 new street lights near West Lampa, Fairview, and college intersections to improve safety as well as some hydraulic improvements along the corridor.

Again, it's primarily a preservation project.

Uh 2.2 and three-quarter inch mill and fell to help with the reliability of the pavement.

Um we're doing some roadbed modifications as well.

This is a little outside of my purview, but I'm going to do my best.

This will help strengthen the foundational layers of the roadway to help handle some of the high traffic volumes and prevent rutting.

Adding cement and compacting these, add additional file and layer of dense grade, extending the life of the roadway.

Some operational improvements include some minor widenings to help separate right turn and bike lanes on the eastbound direction.

We want to do some alignment and adjusting of the signal heads.

We're also putting some green paint down to help with the vehicle cycle conflict points.

We're bringing up the push button, the PED push buttons.

So we're in compliance.

We are not reducing any speeds throughout this corridor.

We did look at that, and traffic operations did not recommend lowering this speed limit in this area.

If you want more information, let me know, and we can do that during the question and answer period.

And we're also converting our RRFB to a PHB.

This picture here kind of gives you guys an indication of where that's going to go.

And then on to the next project.

So again, our primary purpose here is pavement preservation, but we all are also including some access control along with other safety and operational improvements.

Limits are from fortune to Bryce Schaffs.

I hope I'm saying that correctly.

Road.

Currently, we're at 37 million.

We're at 100% plan review, which is happening this month, and then a dock date in May.

The construction timeline will be fall of 26, early spring of 27 to spring of 27.

This may move a little bit, but we do have a website for this project.

And that's available in your packet.

So this gives you an indication of where this preservation project's going to exist.

And then, of course, we we included the uh cross streets just to give better reference.

So primary purpose is preservation and safety.

We're repaving the US 50 as indicated earlier.

We're gonna have new signalized intersections at Cardelli and Riverboat Road, as well as Six Mile Canyon and Fort Churchill.

We're maintaining the 12-foot uh travel lanes.

There will be uh median installations at intersections for access control.

Uh high T intersections at Graves Drive, Enterprise and Pine Nut.

We are reducing some speeds here.

We have a speed limit reduction from 60 to 55 east of Fortune Drive to east of Bryce.

And there are no additional, this isn't doesn't have any capacity included.

So those are the two projects.

I always like to bring up the one nevada process by introducing those two projects.

This really helps us kind of understand what we're trying to do as a department to be a lot more proactive with the projects we're pushing forward and funding.

Um, as you guys have heard many many times, we uh the one nevada transportation plan is our long range plan.

We have six goals as noted here.

Those six goals help uh the department drive which projects are gonna prioritize and uh ultimately get funded.

Uh the process really is looking at long-range needs, validating those needs, ultimate ultimately compiling all those needs into a database so that we can then start understanding what sort of improvements we need to make within certain corridors.

Once those projects are prioritized, uh they ultimately end up in our four-year STIP and annual work program to then receive funding and ultimately get constructed.

This helps illustrate sort of the process in a real world situation with we have a we have a Campo study, it was the US 50 corridor study.

Those provided a number of recommendations.

Once that was packaged together, we started looking at how we can get this to a refined project.

It then became the US 50 Dayton and or US 50 Carson project, and that is where it sits now, ultimately ready for obligation to then uh be in a stance for construction.

So with that, um that ends my presentation.

Uh, if you guys have any questions, I'm here to help uh answer any of those.

Oh good.

So the East Williams Street project will finish first, then you'll jump over to Dayton, and then the following year you'll come back and do 50.

So that's pretty much the schedule we have here.

Okay.

Well, good.

Any other questions, John?

Thank you, Chairman.

Um, yeah, I got I I do have one question on a little concern on the US 50 Dayton project.

Uh we were originally told spring of 26.

The website for the project right now says summer of 26, and now you're saying fall of 26.

And I get calls daily regarding those the need for those traffic signals out there, and we've been telling them promising them this year.

And so I mean, thank you for the presentation.

I'm glad it's coming, but it it it looks like we've been delayed yet again.

Yeah, you you're reading that correctly.

I can't answer why that might have been delayed.

One thing I can say that's certain is that with a doc date in May, those funds are obligated towards this project.

I'm not really sure what created those delays, but I can ultimately uh talk to the project manager and then provide Chris uh a report on what did trigger those delays, and we can either come back here and explain those delays, or Chris can then uh provide you some justification.

I I know um you're getting a lot of calls, and I I feel your pain on that.

Um so anything I can do to help answer those questions or justify those those issues that we're having with getting this project out, I'm more than willing to help with.

Um just let me know how you'd like that uh delivered to you, either through Chris or through another presentation here at I wouldn't expect you to do another presentation.

I like to say I appreciate the presentation of the materials.

I just I need to have something to go back to my constituents and explain why we're again getting pushed uh no pun intended, but down the road.

Um yeah, I mean uh if you you know forward something to Chris and he send that over to me or or whatever just something that I can explain to my constituents what the cause of that delay would be greatly appreciated.

Yep.

And I will get that to you Monday.

Yes, thank you.

Good.

Any other questions or comments from the group here?

Sure.

Uh thanks for the presentation.

On the the Carson City project, were there any recommendations from the needs study that were not incorporated into the project?

And can we discuss those a little bit?

No, I know these needs projects are kind of long-term, everything that we would need, and I know that you know we try to scale them.

Um what did it come down to a money issue, or what sorts of things did we not cover in this for future?

That's a really good question.

Yeah, uh, there are a number of recommendations that came out of that study that aren't getting incorporated into this preservation project.

Um, it is a funding situation, it's a timing issue.

Um a lot of these preservation projects look pretty simple, but they do take time to develop.

Um a lot of those recommendations might have required additional right-of-way that we weren't ready to ultimately start uh, I guess a grabbing for lack of a better term.

So it's a timing issue, and one nevada, and and I'm not trying to lean back into something that we're not talking about today, but one nevada should really help alleviate some of that.

Um, are we going to be able to do everything that a corridor study uh recommends?

Probably not because of the fiscal constraints we're under.

But ultimately, one nevada will help us understand those needs a lot sooner, so that as projects get developed, we have a much better understanding of that readiness component.

If this project was at 60% design, when we start getting some of these uh recommendations in, which is at no fault of Campo and DOT planning or the designers, just at that time, we were already moving with a preservation project.

Um, it's hard to incorporate them in late into that design.

But we do have like we are trying to be a lot more proactive with one nevata.

We understand the needs.

We're creating a database, you know, that's geo-referenced so that as we start looking at um you know, primary purpose preservation and safety.

Once we start looking at that, we can start saying, okay, what can we add in here without creating um you know a seven million dollar project going to 21 million and then ultimately going to 50?

How do we right size it for what our uh financial constraints are first, but then also meeting the need of those communities, ultimately meeting the timing of when we'd like that delivered.

Um we do have an obligation to get pavement done within a certain time frame, just because as all of you guys know, once it gets to a certain point, that uh rehab is a it could be a lot more expensive if you have to go all the way down to the uh the road bed, I guess it's called, rather than just keeping it on the surface.

You can really create you can really save yourself a lot of money if you have a really well-defined preservation program.

But as you start adding these other elements, you potentially can delay that.

We're having a real struggle um ensuring that our preservation is meeting our goals right now.

We have something called the AMP asset management plan that's FHWA approved.

And in there we basically um tell the feds what we're going to do and what at what maintenance level we're gonna keep our roads at.

So it it's a it's a balance, but one nevada should help us understand that a little sooner so that we understand those needs, dust them off, and can really incorporate them into the next uh project that's coming along in a corridor.

Heard thank you.

Can I ask one more question?

Um you mentioned the signal improvements on the Carson City study.

Um, the signals over at airport have been something that's been discussed for a really long time.

We've had a couple of pedestrian fatalities there.

Can you speak to the signal improvements that are going in specifically at airport?

Are you are you prepared, Aid?

Um I do not have that information available in detail.

Um this is where the PM would be really helpful.

Um I can I was oh perfect.

I appreciate you.

Yeah.

Chris Martinovich transportation manager.

We've been working with Dennis Faulkner, who is NDOT's project manager on the Carson City side for this project.

And one of the one of the couple of things going on at that intersection.

First of all, is Carson City is reconstructing or preserving airport road.

We're looking at adjustments to the median island to try to better align the lane configuration through there.

So that's one of the things Carson City is currently doing.

On the N DOT side, uh, they're planning on putting a median island, essentially a pork chop island at the corner at the north east corner next to the Dairy Queen to shorten some of the pedestrian crossing of that particular leg.

So that'll provide a little bit more enhanced safety for pedestrians.

I know that that lighting has been discussed, and I don't I don't know if specifically that lighting has come up at this intersection, but those are some of the improvements that both Carson City and and N DOT have at this particular location.

Thank you.

Yes, I wanted to thank you very much for the presentation and letting us know what's going on there.

It does have a lot of interest in that neighborhood because it is frequently traveled for that.

I noticed that Carson is going to be providing the 300,000 for pathway improvements.

Do you have any information on where those pathways are?

Are they along 50 or yeah, I'm assuming they are along 50.

I don't have a ton of detail, but thankfully, Chris does.

Thank you, Mr.

Costa.

Chris Martinovich transportation manager.

The multi-use path to be preserved, reconstructed, both of those is on the north side of US 50, beginning at airport road and running as far east as potentially Deer Run Road is if our money goes that far.

So we're reconstructing portions, we're doing preservation of other portions and just trying to make some ADA compliance at some of those intersections as well.

And we're using carbon reduction funds that are a portion to end dot for through Campo for the or portion to campo through N DOT for the 50,000 to 200,000 population bucket, and one of the eligible uses of carbon reduction funds is multi-use path preservation.

We don't get a lot of carbon reduction funds, so we have to pool multiple years to be able to do something like this.

So that's what the limits of that are.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Yes.

Um I noticed in the presentation you talked about green paint for the bicycle wings or whatever.

Is is green paint working out?

I know it's something we've started doing and did on like Fifth Street and things.

Are we seeing that the public recognizes that and moves over or gives room, doesn't park?

Are we seeing that as effective?

Um I don't have any stats in front of me on the effectiveness of the green paint.

I think um that it is an effective sort of signal to the drivers to understand that there is something here.

I think that's what we're always trying to do is ensure that whatever we're putting down, at least it's catching the attention of those drivers that there are other users on the facility.

Um it's a really good question on do we have numbers on the effectiveness of green versus white.

I think you know, just in the contrast of typically seeing white and yellow, when you see green, hopefully you're thinking a little bit differently.

Um maybe you don't understand that it's for um uh a bicyclist per se, but you're you're noticing that there is a change in that environment.

So you ultimately should trigger to pay attention to something, right?

And I I wish I could answer that better, but to me, I think what we're really trying to do is you know, that's a low-cost improvement that allows other people, other drivers to just cue into something that that's different than what they're not, you know, it's something they're not used to seeing.

So I do think that there is some help to that.

We're seeing a lot more use.

So I think it's a good low-cost uh treatment.

I think I wish we could do more for those other users, but right now it's it's everything's hard in terms of the uh fiscal issues that we're all facing.

Yeah, because I'm I'm getting uh a few complaints in town that they say people aren't paying attention to the bike lanes and their parking where they shouldn't be parking.

Why do we have them if there's no enforcement?

So I'm really interested if you actually see or even our staff as time.

Are we seeing a reduction or that people are understanding what the signs mean?

Not that there just could be a bicycle coming along.

That's their lane that they actually understand that.

So okay, thank you.

Sure.

Um, you were you wrote in the notes uh no speed reduction recommended.

And in light of this conversation with uh the green paint and the bike lanes and the um flashing beacon uh for pedestrians.

Can you speak a little bit to um the determination?

Thanks.

Yeah, so within my notes section, um they didn't recommend lowering the speed, so we didn't actually can conduct uh a speed study out there.

The project falls within the urban um general roadway environment for context classifications, uh, meaning the current speed limits reflect uh a correct speed for that roadway.

Um we do have a speed management plan and it outlines strategies to help reduce speed, but does not require every strategy to be implemented.

Um that probably doesn't really answer your question.

We so we are we're moving to kind of we're exploring a context uh classification rather than just based on numbers and really looking at how the facility is being used and what kind of uses are around those facilities, and we're really starting to uh explore how we can better manage our our system through speed, but looking at that rather than just simple tables of what the classification is.

So based on that, we we do have a speed management plan that helps end dot and should help other uh jurisdictions arrive at that, and that's how we that's how we made that determination.

No, that's really helpful.

Thank you, because it's you know you hear sometimes that people go too fast.

We hear sometimes that it's not fast enough, you know.

So it's really helpful to have on the record the process of determining speed, so thanks.

Yeah, any other questions or comments at this point.

I'm thinking the biggest speed item on the Carson project is gonna be changing out the rectangular rapid flashing beacon to a pedestrian hybrid beacon, which goes from yellow to red.

So there'll be a stop signal when somebody pushes the button.

So we'll see how that goes.

And John, I think your your traffic uh signals and Dayton will probably be next year because it's gonna be advertised and constructed, but getting signal poles and all the equipment like we found out for Appian Wade takes a long time.

So I'm sure they'll be coming along as quick as I can.

All righty.

Any other comments?

Good and good luck with the uh one Nevada process, and don't forget about finishing the freeway.

And dot agreed in 1986.

Yes, it's there.

That's a previous commitment should carry some away.

Yeah, okay.

All right, we'll move on to our next item then uh item five B.

And I think Jared's got this one.

And we'll be taking action on it.

Discussion and possible action regarding a proposed amendment to the Campo uh federal fiscal year 25-28 transportation improvement program with the amendment making changes to multiple projects listed in appendix three, including changes in funding amounts, project descriptions, and updating the program funding listed in appendix one.

So, Jared, you've been tracking all the money working with and the other folks to make sure it all adds up correctly, essentially.

All right, thanks.

Uh Jared Cragan, transportation planner.

Uh the Campo Transportation Improvement Program for the federal fiscal year 20 2025 to 2028 is a federally required prioritized list of fiscally constrained projects.

Earlier this year, we had two administrative modifications, 25-07 and 25-08.

That updated funding for the US 395 Carson Valley Phase 1 project and the US 50 East of Data Fortune Drive to Six Mile Canyon Road Preservation Project.

Uh please refer to the document revision history on page uh 33 for more details about the changes mentioned.

Just as a reminder, administrative modifications are minor revisions to the TIP and do not require public review or a redemonstration of fiscal constraint.

As referred to in the document revision history on packet page 35, the proposed amendment 25-09 will add state highway funds and increase STBG uh NHPP and state match funding for the US 50 Carson Preservation Project, uh update project descriptions for both the uh FTA 5339 bus facility grant awards and e state and bridge project.

Uh add carbon reduction program funds and increase Carson City funding for the North LOMPA multi-use path project, increase STBG funding for the Curry Street Complete Streets Project, remove STBG funds, uh increase the Carson City funding and update the funding pro update the project description for district three Fifth Street Roundabout Project, decrease Carson City funds and add STBG funding for the College Fairview Preservation and Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project and remove STBG funds and increase NHPP funding for the US 395 Carson Valley uh phase one project.

The proposed amendment also updates table one and the appendix to reflect the changes made to the the projects in appendix three.

All proposed revisions are incorporated into the attached exhibit one.

The public comment period was for this action uh open on March 21st, 2026, and ended on April 4th, 2026.

We received an agency request from NDOT related to the US 50 Carson uh preservation project.

And with that, I could take any questions.

Okay.

Any questions from the group up here at all?

Again, this is more of a accounting housekeeping type of thing.

And you got to get the numbers right before you can get it obligated.

So at this point, all right.

Do we have any public comment on this item at all?

Just public comment for RTC.

No, for Campo for this action item.

You can wait.

Okay.

All right.

I'll entertain a motion then for this formal amendment.

I move to approve the amendment as presented.

I second.

All right.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, nay.

Motion passes.

All right.

We'll move on to our next item.

Okay.

This is another one for possible action.

Item 5C.

Discussion and possible action regarding a proposed amendment number two to the cooperative agreement with NDOT, increasing uh not to exceed amount of the agreement by $620,009 and 88 cents to a revised not to exceed amount of 1,346,270 and 91 cents, which includes 1,292,837 and 61 cents in federal funds and $53,433 and 30 cents in required local match, extending the termination date of the agreement to June 30th, 2027, and modifying other clause clauses of the agreement to allow CAMPO to continue to seek reimbursement of the consolidated planning grant funds that will be carried forward from fiscal year 2026 to fiscal year 2027 up through the revised agreement not to exceed amount and authority for the transportation manager to sign the amendment and future amendments to extend the time for performance or approve funding changes not to exceed 10% of the present agreement amount.

So there's has a couple of different fiscal years that force us to do this type of thing.

And I have a disclosure.

Thank you.

NRS 288 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 foreseeably 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.

Chris, you're going to walk us through this one.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Chris Martinovich, Transportation Manager.

This is amendment two as stated in the agenda title to our cooperative agreement to fund Campo and our unified planning work program.

This amendment uh stated extends the duration of the agreement through the end of fiscal year 2027, June 30th, 2027, and increases the funding uh to account for all of the federal 2026, federal fiscal year 2026 funding that's been obligated and apportioned to EndOT for planning activities.

Similar to previous amendment, uh this agreement allows us to continue to draw down those funds that have that have not been spent through 26 and into 27.

Uh we do anticipate another amendment amendment three once federal fiscal year 27 dollars are apportioned by Congress and obligated by NDOT so that we can fund the remaining portions of uh fiscal year 2027 and the UPWP activities stated and coming up in a future item.

Uh but other than that, I'm happy to take questions, Mr.

Chair, should there be any from the board.

Okay.

Any other group have any other questions?

It's something we go through pretty much annually due to the different questions.

Due to the different federal fiscal years.

I still have a question.

Sure.

I I think it's always important to try to understand why some of these grant of federal dollars take so long to expend.

You know, so this is really like two-year-old money, not e right, because we already did the first amendment to give us another year.

Now we're doing a second amendment to give us another year.

So when we have a planning document, I'm just trying to get my arms wrapped around why we can't expend them within the year.

Why why do they carry over so long?

Thank you, madam mayor.

I wanted to first of all note that we're also, in addition to extending the duration, we are adding additional funds from federal fiscal 26.

So these are current funds obligated this fiscal year for use in this fiscal year, but it also includes funds that were obligated in 25, but it's likely most of the funds in 25 have already been spent.

And so now we're starting to draw for Campo on 26 funds as we are currently in fiscal year 26.

So there the reason there's carry forward is because for a number of reasons.

One, we've had a carry forward in in Campo for a number of years due to due to you know staffing shortages in the past, um, due to additional obligations that we received that we didn't plan for in the UPWP.

And so we've built up a little bit of a carry forward over the years.

And so because of that, we're still continuing to draw that down.

Uh ultimately our goal is to be aligned better with the fiscal years, our fiscal year, federal fiscal year, and the fiscal year, the money we're actually spending and drawing down.

That's our plan long term.

It's gonna take a little time to get on that kind of that same alignment with everything.

And and the feds, it's no issue because they'll give you three, four years to expend dollars.

I I just think it's important that the public understands that just because it's labeled federal fiscal year 25.

It doesn't mean that they won't let us spend it all the way through like 28, which is it just speaks to why road projects and planning projects sometimes feels like they delay, but the biggest issue for me is they become more expensive.

And I think that's why I want to stress the need to try and get them as close to their years as you can so that we get more bang for the buck.

I guess that's the issue for me, right?

Because you get to do less the next year, and you get to do less the year after that.

So, but thank you for that explanation.

I appreciate it.

Just a little history once upon a time, the federal fiscal year did end June 30th, and Congress figured, well, we're not gonna make it, so let's extend it.

September 30th.

And they still don't approve things effective October 1st, which makes you know all this planning very difficult.

So you're better off having some carry over than not.

So uh seeing no other comments, uh any public comment on this one at all.

Okay, I will entertain a motion then.

I'll do it.

I move to approve the amendment as presented to authorize the transportation manager to sign the amendment as well as future amendments that extend the time for performance or approve funding changes not to exceed 10 percent of the present agreement amount.

Second it have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, nay?

Motion passes.

All right, move on to our okay.

Agenda item 5D.

Again, it's another action item, so we'll have public comment.

Uh discussion and possible action regarding a proposed unified planning work program, UPWP for CAMPO activities during fiscal year 2027 and 2028.

And Kelly, you have this one.

It looks like you've made some changes to the draft based on some comments, so just walk us through that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Kelly Norman, Senior Transportation Planner.

The Unified Planning Work Program details Campos, work elements, tasks, activities, and how they're funded.

The UPWP is a two-year document that is updated annually.

This UPWP covers fiscal years 2027 and 2028.

Campbell's public participation plan requires a 30-day public notice for the UPWP.

The 30-day public notice began March 4th and ended April 3rd.

A legal ad went out on Saturday, March 7th in the local papers as well.

This draft UPWP has been shared with NDOT and our federal partners.

Staff did receive a few comments and have made a few changes that you see in your packet.

Um, since the board last viewed the UPWP, the edited version of the UPWP begins on packet page 77.

If the board approves, staff will accept these changes, post, share, and submit the final document.

That concludes my comments.

Okay.

Do we have any questions or comments since we've seen this before?

But some changes have been made.

So good.

It says we're supposed to protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, between transportation improvements and state and local plan growth housing and economic development patterns.

Doesn't mention federal.

But since we do have federal land here and federal land bills going on, it's not required, but I assume you're going to be keeping track of those type of things because all three counties have lots of federal land, and that can change at any time and will affect our transportation network.

So don't have anything to change for that.

Any other questions or comments, Mark?

Um, I want to thank staff.

Um I did make some comments and work with staff in between meetings regarding the this um UPWP.

Um only one other thing I wanted to go ahead and maybe talk about a little bit more is um I understand that the projects in the TIP.

We can't use the Carson City prior campo prioritization method for that because we have projects coming in from different areas from EndOT and other locations.

So you know we can't you know rank them according to that.

But um I was wondering when we would be able to see basically the CAMPO prioritization methodology in practice where we we rank our our projects according to our methodologies.

There are particular time of the year we would do that, or uh I believe that if you refer to the RTP that contains the methodology for uh the prioritization process that Campo uses that was in the RTP.

Exactly.

But when do you use it or when do you do the prioritization?

We prioritize the list to put into the RTP.

Okay.

Um we will do it again.

It may be um at the TIP adoption, which I think is later this year.

Um that will be a process in which um we go through all of uh the projects again and um see which ones have been um obligated, um, which ones have deprioritized or which ones have become prioritized.

That would be a logical time to do that, and that information would be presented to the board here, or we would be able to have a chance to take a look at that.

Yeah.

Um staff will bring forward uh the new tip.

Okay later this year in the fall.

All right.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the group?

All right, any public comment on this item as well.

Okay.

Seeing none, I will entertain a motion.

I move to approve the CAMPO fiscal year 2027-2028 unified planning work program as presented.

Second.

All right, I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Uh aye.

Any opposed, nay.

Motion passes.

All right.

We're on to agenda item 5E for possible action, discussion, and possible action regarding a recommendation to the Carson City Board of Supervisors concerning the fiscal year 2027 budget for the CAMPO fund.

And I see we have one more.

One more.

Okay.

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 foreseeably 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 will be voting on this matter.

Okay, Chris, are you gonna walk us through this one?

It's our tentative budget.

It winds up going to the Board of Supervisors.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Chris Martinovich Transportation Manager.

I just want to take a moment to explain the table beginning on packet page 120, which is the exhibit one of this particular staff report item.

This is the budget worksheet that the city's financial division department puts together for uh all of the funds in in Carson City, which includes the Campo Fund or which is also known as the 245 Campo Fund.

Looking at the table, the upper section there is the revenue section, uh ending with total revenues.

These these are the revenues we receive from various grants, primarily federal dollars for Campo Fund.

The bottom portion of the table are the expenditures and the different line items associated with those expenditures.

When we look at the columns, there's a number of columns here, including the uh account descriptions and the actuals from prior years.

I'll call you, I'll point your attention over to the right side of the page, the 2027 budget.

That's what we're here to discuss today on this particular agenda item.

The top line is the federal grants.

Those are our consolidated planning grant funds.

These are the federal highways federal transit funds that come through NDOT as an agreement similar to the one we we uh approved earlier tonight.

This number, $335 is our estimation for federal dollars, and that aligns with our unified planning work program uh outlined on the previous agenda item on packet page 117, the funding table there.

Those are the federal dollars, as you know, Campo and Federal Dollars require a 5% local match.

So local match is listed in the following line items for Douglas County, Ly County, and Regional Transportation Fund, and the amounts listed there to $2,715 for Douglas County, $3,300 for Lyon County, $11,690 for Carson City and the Regional Transportation Fund.

Those dollars combined with the 335 or the total of the UPWP approved in the prior item.

The expenditures comes out of one line item for 27 Campo grants.

Other items in this budget include other agreements that are in you know completed or in place, including the East State and Bridge, as well as the completed US 50 East Carson Complete Streets uh agreement.

Uh with that, I know our chief financial officer Sherry Russell Benabu is here, so there'll be any specific questions on that.

Uh, but I'll turn it back to you, Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

We have any questions or comments.

I know you two get to look at it again, but any early returns.

I think it's just important again for public information.

You can see in the FY27, which is what we're talking about, everything looks like you know, 380,000.

But again, what really happens is you look back back over the actuals in the other years of 24, 25, and even our re-estimate for 26.

Other grants or other things come during the year.

And so those require budget augmentations that we pick up.

So if in 26 a project does not complete, but we've obligated the money, we'll pick it up and roll it forward to I don't know, unless Carson City wants to snatch uh uh Lions money, but uh we will roll that project forward.

And I just think it's important that this looks like it's really small.

Oh my gosh, we're only gonna have 300,000, but it's because it's just the planning grant that the portion for the staff that keeps it going as an MPO.

So it's just information, and it's probably one of our easier budgets to start the year.

Becomes more complex when the projects roll.

But it's for that.

Thank you.

Any other Mark?

Just have one general question.

I notice here that we have a 2026 re-estimate, which is partly or largely due to those federal funds coming in.

That's understood.

Um we have this in April, and we got a couple months left before the end of the 2026 fiscal year.

Is there a way we would go ahead and get the 2027 re-estimate earlier in the time frame so we could see it?

I don't have an answer to that.

I'm gonna refer to uh Sherry, who can perhaps answer.

Thank you, Mr.

Costa.

Uh so each year, the way the budgets roll, we do two augmentations a year.

They're formal augmentations.

So we look at the budget uh after uh the dust is settled from the audit, and we know what the ending fund balances are.

Um, and then we move that money, like the mayor said, we move that money into the following year.

So um so the 26 re-estimate is really the only time that we do that re-estimate.

Uh, we do it for budget purposes because um the way the state works, we have to have a jumping off point for for fiscal year 27.

So we do a re-estimate of 26 to get the best ending fund balance that we think we'll have, which becomes our beginning fund balance in 27.

So that's we don't necessarily augment to that um that re-estimate, but that's what we're guessing our beginning fund balance will be for 27.

And that's one of the things we'll true up when we do our augmentations for next year.

Okay, so that wouldn't be done until March of the following year, basically, or yeah, because we're currently working on the 2027 budget.

We're establishing that budget, that's what these are.

Um so we wouldn't be able to do a re-estimate of it until we start working on it in December, and we have numbers for you about now.

Okay, and in the meantime, as we're doing these agreements, how do we how will we track to make sure that we're spending within our means for the federal funds?

Do we coordinate that um with your office?

I understand some of this is just general procedure.

I'm trying to learn.

Yes.

Make sure that we don't overspend.

Yeah, so each project, we have project accounting.

So each project has a project budget.

Um, and everybody's able to put a two-year window in that project budget.

So before we roll it forward, they can see what they had available last year, what was spent, and what's available in the current year for the budget.

So they can see that period before we roll it forward.

Once we roll it forward, then you just have to look at the current year.

But yeah, they should everybody should be able to track their projects via that project accounting.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

You can see that in the third column when you look backwards.

Though see those project numbers.

So you can at any time pull up a particular project and see how it's tracking to its amount.

As long as you have access to MUNIS.

We don't just give everybody access to that.

No, but you can ask for a project answer it anyway.

You can absolutely Sherry, just a quick one to put it in perspective.

We're looking at you know, 300, 400,000.

What's the overall Carson City budget then that you are handling?

The overall?

Yeah.

Uh it's about 200 million.

Okay.

That's what I just want to say.

I said this is our simple one.

I think there's I think there's 47 account different funds that we budget for.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's we have people doing this.

It's not easy.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

I guess I'm looking for a any public comment on this item before I ask for a motion.

All right.

Uh I'll have another motion on this one.

Do you want me to I'll recommend to ourselves?

Yeah.

I move to recommend that the uh that the Board of Supervisors approve the fiscal year 2027 budget for the Campo Fund.

Okay.

I have a second.

Who's not a supervisor?

Yeah.

Second.

All right.

There you go.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion passes.

All righty.

We're on to our get near the end here.

Item 6A, our transportation managers report.

Chris, is there anything you would need to bring up that we haven't heard already?

A couple of things.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Chris Martinovich transportation manager.

I I wanted to just circle back and follow up to a conversation.

I know the mayor mentioned earlier, you know, Campo, I think does a very good job of using our federal dollars as quickly and as as as much as we can, whether they're planning dollars that have to be used for planning activities, like like the UPWP funds or their STPG carbon reduction.

We're we're programming projects.

You've seen that last month.

We'll we'll see that again next month to make sure that we try to use as much of that federal dollar as we can and get those projects out of the community.

That you know that's our goal.

So we're we're definitely staying on top of that.

Um speaking of UPWP, we are completing the last few tasks in our UPWP, our current UPWP, which ends June 30th of this year.

Uh the current the next one for the next two years was just approved, and so we'll start on those tasks beginning in July.

There are some carry-forward carry-on tasks like North Carson Street and some other items that we'll continue to do, but uh we are finishing up those items um and you'll get a report on the the previous UPWP typically in September of each year as to how we spent on our budget and what the activities we did.

That that comes as a report to this board in September.

We also are monitoring our federal federal like legislation and regulation changes.

Um latest is probably a continuing resolution on the current transportation bill.

Uh there was optimism earlier in the year.

I think that optimism is gone.

Um so potentially a continuing resolution.

That would be I think the best case scenario right now for at least a period of time under the current transportation legislation, uh, so that we can have $27 to obligate for planning activities and road projects and so forth.

Um, with that, that concludes my comments, but I'm happy to take questions, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any any questions for Chris under this item?

Okay.

All right, moving on to item six B, our end dot report.

Kevin, do you have anything to share with us this month?

So I'll have the board meeting.

Our next board meeting will be uh May 11th.

Uh that's all I have really to offer to today for an update.

Ready?

Okay.

Next item.

Item 6C.

Any other comments from the board status reports or any other items we want to share at this point?

Okay.

And our last item is our second general public comment opportunity for Campo.

Okay.

Seeing none, it's about 527.

I will call this meeting to end.

And how soon?

For RTC?

Five minutes.

All right.

Okay.