Call the Regional Transportation Commission meeting to order.

May I have a roll call, please?

Chair Bagwell.

Here.

Vice Chair Shooty.

Commissioner Costa.

Here.

Commissioner Maloney.

Here.

Commissioner Novak.

Here.

A quorum is present.

Thank you so much.

We're now on our opening public comment, and we had some that uh uh we thought we would cue up right away for um ease of uh doing this, and so uh please uh feel free to talk to us.

Hi, my name is Jordan.

Um, I'm with the RTC part of your representing Dayton residents.

Yeah, representing residents.

Um I would uh I actually inquire about opting in or opting in for transportation and these rides and stuff out to um, sparks, wherever.

There's from you tell us where you live.

Where do where do you actually live?

In Dayton.

Okay.

And so you're you're asking us to send a bus out there.

Approve the plan to connect Lyon County and Carson City for bus rides.

Um, he needs that.

Many people probably need it in Hawaiian County.

So we're really pushing to get some attention in that area.

Okay, perfect.

Perfect.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Do I have anyone else that wants to make any comments on that?

Mm-hmm.

And uh thank you, Jordan.

And um just wanted to uh give a quick update on that.

And I have been advocating and and with the help from Supervisor Shooty.

Um, we've discussed getting a bus or a shuttle of some point in Dayton, probably at the senior citizens center pickup and taking that to the Jack hub in Carson City.

At that point, riders can go to the hospital, shopping to watching about a college wherever they need to go.

And I know Marcus has been helpful as well on potentially obtaining that bus.

Just trying to find funding for a driver right now.

So yeah, but we're hopeful that in the future we can get that uh get that taken care of.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Is there any other public comment?

Okay.

Then we're gonna go ahead and move on to agenda item four, which is approval of our minutes for April 8th, 2026.

Does any member have any corrections or changes?

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

I mean, to approve the minutes uh from April 8th, 2026 as presented.

I will second.

I have a motion and a second for approval.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

We're now on to agenda item five A, which is a discussion only presentation on the state or practice on how we prioritize road projects.

And uh discussion only since there's no action, no disclosure.

Uh Mr.

Martinovich.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chris Martinovich, transportation manager.

Wanted to walk through a presentation today.

This is uh this is unbelievable.

I I I want to say I turned this on and I checked it and I left it.

It's not doing anything.

One moment.

Okay, I think we're working.

Yes, here we are.

Hit buttons and something happens.

Okay.

Um wanted to take uh the RTC through a couple of items.

Part of this, uh most of this presentation is at the request of uh various RTC board members last couple of uh months in regards to some innovative technologies as well as just a refresher status of what we do and costs associated with what we do.

So first slide here talks about uh our regional our pavement management plan that the Regional Transportation Commission has approved.

Pavement Management Plan dates back uh a number of years.

We're getting close to I believe eight eight years old now.

We've we've used this plan, it's on our it's on its second version, and a new version will come up following district five in 2028.

Uh the current version was approved by the RTC in May of 2023, and our general goal as documented in the plan is to keep the good roads good.

And just as a summary, as you you all know this, but for those maybe listening, we rotate through performance districts on an annual basis.

Uh one, two, three, four.

We're currently uh on item five B looking at performance district four in the yellow shown on the map there.

We set those um pavement the payment management plan talks about PCI targets, and so we set our priorities based on in part based on some of those targets and in part based on the condition of our actual row roads.

And again, the plan is reviewed every five years.

So the pavement condition index as a refresher is shown here.

PCI is the acronym for that.

And we know that pavement deteriorates on a life cycle.

That pavement life is shown in blue, and through various rehabilitation, preventative maintenance or reconstruction methods, we can refresh and renew the life of that pavement.

Pavement life varies depending on how thick it is, how much traffic's using it, where it's located, what the soil is, what the weather conditions are, lots of variable factors for the life of the pavement, but generally between 30 to 50 years is what we would expect to get out of a pavement life before it becomes failed and a PCI of less than 10.

So that standard PCI rating table there, color coded with the different categories we use, and there are maps available on the city's website, CarsonCity.gov and the transportation division page that has the current PCI map of all the roads within Carson City.

So if you're interested in what your road is, definitely you can go check that map out and see what it what it is.

We do review our roads periodically through a physical survey.

The last survey was completed around the end of 2024.

We've completed two surveys prior to that.

Current condition of our roads is of as of 2025, which is a projection based on our model analysis that we use.

Paver is our software.

So that can project the life of the pavement.

And we update and I want to say try to try to narrow down the accuracy of that model each time we complete a physical pavement survey.

So an estimated PCI citywide is 58 for all roads, regional roads are better than local roads.

We've discussed a number of times here at the RTC.

Performance district 4 has a current PCI of around 59.

Regional roads are a little bit higher than the city average at 76, in large part due to the reconstruction of South Carson, which we'll be discussing again on 5B, and local roads are pretty much a little worse than some of the other regions of the city.

The roads in District 4 tend to be a little bit older, being in the older part of town.

How do we fund our transportation?

Our road projects here in Carson City.

We primarily use our gasoline taxes, a little bit of sales tax for maintenance activities.

Just as a bar chart showing gallons sold in the line.

The black line is gallons sold in Carson City.

The bars, the gold bars, are the revenue collected by fiscal year dating back to 2006.

So in 2006, we collected 3.4 million dollars.

In 2025, we collected 4.1 million dollars.

That's a 19% increase over 20 years, so that's less than 1% revenue growth per year for the last 20 years.

When we add that to other revenue sources, we can see as this as all of you know, we present the fuel tax revenue on a monthly basis to the RTC.

It's not only the gallons sold of gasoline, but it's the gallon sold of diesel, as well as the tax sales tax, the quarter percent sales tax collected that funds street maintenance and operations.

So we report all these items, including the waste management franchise fee, electric vehicle charging is in that report, development contributions, we're tracking those, and the complete streets donation, the voluntary $2 donation.

You make it a uh vehicle registration on an annual basis.

That report is included in item six C at the end of our packets.

When we talk about costs, we see a significant increase in cost, and this is not unique to us.

It's it's it's common across the country, it's common at the state level, our partner jurisdictions in Washer County, Douglas County are all dealing with escalation of cost.

This data is through 2023.

I haven't pulled the 2024 and I don't know if 2025 is available, but I expect it to be higher from what I'm seeing, and currently we're all experiencing high prices, increasing month over month in our current state today.

So while our revenue has increased, uh our miles have increased slightly, but the cost of constructing our roads is massively increased 190% over the last 22 years.

So it's 190% increase in cost, and our revenue is that that same between this is between 2000, not just 2026, but between 2000 and 27% gas and percent increase in fuel revenue from the gas tax alone.

Looking at some specific costs of things that we do a lot of in Carson City, we do a lot of slurry seals.

So in 2019, the cost to uh Slurry microsurface on Clearview Drive, 21,000 or two hundred and ten thousand square feet, cost us twenty-two dollars per square foot.

Our recent bid for Stewart Street, very similar quantity was 45 cents per square foot.

So that's more than double the cost in six, seven years essentially.

Cost for pavement patching, we do a lot of pavement patching.

When we bid these out, 36,000 square feet on Airport Road in 2020 costs us $8.10 feet, $8.10.

And in 2026, the same Stewart Street project coincidentally had the same quantity, $30 a square foot for a pavement patch.

So there's where our this is this is a case in point of how our costs have increased and our revenues are relatively flat.

Another point I like to make here is that in 2000 we looked this up.

A gallon of gas cost $1.25 of that.

Carson City was getting its 15.35 cents.

That was 12% of that cost was going to Carson City.

My date here, I did this presentation about three weeks ago, so we're probably a little bit higher than that now, unfortunately, but we're still collecting the same 15.35 cents.

And so only 3.4% of the cost that you pay at the pump is coming into Carson City for reconstructing roads.

So our costs, our revenue have not changed.

We don't have escalation fuel indexing like some of our partner counties in C Washoe and Clark County, where they have fuel revenue indexing.

Carson City does not, and so we receive the same 15.35 cents that we received back in 2000 and back 1998.

What do we do with the revenue we have?

We've got a pretty robust program through our pavement management plan as is indicated.

We do stop gap uh activities that's crack sealing, potholes, patching.

A lot of that is done by our internally by our street operations crews.

They do a great job, and they've been out on College Parkway and Airport Road and Fairview, and Bud Eye and many of the roads around town getting ahead and crack sealing to help save costs for when we do preserve those those roadways with through projects.

So it's great to have that in-house capability.

They do good work and and I think it does save the city money for having that internally.

On the preservation side, we do primarily uh microsurface, which is a very small aggregate oil mixture that's spread across the road.

It cures very quickly, allowing allowing vehicles to drive on it relatively quickly.

We are looking at some other uh pavement methods, and at Airport Road and and College Park will be a chip seal, three-eighths inch diameter rock chip seal, we'll be putting out there, which is a little bit more robust than a microsurface given the condition of those roads.

So those are preservation surface treatment type practices that we do.

On the rehabilitation side, there's mill and overlay, which we haven't done too much lately, but we are looking at doing more of that, and then full depth reconstruction is which is where we remove the pavement and potentially the subgrade, maybe not, and then reconstruct it brand new pavement.

And there's many examples of that from Colorado Street to Winnie Lane that are more recent.

William Street, I will note has a combination of all of these.

We have some mill and overlay, we have some reconstruction, so you'll see uh various pavement methods being implemented on the reconstruction of Williams Street between Carson Street and I-580.

When we talk about our design and construction processes, projects are designed by staff internal to public works as well as consultants.

We do export some of our work to consultants to help us design to given the number of projects we're working on.

Projects are bid for construction following NRS 338 and awards to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

Projects are inspected and tested by primarily internal internal staff do the inspection.

We do consult out for material testing.

We don't have a lab, we can't do soil samples or oil samples, aggregate samples and things like that.

So we do consult those out, but by and large, all the inspection document control management of our projects is done by public work staff, and they they're they're very busy, especially this time of year, given the number of cones that are out on our roads.

Our project materials as well as the means and methods are governed by the standard specifications for public works construction.

This is uh more, we refer to it as the orange book, mostly because it has an orange cover.

Um, we also follow the silver book standards, which are end dots standard specifications for public works construction, and occasionally we'll pull in others depending on the type of work we're doing.

So, Orange Book is our standard, it's the same method used by Douglas County, Washoe County, Churchill County, Lyon County, RTC Washoe.

So it's it's a very common, we all work together to develop those specifications and implement them consistently across our region.

And as of course, uh the RTC knows uh the project status reports are given.

That's the status of our project every other month.

We don't have one this month, but we will have one in June.

The roadway to get to a roadway project looks like this.

There's engineering design, which is generally 8 to 12% of the total construction cost, depending on complexity.

The construction in 2024 is about two point million, 2.1 million dollars per mile is what we're looking at at this time, more or less.

You can see the breakdown of what those costs compile of for those projects.

And then inspection and real material testing is generally three to five percent of the total cost of a project.

So in total, to reconstruct a road is generally around 2.4 million dollars today, and to preserve a road is around $380,000 per mile.

Those are pretty ballpark, but that's just generally what we're talking about.

So we've uh put together and included in the packet uh with support from our consultant applied pavement technologies and the local Nevada Local Technical Assistance Program, LTAP put together an emerging and innovative technologies memo, which is in the document or in the packet for your review.

If you have any questions on that, it's definitely in there.

I'm just gonna cover really quickly some of the items that Carson City has done that we've tried for in in you know innovative techniques.

We have done fiber reinforced double layer slurry.

We tried that on Curry Street five years ago on District 4 Curry Street.

We looked at doing fiber reinforced pavement, both on patches on Solomon Road in front of the high school as well as the repaving of Long Street.

That was a millenni overlay, and we overlaid that with a fiber reinforced asphalt pavement.

We've also been using mastic more.

There were large cracks that were filled in governors field parking lots.

If you've driven out to Governor's Field parking lot, it's we we did mastic in a few of the cracks out there, and when in a few of the other cracks, we did the standard crack ceiling material, and then that was all slurried.

Um, when we look at the cracks that were used with mastic, they're still closed, they're still holding up.

Uh so we're pretty confident now that mastic seems to be holding up a little bit better than our typical crack ceiling, especially from when you talk about those cracks that are two to three inches wide.

Mastics seems to be a product that we'd like to investigate more.

We don't, it is significantly more expensive than normal crack ceiling, but it may have a longer life and it may provide better use and longevity than a typical crack ceiling uh rubberized mixture that we put into the cracks or even patching for that matter.

We've used mastic in the public works yard on a slightly different and different way.

Instead of laying it in the crack, we spread it across the surface in kind of I think they're two or three foot wide layers, I guess, and parallel, parallel to each other across the road.

And so there was alligator cracking, there were wide cracks, there were a variety of surface deformations that were occurring out there, and we've used mastic, and it appears to be holding up.

It's been done in two occasions, and it appears to be holding up relatively well.

And there's a lot of trucks that drive in the public works yard.

So this is another area where mastic may be beneficial as a layer over alligator cracked areas, either prior to an overlay or maybe prior to a slurry, and may provide some of that breakage so that the cracks don't immediately come through and be visible on the surface.

So more to come on that, and we're definitely interested in continuing to try mastic.

And I'll note that on our district three pavement preservation project, which in which includes roads around Fifth Street Eagle Valley Middle School, including Hells Bells, Edmonds, in that area.

We are looking at using Mastic and some of the large cracks in those streets.

So we're gonna continue to try that in a real world now application rather than just a parking lot.

So that concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to take questions.

I just wanted to say that we are we are looking at this.

Uh we do plan to see what we can do, not only in the district three, but in the potentially the district four projects for some of these techniques to try to try to improve longevity, improve the condition, and save a little bit of dollars by not having to reconstruct everything just because there's a few cracks on the road.

So that concludes my topics.

I will turn it back to you.

Chris, just wanted to mention that any of the new roads that developers put in that will become public roads in the future, they're following the same process, right?

They're getting designed inspected, constructed, and I don't know if they're using any unique products or coming back in the future for seals or other things like that.

But I think you know the key is anything that's brand new that anybody builds in Carson is meeting the latest specs.

Yes, our development engineering inspectors do inspect uh those developer constructed roads, and they do are required to provide us uh with material testing summaries to verify that what they've said they've put down is indeed what they put down.

So uh we are checking on those roads, yes.

Does any other members have a question?

I just have a comment.

Thank you so much.

And I know you've given this presentation from time to time, and I appreciate the review.

Um it's really helpful.

So thank you.

Anybody else ever?

Uh Mr.

Costa.

Yes, I want to thank you, Chris, and your staff putting together some excellent documents and well researched and extensive bibliography where a person can go ahead and research on their own more if they want to do that.

Um I was concerned about the construction costs, they're going up, but I notice they shot up, the arrow goes almost straight up from 21 to 23.

And it looks like 24 and 25 and so on is increasing at the same rate.

So it's uh I I think there was some flattening at the end of 25.

Um, I don't know if that data is available yet, but we'll we shall see, and I will try to keep that slide updated.

It's one that Public Works has been using for a number of years now, and I I think it helps tell a story.

So if we can keep that keep that up to date, I I plan to certainly do that.

Okay.

Okay, and you also had here that some of this new tech has been used in Carson City, and I guess how does that compare in the costs with you with that using that as opposed to the old one?

The old methods.

We do know from uh you know our experience with things like the fiber reinforced asphalt is it is more expensive, it's about I think 25 to 30 percent more expensive.

Um, and so we're hopeful that by using those the pavement lasts longer, and there's the you know the company that has provided that fiber reinforcement is has given lots of case studies and they've done tons of projects not not only here but in Arizona and California, and so you know those are still relatively new, you know, five, six, seven years old.

So we really won't know how the fiber reinforcing works until we hit that that life cycle, 10, 20, 30 years down the line.

So optimistic, the company's definitely optimistic, and I'm optimistic too that there is um positives in that, and so if we can get you know 30% of life out of it, then maybe that 25 to 30% cost is worth it.

So something we're gonna have to keep monitoring and and look at those case studies for those longer term projects.

It'll be a tough one because you'll have to compare the higher upfront costs with maybe lower costs later on in the future with that.

Um I noticed looking on North Carson Street, there's a lot of appear to be longitudinal cracks for that.

Um you think this technology and the mastic or um this film, the fiber one would be useful in correcting that, maybe making that last longer.

I think Mastic has a lot of potential.

I mean, uh what Public Works has tried a number of local locations, and you can you can see these when you drive around on ClearView or Fairview is when those wide cracks occur.

Uh we would go out there and we would cut the pavement on each side of the crack, and then we'd put a patch in there.

And um I uh Rick probably knows this.

We end up with two wide cracks.

So, you know, maybe that's not the best solution right now for all the conditions given the pavement.

So Mastic is one where we're looking at to do that, and it doesn't matter if it's a longitudinal crack or a transverse crack.

Um, I think Mastic can work on all those circumstances, especially the wider ones.

It's not so good for narrower cracks, less than an inch because it's got aggregate in it, and that aggregate doesn't get into the crack, so uh it really works for those wider cracks uh where more rubber material works for smaller cracks.

Okay, um, go ahead and keep my comments brief, but um I see in the next agenda item.

Maybe we can talk about you know some of this new type of technology being used and some of the proposed projects.

I think that would be useful.

And again, thanks to you and your staff for doing a good job on this.

Commissioner Maloney.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Great presentation, thank you.

Um I think one of the things that we do really well in Carson City is testing some of these technologies and limited applications.

So I loved hearing about the small tests for like the Mastic.

We don't we can't afford and we don't want to be the guinea pig nationwide, and so kind of waiting and seeing how these things are working.

I think is the smart approach, and I think we're looking at it the right way.

So thank you.

Okay, this is a non-action item, so I won't do uh public comment and we will move on to agenda item 5B, which is the action item for our fiscal year 27 transportation infrastructure projects for performance district four.

Umber Shooty, may I have your disclosure, please?

Leave that.

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.

He 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.

Thank you so much.

So, Chris and Casey, are you gonna have a slideshow?

I'm going to start and Casey's going to I think finish, I think is our plan here.

So we're going to talk about district 4 pavement project prioritization for fiscal year 27.

So fiscal year beginning July 1st.

So as mentioned the previous item, we are following our pavement preservation plan, looking at regional roads and for the well, for the first time officially local roads in the project prioritization process.

We're looking at both preservation and rehabilitation projects.

This process is really a data-driven process governed by data and a scoring system that we'll go through here in a moment.

So the project prioritization process uses a bunch of different data sources.

It uses our pavement condition index, PCI, or we use work history, our traffic volumes, or the connective connectivity of a roadway.

It looks like our it looks at our crash data, looks at the utility needs, it looks at our transit needs and transit routes.

Planned improvements identified through various plans and corridor studies, functional classification of the road being local road or our regional roads, which include collector roads and arterial roads.

The roadway use, and we complete this as I mentioned for both local and and our regional roads.

The project prioritization procedures are included in the exhibit.

I believe it's exhibit uh three, two.

I sorry, I don't have to exhibit two.

Exhibit two are the step-by-step project prioritization procedures.

I wasn't going to go through them explicitly, but the the eight nine steps are shown here on the screen.

We do map these for our internal use and and for the benefit of you all here.

And so this is a map of the projects that are classified as uh ideal at risk or the worst roads in performance district four.

So this is the pool of projects we were drawing from following uh step five.

These are all the roadway segments that we looked at and considered through the prioritization process.

Those in green are the ones ideal for a preservation surface treatment.

Uh those in the yellows are in that area of about to be a full depth reconstruction.

Maybe we can do some preservation.

Maybe we can do some mill and overlay, and those are red, are either they're already a reconstruct or they're the worst roads within the performance district.

I'm going to turn it over to Casey to talk about some of the worst roads in District 4 on the regional side.

Casey.

Thanks, Chris.

This slide shows the worst regional roads under consideration in District 4.

These segments have PCI below 40.

And this slide shows the worst local roads under consideration again under 40 PSI or PCI.

Go ahead and switch for me.

Back on the regional roads, the following at risk low PCI segments were taken through step eight.

The scoring and ranking is shown here, broken out by treatment type with a separate breakout for worst PCI.

Overlap between worst PCI and at risk high priority rehabilitation is shown in bold.

The scoring is broken cleanly along treatment types one, two, and three at the bottom, and high priority rehabilitation at the top.

This is a coincidence.

The regional roads were then grouped into projects for estimating.

The table shows the projects created and their costs.

The same process was followed for local roads.

However, the number of at-risk and eligible worst PCI local road segments exceeded what can be shown on a slide.

This complete list of 63 segments can be found separately in exhibit three on packet page 71.

This table shows the top ranked local segments organized by treatment types with the worst PCI breakout.

Again, overlapping segments are in bold.

The rankings have more distribution between treatment types in this case.

The local roads were then grouped into projects for estimating.

This table shows the projects created and their costs.

This slide shows a map of the local roads included in estimating.

Now back to Chris for the budget.

So our budget for fiscal year 2027 was discussed at the RTC in April.

We had 2.8 million dollars for regional roads in fuel taxes.

The Street and Highway Fund, formerly the VT Fund 3.1 is approved by the Board of Supervisors, tentative budget process.

That's all dedicated to local roads.

Waste management franchise fee, 390,000 can be go to either regional or local roads.

And then federal STBG funding is available to Carson City through fiscal year in Federal Fiscal Year 26 from Campo in the amount of 1.3 million dollars, and that has to be used on regional roads.

It cannot be used on local roads.

So the total amount of budget to the transportation sources of revenue in fiscal year 27 is 7.6 million dollars.

We also have the option to use $380,000 in CDBG funding, and staff is recommending that that funding be applied to the 10th Street and Division Project, which is a local road project that can be used for sidewalk and ADA compliance, which would lessen the cost needed from our fuel taxes and other transportation sources.

So we can complement those federal dollars, which do not have the limitation of being limited to regional roads, but cannot be used on pavement.

They must be used on sidewalk and ADA elements.

So nuanced buckets of money at the federal level when we're trying to use them and leverage them as best we can.

So you have the 7.6 million plus the 380,000 in CDBG funding.

Casey.

Based upon the available budget, the shown regional projects are recommended to proceed.

Both South Carson Street segments were combined for one large preservation project from Appian to Fifth.

And Curry Street between 10th and 6th Streets is the second regional project.

The recommended local projects are first project, Fifth Street between Thompson and Division, 10th between Division and Carson Street, and Division between 10th and 5th.

Second project, Jackson between Sonoma and Grant, Hat Lane between Silversage and Grant, and Grant between Sonoma and Rolando.

And the third project, Fifth Street from Richmond, around the corner where it ends there on the west, turning into Terrace Street, and then ending at Patton Street.

The total project's cost for District 4 is 7,741,600.

This is within the total budget of $7,983,841, including that $380,000 of CDPG that is planned to be used on the 5th, 10th, and Division project.

The next steps for projects that move forward will be to finalize scope to include utility work and funding.

Create project numbers and move that funding into the project.

Design is expected to start in the fall.

Preservation projects will be constructed next summer.

Rehabilitation projects will target the summer of 2028 for construction.

That concludes our presentation.

Okay.

Um can you maybe you don't have the answers, but one of the things that would be helpful to me is, and I should have contacted you in advance so you could have the answers, but when I look at like South Carson Street or Curry Street, we've done a lot of projects on those streets.

So can you tell me when the last time the areas of recommendation of here were touched?

When did we do projects there?

The same spot.

I will look at regional roads first.

So South Carson Street was repaved in 2021.

That was the last time this segment of road was paved as part of the South Carson Street Complete Street Project.

We received a $7.3 million Tiger grant to do that.

So that's when that was done.

So this is in that ideal preservation category where we're preserving the existing pavement to protect that investment, those federal dollars, and ensure the longevity of this road for the next several several years, hopefully decades.

And so that's why this one has come up on the list.

Is it it's it's outside of that work history, and it's a preservation project.

So we'd be doing microsurface on this one.

Curry Street, I don't know the last time Curry Street was touched.

There's been some patching on there, but I don't have a date offhand, definitely not in the last six years that I've been here.

I don't know if Commissioner Maloney remembers, no, shaking your head.

So it's at least at least 10 to 10 to 10, 10 plus years since we've been in that area of Curry Street.

On the local road side, um, we we've recently done some projects.

I'll start with the south, the Jackson Pat, the purple one.

We've done some projects in that neighborhood, uh, south of Sonoma, and so this is sort of continuing what we've done down there, but these particular roads have not been touched probably since the 90s, looking at the pavement.

So it's it's 30, 35 years since any of these roads were were touched.

10th and 5th and division, 5th street is is failing.

I I was looking at some as built that there was a water line project, I think in the early 90s, and that patch is still visible for when that water line project was done, which tells me we haven't done anything on that section of road since that water line was constructed and placed in that area.

So I mean, I think we're talking in general short of South Carson Street, probably probably 10 to 30 years since we've been on any of these roads.

And again, on this for people to understand, it's the west side of Fifth Street.

Not the east has had, well, it has some projects.

So we have I just think it's important that people realize it's this street's long, very long.

So I just don't want people to assume we're going back where we already have been.

That's why you really asked the question.

I wanted to know, madam chair, that the segment between the red and the and the and the yellow is our vulnerable user pedestrian safety improvement project.

And so we will be patching and pres preserving that this summer, starting June 1st, where construction begins on that project.

So pretty soon we're gonna have that whole segment of fifth.

And so that was one of the factors we were considering as well.

Is do we want to leave portions of fifth failed, or do we just want to let's take care of Fifth street?

So that segment's not being forgotten, it's being included in a separate project already on going to be under construction this summer.

That's good.

Thank you.

Somebody else have a question.

Um, Commissioner Maloney.

Um, going back to South Carson Street, I think it's important to put it in perspective, maybe in a in a different way, which is of our roughly four million dollars for regional roads, three-quarters of that money for district four are being recommended for a road that was done five years ago.

And since we're in a five-year cycle, that means for this district, three quarters of the money every five years is going to be recommended for the same two and a half miles of road because the best practice or industry standard is every five years you come back with a with a maintenance and a preservation.

So this is this is a good example of very clearly showing it's not that money's being mismanaged, is it's there's not enough money.

This is one road taking three quarters of the money every five years.

Um there are a lot a lot of regional roads on the list to prioritize.

So I think to Mayor Bagwell's comment previously, maybe to spin it a little bit.

Is this the best road for us?

Is it putting the money in the same spot the the right choice, or does this commission want to discuss potentially other options?

I think that is the discussion point for all of us, right?

Is there this is a preservation project that you look at to say how much traffic is on it because um it's heavily used, um, and is there what really would be the other potential regional road in District 4 that sh could be considered and yeah, so if we're really looking at it, what else is out there for consideration?

So if you look at the price, oh we're flipping through how much was the amount that we're gonna do for the South Carson.

Is that the 2.8?

And so if you look at it and say, would it be wiser?

We're gonna do some Curry Street to pick up King Street.

That's kind of where my that's at a million one.

And while we just did Colorado, is this going further on Colorado?

I'm like, wait, we just did Colorado.

Madam Chair, this is the portion between South Carson and where we ended in Utah Street.

So this is that that last portion there, but but as stated, is it is it better to come to or even just to pretend is it's Sonoma and Kochese?

Should we put those two together and get more road?

And I think that's right, but I get 2.54 miles for 2 million eight as a preservation, which is keeping good road good, which is what right versus six-tenths of a mile because those will require reconstruction.

And I think it's a great discussion that we should have which has higher priority and which roads, and I look at the traffic to them, and you say, okay, which which ones do we need to address first?

South Carson obviously benefits the most businesses and the most commerce in Carson City, and um the staff I think could speak to this more, but those two and a half miles are it's a much easier job.

So you're getting more bang for your buck.

The traffic control is likely easier than some of these, like King Street with all the driveways or Sonoma or Colorado.

Madam Chair.

Uh yes.

I just wanted to give uh a couple of frames of reference to maybe assist in the conversation.

Uh we do have traffic volumes.

Uh South Carson Street between Appian and Stewart, sees 25,000 vehicles per day.

Outside of South Carson, the next highest road is Colorado Street at 3,000 cars per day.

Um so there's an order of magnitude obviously there.

Um, and that is a part of our scoring system is the use of the road.

I also want to note that our our scoring system, um, 2021 is is slightly outside of the five-year window, um, but we do have as part of the work history component in our scoring system where we consider: did we just do work on the road the previous cycle?

And we tend to exclude roads where we just did work the previous cycle.

So I can't say for sure this road will probably pop up, but for that reason, we may exclude it in five years.

If that's, you know, so that that's something we do consider.

We don't want to repeat and just do the same road over and over again.

That's part of our scoring system that we we do consider.

So I I'm not gonna guarantee it's gonna be the recommended one.

Right.

We would we would be ignoring all the other roads at that level too.

But a key point if you don't do South Carson now, it'll be five years before we look at it again.

And the PCI is probably gonna go downhill a lot quicker in the next five years.

So I have no problem investing in that now or with any of the other projects you guys have come up with.

I drove them all, and I don't see any problems.

I mean, it's work that needs to be done.

Work has been done on Curry Street, but north and south of this, and there's other projects coming.

So I think uh it's uh it's a good process and it's data driven and uh that's why we hire you guys.

This is good.

Thank you.

I just I think it's always important that we're discussing it because I think it's important to the public when their road is not selected in the local road.

Why wasn't mine picked?

Um because we have to do data-driven decisions when we're making the choices of what to pick.

But by doing the transportation districts, they at least get an every five-year shot at it, right?

Because otherwise you'd have areas of town that would get zero, right?

They just would never never see a road in their in their area.

So I think we um are doing a good job looking at the data to help drive the decisions that we're making.

But I also think it's uh wise to discuss what stood out about the choice, the why.

Did we pick this road versus you know, people that would like their road done too, especially in our local road arena?

So we're all kind of okay with saying yes on the regional roads.

Yes, hi, and I had a number of comments that I was looking at or wondering about here.

Um I think it would be helpful, and there may be a lot of numbers involved, or um, to go ahead and have the calculations behind the scores available to us, or um maybe some have some for the public sake of the public, is to have a brief description on why some roads with a very low PCI were not selected on this so that they would understand because periodically we've had people come to the board of supervisor meetings and so on.

When they considered, for example, whether or not to transfer the VNT fund over to this new fund for local roads.

People were asking, well, my road, I've been there 17 years or you know, some long period of time, and I've never seen anybody work on my road, and I think we have to become more transparent on that, and you know, explain to the people how we got these numbers and how we got these selections.

Um, the local roads, I was looking at the local roads, we're gonna be working on 1.44 miles of local roads, which is an improvement, but the regional we're still is at 2.72 miles, nearly twice as much.

And that's just one measure or just one way of looking at that.

But some people may also may take a look at that in terms of you know, we're still emphasizing on the local roads, and here we voted this um transfer of a tax authority to that.

And um, I think we need to go ahead and um I understand we're on the five district system, and we implemented that in 2023, and we got you know, a couple more years, you know, before everybody gets hit on this um district system, but I think we need to go ahead and make people aware that periodically at least you know every five years or so we'll take a look at that um about using visiting a particular district only once every five years um we may need to reconsider uh another way to go ahead and do this and don't want to talk out of turn but um I think we're seeing you know some of the concerns with our existing system of using one digital district every five years and um I think I'm glad that we have the prioritization system that we have we can go ahead and use that as a justification for that of how we selected these roads but I would like to see some of the calculations on how we got the list that we got so thank you.

Is there any other comments anybody else?

Okay is there any public comment on this item I don't see any happy to bring it back for any motion or further discussion.

You ready?

I was gonna call it commissioner shooty get the right title to the right meeting.

I move to approve the recommended performance district for projects as presented.

I will second I have a motion and a second for approval all those in favor please say aye.

Aye all those opposed please say no let the record reflect it was unanimous and just you know for the record certainly every five years I don't think it matters the policy our strategic plans everything that we do in this city I think Mr.

Costa's right you know every five years you take a look and say am I on the correct track do we need any slight changes is there anything else that we know that would improve what we're doing so certainly um I concur with the every five years we should take a look at everything we do so thank you.

Okay agenda item five C this is a determination on Nevada Barricade and sign company for our uh JAX signs and lighting projects for 335 thousand nine hundred and fifty dollars and whoo we're all the way down to a five percent contingency we don't have enough money to eke out a 10% I don't know uh case is there a highlight or anything that you need to bring to our attention yeah I would just like to note that when this project was originally advertised for four weeks which is typical process for public works that there were no bidders on the project it was readvertised for 10 days um to our surprise and delight a bidder did come in after the 10 day period and that was about a barricade and sign so this is that bid moving forward for this project is any that is all that I have to add on that.

I don't see any question we have a question sorry we have needed this project for almost a decade so thank you for seeing it through yeah um is there any public comment on this item seeing none uh miss Maloney would you like to make the motion a hundred percent I move to award the contract as presented and to authorize the public works director to approve expenditure of the five percent contingency if needed I second I have a motion and a second for approval all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed say no let the record reflect it was unanimous okay we're now on to agenda item five Discussion and possible action for the approval of our transit development and coordinated human services plan required every five years so here we go, right?

Um so you're ready?

Marcus.

You can just give us some highlights.

Yeah.

Or you want us to bombard you with questions?

No way.

I'll say a few words.

There you go, I make it uh thank you, Madam chair, Marcus Myers, transit coordinator.

The transit development and coordinated human services plan serves two primary objectives.

The first is the transit development portion, which covers the short and long-term projects and priorities for the transit system.

Second is the coordinated human services plan, which is a strategic document that identifies the transportation needs of specific groups such as seniors and individuals with disabilities, and then outlines the strategies to address those needs.

Following presentations of draft versions of this plan to the Campo and RTC boards, as well as a 15-day public comment period, which began on February 6th and ended on February 20th.

Staff have made a number of updates to this plan, specifically beginning on packet page 322, alternate travel modes, such as deviated fixed routes, van pool, Uber, Lyft, and taxi partnerships, as well as cost analysis for interlocal agreements with Douglas and Lyon counties were researched and discussed in an effort to better serve Carson City.

On packet pages 333 through 336.

There's details packet pages 333 through 336.

Detail recommendations for facilities, infrastructure, technology, equipment, and site safety security.

Updates to these sections include discussion around the downtown transfer plaza and signal priority and preemption.

Additional additionally, the implementation guidance table on packet page 345 was expanded upon to include those updates I just mentioned.

I would also like to touch on the service network and service level options presented in this plan.

Starting with the route network, there were two service network options identified, which can be found on packet page 314.

The first would keep the route network largely as is with minor adjustments to provide connections to a few highly requested locations and would remain cost neutral.

The second the second would optimize the route network with a full route refresh.

Potential option for an optimized route network can be found on packet page 316.

This option would include major changes to routes one, 2A, and 2B, and minor changes to Route 3.

This option would include moderate capital costs associated with implementing new ADA compliant bus stops, but is generally expected to increase ridership.

It's also important to know that this is a preliminary redrawing of Jack's routes, and further outreach and input would be required before moving forward with any major route changes as required by city policy and Title VI regulations.

A number of service level options were also identified, which describe the various days, times, and vehicle deployment options to operate the transit service.

These service level options can be found on packet page 325 and could be implemented in line with either of the network options that I just mentioned.

These options include maintaining current levels of service, reducing weekday hours, operating fixed route service during peak periods, and an on-demand service during off-peak periods, and repurposing or eliminating weekday or weekend operating hours to remain within budget constraints.

This plan will help shape the future of JAC and public transit in Carson City over the next five years.

Thank you.

Okay, I'll start with just could be when I'm just not reading it right or whatever on packet page 272.

On the JAC Assist, one-way trip within three-quarters of a mile is three dollars.

And then it says one-way trip within three-quarters and one mile is six.

Is so they both say within three-quarter of a mile.

So is it a little bit less than the three quarter?

They both say the same part of three quarters.

So I'm just trying to make sure.

If I'm at three quarters mile, what do I pay?

Three or six.

Three dollars.

It would likely be better worded if it said between three quarters and one mile.

Okay.

Good.

I'm just uh it's one of those things you start reading something and I'm like, well, if I can't figure out what I owe, because they say this exact same thing.

And then I had another question on packet page 324.

When we talk and we had someone testify in public comment about wanting to add services from Lyon County or Dayton and things of that nature, and I'm reading here that you're estimating once per day and week is estimated at 75,000 per year, with a local one-time startup cost of 905,000 for the vehicle purchase and stop.

Approximately 60% of the cost would be attributable to Lyon County.

I'm not understanding.

Is that how I'm reading that?

Uh so this was based off the similar to our agreement with um Washo, thank you.

Um similar to our agreement with RTC Washoe, it's a mile-based um breakdown.

So the miles that we spend in Lyon County versus the miles are spent in Carson City, is how we get that determination.

I'm chair.

Yes.

That doesn't mean that has to be the model.

Oh, thank you.

Cause I'm I'm just I'm just I want to help, but the only reason we'd be adding the service at all is for Lyon County to bring it to provide a service to their residents, which I applaud that completely, right?

But I don't want the Carson City resident and I already don't have enough money for my roads.

I I just can't see me saying, wait, now I owe 40% of 75,000 dollars to bring those people in for services in Carson City.

Not that maybe they're anyway, I I just want to bring that up.

So based on what's sitting here, is there anything we need to change, add, discuss in this final document to just based on the current modeling, but we would consider a different model.

I mean, I don't want Lyon County assuming that if they come forward with what they're working on that we're gonna fork up 40%.

So, object a little bit to this.

No, I I I appreciate the conversation, and I think you know, uh discussing that and and nuancing that is could be beneficial to the plan.

I you know, over the years we've heard uh staff, you've heard as board members, you know, the need for more service on US 50 in particular.

Uh out at the at the um rural housing uh DD4 Master.

And so you know, we have no service out there now.

This could be part of that solution.

So there could also be, depending on how it's set up, some benefit to Carson City people, residents, so that we may use that that may not be attributable to Lyon County.

So we don't have all those those thoughts, though all that framework worked out.

Um additionally, you know, if if Lion County is looking at purchasing a bus, maybe they need a driver, maybe there's another model, maybe maybe our contractor doesn't provide that service.

Maybe we only provide a bus.

So maybe and the maintenance for that, but there could be some other models that I think we would need to work through as Lyon County starts to uh develop that.

What what we tried to show here was a theoretical, what would the cost be if we started a service like this?

And there's a similar one for Douglas County.

We've really never had those sort of analysis uh that I've that I've found uh that that really show what is the cost of this.

What are we talking?

Are we talking tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands?

And so this is a this is sort of a theoretical.

Here's if we wanted to stand this up, here's what we're talking about, and it's sort of a basis of discussion.

But you know, maybe maybe it's a little too nuanced too detailed, and I I appreciate it.

I don't mind the cost center being identified.

I only minded it when it started with approximately 60%.

I was like no I don't want that part in there.

I don't mind the thought process of telling people what does it cost to do the project and and I'll I'm more than happy to listen to your but to remove the approximately 60% would be attributable to Lion.

I don't want to go into negotiation already telling them your 60% we're 40.

I I just it's not needed, right?

Standing up and letting people know a cost I think is wonderful um so just again are you all kind of in agreement that should be struck oh see well we are good we are good let me see if I had anything else marked as you guys did a great job on this work great job.

There's a lot in here.

Oh there's so much information that really and I think but I think that was the two that really I don't know just stood out to me.

So maybe does someone else have something they Marcus or Chris I wasn't sure if the additional work you want to do possibly with Lion and Douglas your overall FTA allocation would cover that or you know we were talking about the local match but is there enough federal funding because I know we don't spend it all at this point.

So can you give us a you know ballpark feedback on that?

Yeah I believe and and Chris can correct me if I'm wrong um Lion County would be eligible for section 5311 funding uh which is something Carson City doesn't currently receive size.

I don't know if that entirely answers your question.

Yeah Marcus covered the uh Lion County even he's correct in that uh the Douglas County I I don't think there's any real change to our costs it's just the routing whether we loop around and and you know by Costco and Fuji Park we loop around through topsy it really doesn't change our operating costs all that much and so the dollars for the FDA perspective are relatively small if if not negligible for that component.

But but the topsy loop would create the jack assist that would that would indeed change our cost centers.

Yes and that those costs would be attributable and we would we would bill that back to Douglas County as outlined in the report.

If the writer was a Douglas County resident we would charge them for that correct okay okay I like that better that they pay right I mean it's it's hard because we are regional and I want to be regional and helpful on projects when we should be but when I'm struggling to make ends meet for Carson City with the roads and this I want to be mindful as mindful as I can be because like you said Didi has been up several times wanting to add stops and things but each of those things costs money and time and potentially time on the route and then we'll less people ride on the route because now it takes longer to circle back to to get if you're going there but um overall I think again great job.

Mr Costa questions um yes uh thank you for there's an awful lot of information in here and um have a number of questions first thing that kind of surprised me is that we had talked about before about the decline in ridership and both for jacket assisted and general writership also but I was looking at pages 2226 and 227 and uh as I understand the transit propensity from twenty seventeen to twenty twenty-three declined quite a bit in um areas of low income, people with disabilities, limited English, and also in Douglas and Lyne counties too.

And I'm wondering if that could have driven, you know, assuming these numbers are accurate, if that could have been driven driven down our writership irrespective of COVID twenty-one or COVID-19.

And um don't know if you had any thoughts on that or if that was if I'm interpreting this correctly.

Um you know, I'll say it it's really difficult to put a finger on exactly what drives ridership.

Um exactly what influences or or why it changes.

My my take on the data, looking at it, um, especially with COVID, and I I spoke to this uh a few meetings ago is in line with COVID when you see ridership drop, and then for two years it's propped up um what I believe is attributed to fare free transit, and then once that free free fares is ended, it it drops again.

Um so I guess I I don't know that I really have a straightforward answer for you.

I I think that COVID had a lot more to play in it than um than some of these other um some of these other areas.

Uh I can say, you know, on on a side note that this year we are seeing ridership grow.

So as of for the fiscal year as of this time last year, um, July first to May 1st, uh, we're up five thousand seven hundred and fifty three trips across the system.

So we are seeing ridership rebound and and very much more than it has in recent years.

Okay.

That's good news that ridership is apparently rebounding.

Is it possible to get this data on the low income and people with disabilities later than 2023?

I think that would be helpful because if we're gonna talk about transit propensity, it'd be good to verify, you know, some of the data.

And if these numbers are going up again, then that would go ahead.

We may be able to use those as indicators for future plans, which we desperately need that kind of data to project our expenses because as we all know, the expenses just keep going up quite a bit.

Um I had a question also on pages or um section, yeah, it's pages three thirty-eight and three thirty-nine.

Um look like some of the Mr.

Cossack, can I I'm sorry to interrupt you, I just wanted to answer your previous question.

Okay.

I w the latest data, this is the latest data that we can get right now, but we do produce an annual monitoring report for Campo and for Jump Brown Carson that we will update and we can include these types of tables if that's a beneficial uh use to to you all um as as part of those future reports, so it's not just a once every five year thing.

Yeah, that would be helpful.

Okay, I'm sorry to interrupt.

No, no, thank you for um providing that additional information.

Um going back to three thirty-eight and three thirty-nine, um, looking at the looks like the bar graphs on 339 in particular, they cover certain years.

I don't know if you know it's just at the bar graphs or particular bar for example fiscal year 2024.

Does that include part of if it goes from July to July, or is it just something that it just slipped over?

You know, I had not noticed that.

I don't I don't know why that is.

Because we have six bars, or like that as it is in the middle.

Yeah, we have six bars in seven years.

So it'd be good to go ahead and make sure we we have those lined up where it's supposed to go.

Um also looking at the expenses for um for the operating revenue, excuse me, for that twenty to twenty five year period, quite a shift in that where the local money now uh twenty twenty five was three quarters of a million in um 2022, a few years before that was only forty six thousand.

And we're in a situation here where we do have a a general fund concern, general fund shortage for that, and um it's obvious it looks like here that local money increase increased or compensated for the decline in federal money.

Is that basically how it worked?

We needed we have fewer less federal money in um 2025 than we did in 2022.

Did we go ahead and compensate for that with uh more local money?

I I believe that's due to what was purchased or what was paid for and the match associated with those purchases.

So, so operating expenses, for example, are reimbursed at 50 percent.

Mr.

Costa, sorry, Marcus.

No, you're fine.

Uh the it was a I just wanted to interrupt that there is there is um just wanted to clarify that there are a number of federal grants that did not have any local match requirements, such as the CARES Act, the American Rescue Plan, some other some other programs that were issued through the federal government from the COVID relief, COVID era relief funds that negated the need to for any local dollars to be spent.

So we're actually getting more federal dollars than we were then uh through the IIJA, our FTA apportionments have increased.

We're we're getting over two million dollars of fiscal year now and FTA dollars, and but that there's no more free money, it comes with a match.

Okay, now is those um emergency increases with no that we didn't require any match of federal money.

Is that going back down again because the COVID's over with, so it's it's gone, so it's we're gonna see something looking quite a bit different over the next couple years.

Correct.

Um I think one of the things I'm rather than going over all these points, there's one thing I wanted to go ahead and bring out um possible way to go ahead and look at transit differently, maybe reduce costs and um improve on-demand transit, which seems to be looking at some of the data you have from the questionnaires, people responding as they want on demand transit.

Um Wall Street Journal had an article uh May 5th, for example, talks about the dramatic increase in robot taxis, um, taxis that drive themselves, vans that drive themselves, and it's being used already.

There was about um looking at 15 million riders, I believe it was, and they're looking at increasing that pretty shortly the 35 million.

A lot of companies are getting into that.

Um Tesla, of course, is a famous company, they're operating only currently in Texas, and um, but they're looking at expanding into 13 other states.

I don't know if Nevada is one of them.

Like I said, most of my almost all my information is from this article.

There's another company called Waymo that um is increasing that, and I'm wondering if we could go ahead and study this or get information from these states that are involved, and I can provide that to you offline.

Maybe they would be able to provide us information on what the costs are, how that impacted their budgets, the ridership, and how they look at expanding that.

I'm not talking about something we'd be able to implement in the next year or two, but um maybe we can do a study now and maybe do a pilot project where we have some on-demand um EV vehicles that are automated and try them on a basis on a local basis and see if they work and see how they impact the costs and if they provide um support to our clients that is really needed and that our clients would appreciate.

So I wanted to go ahead and and close with that and um find out a way that we can go ahead and and implement that.

Oh, and I made a mistake, I had one more question.

There's a lot of things here where we're I if I interpret it correctly, we're asked to make a decision like what options to follow and um what changes to make in the program.

Do you want that from us now or in the near future, or are we gonna bring that come back to that?

If you if you have thoughts now, I think that we're absolutely open to listening.

Um, this is a five-year document, and and kind of goes into how we could move forward.

Um Mr.

Costa, we are, I mean, ultimately the item is agendized for action of approval.

Um so if there are changes to the recommendations in here, I think that could be discussed uh, but uh, you know, we're we're we don't plan to bring this back.

This is this is the item um subject to URAL's input and and approval unless you direct us otherwise.

Well let me talk about that a little bit differently.

There are several options that can be addressed within this plan.

The individual items as they do the studies or the reviews, they would bring those back for action, just like you're suggesting, right?

So they might go through three of these and say, okay, we've decided here's here's a route change, or here's a uh deal with Lyon County, or here's a deal with Douglas County.

Those would come back.

It's for me, if you think an option for them to study though is missing, and we want that in the plan so we could potentially implement it.

This is a great time to say, Oh, how about we add in, we could consider whatever you had in the newspaper article.

You know, just as an option that would be studied, not that we're gonna implement anything, but that again uh something else came up that could be considered somewhere in the five-year review.

So if you want to add that in, I think it's a good idea if you want an opportunity for them to look at it in the next five years.

We had also talked about a pilot program where they changed the routes of um, but they made a comment to um staff that I thought it was a good idea, go ahead and and change the routes, have a pilot test that follows more along the lines of major drop off points or people pick up points and things like that.

I don't know if I saw that in here, or if we um that I think that's part of the enhanced ridership goal.

Okay, okay, part of it.

It's already in there.

Okay, okay, but I would like to go ahead and add the information here that we study the use of robotic um EV vehicles to go ahead and provide transit services, possibly in the future if it turns out to be feasible.

Okay, so we have I think four updates, right?

One you're just gonna fix the wording for the three-quarter mile, uh, the one you're gonna take out the sentence dealing with the 60% on the lion county.

Um, you're gonna fix the table that has six bars but seven years noted.

I'm just gonna a lot you're gonna align that one way or the other, either way.

Um, and then we're gonna add in a comment uh for a potential consideration for robotic EVs.

Right?

So that's what we have so far.

Does somebody have another one?

Miss Maloney.

Okay.

I have a couple comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay.

Um within the strategy section that starts.

Um the strategies that start on package page 254.

Um staff did a really good job.

I thought of adding some graphics that kind of visually make it clear what the priorities are.

Um, on this um ensuing tables under the priority rankings.

Um I just wanted to make sure I was reading this right.

So low priority is two-thirds of a circle, medium priority is one third of a circle, and high priority as a full circle.

Was was that intentional?

It it's kind of confusing.

That was not intentional, but that is low and medium should be flipped.

So that it yeah, and I'm actually bigger and bigger.

I'm actually feeling like the tables might be correct, but the label in the at the bottom of the tables might just be backwards, but it was hard for me to tell.

And so maybe that's um a correction that could just make it.

We can just do a validity check.

Confirmed.

Right.

Because my tiny cat brain got distracted and confused.

I will verify.

Thank you.

Looking at it right now, I think you are correct though.

Well, and one doesn't match even.

It looks like a bigger medium anyway.

Yeah.

Just confirm the priority rankings, confirm.

Totally fine.

Um, and then my other comment um had to do with um the peer agency service comparison starting on packet page 295.

And I appreciated your really succinct presentation, uh, Marcus, but I did feel like it was important to put some of this on the record.

Um, the uh national transit database is cited in the in the table on packet page 295, and and that's something that I encourage all of all the commissioners to go on and look at it and then and the public as well that are interested in transit.

You can compare similar services nationwide.

Um, these are federally required statistics.

Um staff pulled out uh five different peer uh transit agencies, and I I just wanted to highlight, you know, on packet page 295, uh we're on average 9% smaller of a population than the peer agencies reported in the plan.

However, if you go to the right, our operating costs in 2024 are more than half less on average than the peer agencies.

So what this means is we're 10% less population, but we're 50% less funded.

Um, and so um our ridership is 50% of the average in this table.

Um, but our vehicle revenue miles are only 40% less than average.

So what that means is we're more efficient, we're running more miles even though we're half as funded.

Um, and if you go to the following page, um figure 20 uh figure 30 boardings per revenue hour.

So this is a key statistic in the tr in the transit world, right?

Which is revenue hour, we're paying bus drivers and we're also getting revenue uh for fares, right?

On average of the peer agencies, it's 6.3 boardings per hour that we're paying people and getting revenue, and we're above that.

So we're we're getting more riders than the average per hour.

If you go to the next page, um the operating cost per hour on average, it's 109.50 cents an hour, but we're less than average, we're more efficient than average.

Um, and so operating cost for boarding average is 17.95 per boarding, we're 1620 per boarding.

So, yes, we're slightly smaller per population.

We're half as funded, we're more efficient and we're doing better.

And I think that's a it's an untold hero story here in Carson City of the staff of our contractor, but also the demand for our service.

We have populations here in Carson City that need transit.

Um, and I I understand the revenue constraints at the city.

Um, we've talked about it a lot.

Where do we get the general fund?

Um, and I agree with many things that the supervisors do, but on this instance, I I do think that these numbers show that we are underfunded for transit.

I don't I don't think we disagree, but we're underfunded in everything.

So it really becomes a priority, right?

Where are we putting our dollars?

Where do we get the most good use?

So I appreciate the statistics and the stuff, and then certainly I serve on Tahoe Transportation District, and we look at all these same stats, and it's like, why is this one so expensive?

And so it's very expensive buffet, you know, like Tahoe to provide transit services.

So it's like, but try taking the service away.

No, big fat no.

Yeah.

They want to expand there too, right?

And people want the bus to be faster headways, you know.

And so it's like, just no general fund match to do those either.

I can't speak for Tao, but I can say for Carson, we are significantly underfunded and and the demand is there, and and our staff and our team is doing a really good job.

They're doing a great job.

Greg.

Yeah, thanks for the thorough report.

There was quite a bit to wait through.

And some of it was familiar and some of it was new.

And okay.

We got it sorted out.

I do like the way you have the timeline for all the items as well.

Kind of lays out the priorities in a reasonable manner that you know what you guys can actually handle and what's important to us.

Uh we didn't mention it directly, but under Carson City's revised master plan and all the building that's going on in the downtown area between the apartments and the state employees coming back in.

I think that probably bodes well for more transit use.

Again, it wasn't mentioned in here, but yeah, there's it's gonna be there's gonna be more folks in the area, and I think uh they'll probably be taking the bus more.

So thanks.

Any other I just appreciate on page 325 um the the deviated fixed route and thank you for that explanation on that.

I think it's important and to be able to um kind of meet the needs as you know in real time when possible.

Um it's nice to have that option potentially.

Okay, so I'm gonna change it.

Okay, let me see if there's any public comment for anything else we need.

Come on up.

Is it green?

Yeah.

There you go.

You're green.

No, you don't have to hold it.

Okay.

My name is my name is Maximilian Lowe, and I'm I'm I'm a new resident to Carson City, and I'm proud to say that I love Carson City is my new home.

And I'm speaking on behalf of rural center for independent living for DD Master for Master.

And I'm speaking by how the Jack system and Jackasses has uh has helped the disability community a lot.

Um that that it has provided a lifeline for the as their only transportation to get into doctor's appointments, employment, and we we would like to see um the the jack the JAC system to be expended to the US 50 where all the nonprofits and the food banks are because a lot of the people with the disabilities are very low income and because of the cost of cost of living and everything, it's it would be easier to have the Jack system in on down the 50 down where like World Center of Independent Living is where the advocacy centers are and like the like classy classy seconds in like the dream center.

So it it would be beneficial and to be able to have equal access to live independently as possible, and that's what that's what I'm here to say talk about because it's it just makes sense that and be fiscally better for everybody in the long run.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do I have any other comment?

Okay, I'll bring it back up here.

Um we can do a motion as discussed on the record.

You've written down all the corrections that we have noted.

Got them.

Got them.

He says he's got them.

This is scary, you guys.

But just any last moment.

Did anybody see anything else they want to change in the report?

Uh Mr.

Costa.

Yeah, I just had a about that bar chart on 339.

What did we decide to do with that?

They're gonna correct it.

They're either gonna do six years and six charts, or they're gonna do seven and seven.

It's up to them.

They're gonna find out which error they made.

Okay, sounds good.

Thank you.

Okay.

You bet.

I would like to move uh to approve the plan and support the recommendations therein with the uh corrections and confirmations as discussed on the record.

I second.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

Let the record uh reflect it was unanimous.

And again, thank you for all the hard work.

We know there's a lot of data there for people to really learn about our Jack system.

We'll move on to agenda item 6A.

Um our transportation manager's report.

Do you have a briefing for us tonight?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Chris Martinovich, Transportation Manager.

Wanted to note a couple of things.

Um, we spoke about fuel tax earlier this evening and as well as during the Campo Board during the transportation manager's report.

I just wanted to give a um an update.

I've received some data last few days about the number of electric vehicles registered in the state of Nevada.

Currently, it's uh of the total fleet, about four percent uh hybrid or all electric vehicle in the state based on registrations.

Uh so it's a still a small percentage.

Washoe County has around six and a half percent uh hybrid electric vehicles, and they're seeing about a 1% growth per year.

I don't have Carson City's data, uh, but just as a point of reference, uh 4% statewide, six and a half in Washoe County.

Moving to safe routes to school, Erica has been out doing bike rodeos at a number of schools.

Uh she's been at Mark Twain, Sealager, and Fremont, or I think Sealagers next week.

Um so she's out uh hitting up our our students with bike rodeos and and training them uh on you know all the ABCs of of riding a bicycle from kindergarten up to the fifth grade.

So it's a it's a lot of work for for Erica and the support staff.

NDOT is helping us with those.

Uh, and so that their staff is there as well.

So I wanted to thank Erica for all that work because it's a lot of work.

I know it.

Speaking of bike rodeos and other events, uh tomorrow and Thursday uh tomorrow, tomorrow is Thursday, tomorrow and Friday at Public Works.

We are giving our fifth graders our annual public works tour.

So we we have students visiting and we do have safe routes to school booth uh there for that.

So we're we're excited to continue to share and educate about safe routes to school uh for further further further ingrain that in our students and the safety and importance of of uh vulnerable users.

We all also have our North Carson Street um comment map and survey remains open.

So if you haven't taken that, please do that.

If you haven't made your comments, please do that.

Carson Proud.com to make those comments.

I think it's I think we're over.

Are we getting close to 500?

I'm looking at Jared or Kelly.

I think we're about 500 now.

Just 26 short of 500.

Okay, so nearly 500 uh surveys received for North Carson Street.

So we're we're gonna I'm gonna keep my fingers crossed, we're gonna get to 500.

So um spread the word about that survey.

We are also in discussions with Lion County, Douglas County, and NDOT on updating our signal maintenance agreements with all three of those agencies.

Uh we've drafted some new agreements and we're working through the details of those for like I said, all three of those agencies.

So those agreements will eventually make their way to this commission for uh review and approval, and we will hopefully you know try to clarify and streamline as new signals come on, what are roles and responsibilities, what are the cost sharings, uh items like that.

So that's definitely in the works uh with myself and our control systems manager James Jacklett.

We also heard um last month uh Commissioner Maloney mentioned RTC Washow commodity RTC Washow and report on the inner city, the regional connector.

I've spoken with RTC Washow Marcus and I met with them a couple of weeks ago and and they've agreed to come and present, likely in August, on the status of how the regional connectors are going.

Uh our former employee Alex Cruz has graciously agreed to give us that presentation.

Uh so we will get to see uh that in the coming months.

Uh and you know, we had a good conversation about um as those costs like our costs increase.

Are there ways we can be more efficient?

Are there ways we can streamline?

I don't know that we're ready to come with those recommendations at this point, but those conversations are started and we're gonna start thinking collaboratively on that.

Similarly with our RTC Washow, um we've coordinated Marcus and I a little bit with them on maybe some joint procurement opportunities.

Uh, there if if they're buying some shelters and we made some shelters, is 10 cheaper than four or ten cheaper than two, and or maybe there's some bus procurement.

So we're seeing where we can where we can team up and be collaborative in that.

Again, thinking we can save costs on both sides here.

So just wanted to let the board know that those conversations are ongoing from a transit standpoint.

And that concludes my comments, manager.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

We're gonna move on.

Oh, Mr.

Faust.

I had a question on that map and that survey on the North Carson Street study is very good, very user friendly.

So I'm you know, not surprised you've gotten responses on that.

Had a question on the map.

Is there still capacity available for people to make additional comments on the map itself?

Okay, yes, and the map is fully, you can many of make as many comments as many dots as you would like.

And I understand this is going to be open until May 22nd, according to what was in the paper.

Generally, yeah, we're thinking May 22nd, so another couple of weeks, and if you know if we want to keep it open, we we may do that, but the 22nd for sure.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, we're gonna move on to agenda item 6B, which is our uh street operations and control system report.

And I just for me, can I can I understand um when it says concrete board versus sidewalk and flat work?

Where are we pouring concrete?

That's not the sidewalk of yours, I'm guessing.

Honestly, I will have to get back to you.

I do not know off the top of my head, I have not asked.

I don't know why after all this time I thought, oh, wait a minute, sidewalk and is different, but where are we pouring?

I will find out and get back to this commission.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else on anything on the report stand out to anyone?

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

Does any member have anything they want to bring up?

We are ready to rock and roll.

Okay, I'll take final public comment.

Everybody left me.

Oh, nope.

Come on up.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Rebecca Boostos, Carson City resident.

Um, for public comment, I'd just like to ask maybe a consideration.

Um, as we're doing the North Carson study right now, that if we are seeing like with South Carson, that after so many years that the preservation is needed that maybe instead of taking from a district, include it as part of the planning of the initial project budget to know that that's coming in the future.

We won't be able to complete the project because I understand, right?

Because like whatever Williams Street is on, district two.

I think they're not gonna have money in the next one.

Well, those ones we went and got separate federal grants.

We got a raise grant, a tiger grant.

Oh, I'm are you saying we need to do Williams Street for the preservation that'll be needed in the five to ten years in the future.

Yeah, no, I'm saying that the original projects weren't because they were part of a transportation districts, because we went and got a big old grant to help us big time.

And Lucia was here.

Let's see, we got the Tiger grant first, I think, and then we got the raise grant.

So yeah, I think your point is we do these major projects.

Yeah, South Carson William, North Carlson, maybe, and you have to go back and take care of it.

If we know that preservation is going to be required and it's going to be so much dollars rather than taking it from the district in the five year comes around to plan for that to know that expenses are unheard to ask.

Sounds great.

Uh, public comment for consideration.

Thank you.

Do I have any other just in case?

Nope.

Okay.

And if there's no objection, great meeting, everyone.

Thank you for doing your homework.

I really want to say how much I appreciate that this committee really does read their material before we get here.

So really appreciate that um hard work.

So we're adjourned and somehow it'll come again quickly.

These months go by.