Regional Transportation Commission to order.

May I have a roll call, please?

Chair Bagwell.

Here.

Vice Chair Shooty.

Here.

Commissioner Costa.

Here.

Commissioner Maloney.

Here.

Commissioner Novak.

A quorum is present.

Thank you so much.

We're now gonna um do opening public comment.

Do I have any opening public comments?

I do something in a different one, TDB, and I'm always having to hit the internet too.

So I almost like, can I have any on life?

Yeah.

At least we don't do that.

Um we're now on to agenda item four.

This is um approval for our minutes of May thirteenth, twenty twenty six.

Does any member have any changes?

None suggested.

May I have a motion for approval, please?

I move to approve the minutes uh as presented from May 13th, 2026.

I will second.

I have a motion and a second for approval.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say no, let the record reflect it was unanimous.

Thank you.

We're now on to agenda item 5A.

This is discussion and possible action regarding the Nevada Barricade and Sign Company, that they're the lowest responsive bidder for contract number 273 00013 for a total of 274-159.

Casey, is there anything special or different on this one that we need to know about?

I don't have anything in particular to add on this one.

Yeah, pretty standard work we do, but is there any questions from any member?

Is there any public comment on this item?

Seeing none, I'll bring it back up for a motion.

Uh Commissioner Maloney.

I move to approve uh I move to award the contract as presented and authorize the public works director to approve expenditure of the 10% contingency if needed.

I second.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say no.

Let the record reflect it was unanimous.

We're now going to move on to agenda item 5B.

This is discussion impossible action for Sierra Nevada construction.

Contract 273, 00034 for 342, 108 dollars for the Buddhaway pavement preservation project to SNC.

Do you have anything to share with us that's uh different?

Unexpected.

Yes.

Uh thank you, Madam Mayor, Casey Sylvester, Transportation and Traffic Engineer.

This project includes a future transit stop at the JAC office and surface treatment on Bud Eye and Airport Road.

The total not to exceed amount, as you mentioned, is $342,108, and that's all that I have.

Any questions by any members?

Mr.

Costa.

Yes, I had a question that I know you're using FTA funding for this project.

Is there going to be any other funding use?

Because I understand part of it is not necessarily transit related.

Yes, the project is primarily funded with regional transportation funds as shown on the fiscal note.

Yes, regional transportation funds.

So that transit amount is only for those bus stop improvements.

All the service treatments that we'll be doing and the patching and things will all be from the regional transportation fund.

Okay.

And I noticed in the description, I think they referred to using mastic for some of the some of the work involved.

That's just a comment.

That's one of the things we talked about as new technology.

That's being used for being tried out.

So it'll be interesting to see how that works out.

That's all I have.

Thank you so much.

Is there any public comment on this item?

I'll accept a motion.

Mr.

Costa, would you like to make a motion?

Yes, I would.

I'd like to go ahead and um make a motion that we approve um awarding to Sierra Nevada Construction.

I'm looking here what part I should read.

You can just do the contract.

Yeah.

Okay.

Oh, proposed motion.

It's already there for me.

I move to award the contract as presented to Sierra Nevada Construction and authorized a public works director to approve the expenditure of the 10% contingency if needed.

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 5C.

This is discussion and possible action for a contract with Sierra Nevada Construction.

This contract number is 273-00035.

We had a small typographical error in the title that indicated it was contract ending in four.

It is actually five.

That's just an administrative contract number that we use for internal tracking, but I wanted to be sure everyone recognized it is really 273-00035.

This contract is for 1,299,107.

Casey, is there anything unusual, different?

Anything to share with us on this one?

Yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.

Casey Sylvester, Transportation and Traffic Engineer.

This project for payment preservation in District 3 is on many roads, including Marsh Road, Hellsbelt Road, South Edmonds Drive, Racetrack Road, and Roads in the Northwest Corner of Scholes Ranch.

Project also includes shoulder widening to accommodate existing cyclists in the area as recommended previously by the RTC.

The widening sec the widened section will be on the west side of South Edmonds between South Lompa Lane and Damon on a mostly uphill segment for those cyclists who are headed southbound.

The project's total not to exceed amount is 1,299,107.

And that's all that I have.

Thank you so much.

Does any member have a question?

And see any questions.

Is there any public comment on this item?

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

I move to award the contract as presented and authorized public works director to approve expenditure of the 10% contingency if needed.

I will second.

I have a motion and a second.

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 uh 5D.

This one's for discussion only.

It's on uh proposals and thoughts for our access management plan.

Casey, gonna take us through this one.

Yep, I'll just bring this up real quick.

There we go.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Casey Sylvester, transportation and traffic engineer.

Oh, here we go.

If you say it enough, it might really happen.

Here we go.

Well, the mouse is working.

That's oh, yeah, we got something there.

Yeah, there it is.

On and off again.

Okay, it hit grid.

Now it should be good.

Oh.

Well, it so happens the last time we did this.

I think it was the last time we did this.

We had to go paper.

Uh might have to do that again.

It's not turning green, the little.

Yeah, the it definitely switches over as you can see.

It's got my little title there on the top.

Yep, I won't let you go to the next page.

Yeah.

Okay.

Let's go ahead and I guess uh well, whatever you guys want to add.

Shall we go through with paper?

Sure.

We had it working great, but let's move on.

All right, going to slide two, which is actually the title slide.

Tonight I'll be presenting on the proposed plan for access management updates.

This is the third time staff have brought access management to the RTC.

This presentation will propose draft tables and wording relating to access management.

There we go.

Dana White.

All right.

Access management is the intentional organization of a roadway network, including intersections and access points.

The reason we actively monitor and control the management of accesses is because appropriate access management increases safety for all users and improves the efficiency of the roadway network for drivers.

Parson City currently has some aspects of access management and city code.

Staff have created proposed language for addressing missing sections and adjustments to existing sections of access management.

This table from the November 2025 presentation shows categories recommended by the Transportation Research Board to be included.

And if they are included in plans created by nearby agencies.

The inclusion of categories in the Transportation Research Board are not an obligation to address these categories.

They are an acknowledgement of potential category.

We will go through each of these categories and discuss potential ways each could look in a future policy.

Road classification is a basis for proper application of principles based upon the road and area character.

Currently, the city uses NDOT's functional classification maps.

However, there are some discrepancies between terminology in City Code and NDOT's maps.

Staff propose that cities code explicitly references the NDOT classifications.

The city code defines urban and rural, and the city code removes industrial as a road classification.

The spacing of intersections.

For reference, I've included the values in the 2017 NDOT access management system and standards.

Typically, access management is spread across code standard code, standard drawings, policies, and design guides, which can make finding information difficult.

NDOT made a consolidated access management guide that houses relevant information and one clean and easy to navigate guide.

Staff would like to follow NDOT's lead and organization.

This table proposes minimum lengths between intersections by control type and level of access.

NDOT's table is larger and more complex.

However, many classifications do not apply in Carson City.

And staff broke out the spacing of driveways from this table onto a different slide for the purposes of this presentation.

As you can see, the proposed spacing is shorter than the conservative N DOT values for signalized intersections but fall more in line for restricted access.

The driveway table will have lower spacings in some cases.

Next, we have the spacing of driveways.

The table from the city's current code is on the left and the proposed table is on the right.

The major difference being the removal of a preferred column with proposed spacing lining up with the previous preferred distances.

This slide is the spacing of driveways from intersections.

In general, it makes the most sense to separate driveways from the queues and intersections.

Again, we are showing the existing table from city code and the proposed changes.

We are keeping the current values by adding a column for two-way stop controlled intersections.

Sight distance is currently defined twice in city code.

Second definition is most correct and should be used for all cases.

However, with this update, I'm also proposing a minor change to the language to also add a clearer visual obstruction.

Auxiliary lanes are turn lanes and acceleration lanes, provided in some cases, such as busy driveways on higher speed roads.

There are many cases of this along South Carson Street at car dealers.

The Ashtow Green Book has information on auxiliary lane tapers and is specifically referenced in City Code.

However, as part of their consolidation of access management into a single guide, NDOT included their own tables with additional guidance.

The city may continue to follow the green book, however, in either case it may be beneficial to provide guidance in an access management policy.

These tables are derived from the recommendations in NDOT's guide.

The determination for when a turn lane is needed is also covered by ASHTO.

However, the NDOT guide again brought this information together in their guide with some additional detail.

These proposed tables are again derived from NDOT's guide.

The next category from slide four are median term restrictions.

This is largely covered in other sections that we've already discussed tonight, and driveway design should continue to be in the city's standard drawings.

Network connectivity.

We discussed this a little bit in November.

Staff proposed the following language.

Firstly, a requirement for development to connect new roads to existing roads in certain cases.

The city should continue to require that all businesses will receive access even if spacing requirements are not possible.

If additional accesses are needed, they still need to meet the spacing requirements.

And lastly, certain large developments will be required to maintain multiple public accesses.

The city is already covering right-of-way and code.

I'm proposing minor changes consistent with uh the changes made in multiple tables to remove industrial from the functional classifications.

A footnote to the table can be added to preserve the antenna of 60 foot ride of way in industrial districts.

No other changes are recommended.

Staff will take the direction received tonight, put these recommendations into a draft document.

That document will come back to the RTC at a later date for review.

That concludes my remarks.

Okay, what I'd like to do then just uh if we can go to back onto your slide.

We'll look at each slide set and say who's got a comment on it or whatever of that nature.

So the first one that you have discussion on is the road classifications.

Does anyone have a comment or something they'd like to see differently than proposed here?

Miss Maloney, you have a comment?

Before we go into the details, I guess so when I read the staff report, I went back to our previous discussion because I was trying to recall kind of the direction that we had and some of the comments that we had.

Um, and one thing that stuck out to me was I it was Mayor Bagwell made a comment about um like a policy versus recommendations, and so I guess just before we go into the details, I I wanted to kind of jog everyone's memory and make sure that we're on the same page with the goal tonight and where we're hoping.

What are we hoping to do tonight for this?

This is just to give you just like a public comment from this board on things that you see are when we get to some of the future pages.

I do want to discuss like uh your recommendations that deal with adopting the current green book of Ashto, or that and I do want to talk about those what um policies, when do they get implemented, things of that nature.

So I think we're gonna get to where you want to dive in deeper.

Okay, when we get to those slides.

I agree with you a hundred percent.

I just want to make sure we're all like rowing on the same boat.

Yep.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Early stage, this would apply to Carson City streets, any state routes within Carson City, and that's policy still applies.

Correct.

Okay, correct.

Yep.

Somehow they think they can tell us what to do, but we can't tell them what to do.

So yes, you got that correct.

Okay, so does anyone have any ideas or anything different that you see on road classification?

I just have a quick question in terms of the reference to industrial.

Um has it been problematic?

Or is it just said it's a different definition?

I would say that staff sometimes don't always know how to interpret that because it's not defined.

So we've been going with and we've been able to do that without a lot of pushback that industrial is referring to zoning because it is a uh in a zoning district, and we have um we're able to sort of draw a line and say okay, it's industrial if there's parcels that are frontage to this road that are industrial and other zoning, and so that's fairly straightforward, but it's also kind of a gray area, and that the code is not clearly backing us up on that, and so it would be logical for us to address that now.

Perfect.

Thank you.

And then Casey, just to let everybody know that NDOT's functional classification map, they don't do that in a vacuum.

It's on a four or five year cycle, and we have input to that all the time.

So if we need to change functional class map, we can do that in the future.

Right.

I had a question about industrial.

Another comment about that.

Remember a time um the board was considering putting in a roundabout.

We had um a gentleman here from a construction company, their name escapes me for the moment, but they were concerned about a roundabout because their cars or excuse me, their trucks with um towing a trailer or towing a couple trailers, would have a hard time making it around a roundabout unless there's certain characteristics built into that and to have them be able to know negotiate that.

And so I'm wondering removing any reference to industrial.

I mean that sounds like an industrial industrial use to me, and I wonder if we should retain that for some cases.

We do have that issue.

You could answer.

I would say that this is sort of the overlap between zoning districts and road classification, and in this case, I don't want to remove the existence of industrial from the consideration of staff when evaluating projects or evaluating how to design projects.

It's just a question of right now we have sort of a weird overlap that we can better define that.

If we keep industrial as a zoning reference and we keep our functional classifications, arterial collector, local road, and these are very well defined, then we can use them as necessary and they can apply as necessary.

So we still would have a way to take industrial or remind us to take industrial considerations into mind before we do something.

I would say that right now, what how it's set up now would not specifically directly cause the change of a roundabout design as you have referenced, and neither will the change, however, um that does require that we are following all the correct steps we're evaluating as we jump into design and things like that.

So I would say that it's not going to be any worse with this change.

I don't know if you want to add anything on that, Chris.

No, because um I use the roundabout as an example, real world example that we had to go ahead and face.

But um, there's probably other industrial considerations too that we make sure that we address, and slightly um off slight slightly tangent off on the last slide that we covered was right of way, and I did have a note on there about including to have a footnote referring to industrial, and perhaps um that note should be explicit in saying industrial zoned um districts, but that's the sort of thing I don't want to completely remove industrial or its consideration, and we can continue as we um build our draft document to make sure that we're explicit in explaining um the difference between zoning and classification that they're both should be considered.

Uh Ms.

Maloney.

My comment on industrial is related to Mr.

Costa's, and that I seem to recall that staff used that industrial designation at some point in the past to require a thicker base and asphalt when constructing.

I believe it was Goni, and in areas where we know there's really heavy loads.

Um, and so I'm very supportive of cleaning that up and giving staff the tools they need and the public clarity on what's going to be required for those projects.

And maybe Madam Chair.

Maybe I'll just to address Commissioner Maloney's comment.

I we we've taken other steps from a design perspective and a structural pavement section in our standard details to address thickness of pavement and and better define how thick pavements are, and so for an access management perspective, Casey's correct in that there is no functional classification of industrial, but there are there are uses for the term industrial, just not in the context of functional classification for a roadway.

Okay, cut to the next story.

So in this one, my question really is what's the actual impact?

So when I look to see something that we're gonna change, um you gave us the proposed and the N DOT spacing, but not our current answer.

So what's the impact to our con this is easier, harder, some are easier, some are harder.

What's the impact of this decision?

Or we don't have spacing anywhere.

It is not the so I guess I want to answer the question directly, but I also want to provide a little bit of context information.

We're not proposing that we put in these spacing requirements and have them apply to existing driveways, existing intersections.

These are for future development.

So if a future development is coming in, then we want to make sure that they are going to be able to have that they can design in ways that aren't going to become uh difficult to deal with in the future.

And so when I'm thinking about closely spaced intersections, and one of the ones that comes to mind is old Hot Springs Road and Winnie Lane.

They're very close together, and that makes it difficult for things like coordinated timing.

And they're close enough together that you probably should do coordinated timing.

And so it's not one of those situations where it becomes tricky, it's not difficult to set up the timing to work in one direction, no matter what the spacing is, it's those two directionals.

You have to, it starts getting where your travel time and the speed and the spacing all kind of play together to have that coincide where you can have green in both directions at both locations and have that work out.

And so that's a location that we would not be changing anything with this policy, but that we don't want to have a new development come in and plug in a road that's gonna have a large volume of vehicles.

Potentially need a traffic signal and get plugged in right next to an existing traffic signal while they're still dealing with a blank slate and they're choosing where the roads are going to go, that's where they're gonna need to see that there's requirement, and they want to space that out a little bit more.

So this is more about making sure that what comes in in the future is going to be more ideal.

That won't stop a project.

So I I I just want to make sure that we're all aware of what we're doing, right?

So does this have the potential then to stop a project?

Because the spacing can't be, what if the spacing can't be met?

Then the the example that you gave me, there isn't.

There's not a whole lot of what are you gonna do different there because it's that short leg.

So is it gonna stop a project?

Or could it potentially stop a project?

This is kind of a tricky question to answer because the decision to stop a project is in the developer's lap.

So they want to have full access, they have limited means, but we're not going to not give them access.

We're just going to not give them that signalized intersection.

Maybe they can have multiple accesses, maybe they can have a combination of things, but there's potential that a development would not be able to have a full access signal based upon these, and a developer may decide that they only want to do it if they can get full access, that partial access isn't good enough.

And so I I would suppose that you know that decision is in their hands.

Okay, it's in ours too.

What would happen today under that developer questions?

If we don't have these spacings, these minimums are you fighting those out one at a time or you're trying to apply the end dot ones?

So I'm thinking if you do adopt this, the development community will have time to weigh in on it.

And I think it should make life easier for everybody involved if they know what the rules are consistently as future developments come in.

Well, I think that that pretty well sums it up.

If we have good um robust uh guidance, then it makes it easy for developers to come in and know what we expect of them, and that helps us get the best outcomes, it helps them know how to meet those outcomes.

And right now, for the most part, for a lot of these spacings that we don't already have in code, we are referencing N dot when we can and saying, Well, here's what NDOT's standard is, and we follow that, but at the end of the day, um we can say that to the developer and they can choose to follow it, but there's actually not a code basis behind that, and they could push back, and we would have um, you know, in any of the cases where there's not already distances in code, we would have no recourse or places where the distances in code are very low, we would have no recourse.

So what do we have now?

I mean, he had two two parts to his question.

What is the process right now if we don't have this in code?

Off the top of my head, I don't recall what the spacing is on this table.

I know I supplied this on almost all of the tables.

I don't really all for this particular table what we had for spacings in current code.

We don't have most of these in current code.

Okay.

Current code is silent.

There is some language in there that refers to some intersection spacing, but it doesn't define the type of intersection, the classification of road, it doesn't talk about whether the movements are right in, right out, left in, left out.

It's just a basic number, and I I've off the top of my head, I want to say it's less than 200 feet.

Um, so it's relatively close together.

And so as developments continue to occur in the city, you know, are we gonna end up with driveways next to street intersections that don't align that are offset from each other that when you turn off a street, you have a another street right away.

Where's the left turn gonna store?

There's there's just challenges that are currently we're we're starting to see as we have more development and more traffic on our roads where is this an area where we could start addressing that by requiring some separation and restricting movements at certain close proximities of driveways.

I would love to see um some examples of maybe what intersections or which ones are current.

That again we're not gonna impact them, but they wouldn't have met this.

I think it's important when we do things that we understand its impact, right?

So if you're able to tell me here's four intersections in Carson City that wouldn't have met these requirements because we didn't have those in code and we didn't do that 10 years ago or 20 years ago, no one thought about uh oh, there's more development gonna come.

So I'd like to just understand and then see are is this similar?

Did you draw this data even based on other cities as to what or just did you use the N DOT minimum and then slightly adjust those that I'm just looking for where the where you came up with the uh rationale for the proposed minimum spacing.

I did initially start with the N dot spacing for these.

I did also look into the city of Reno.

Their information is a little bit more sporadic.

They're um and they also have further classifications like I'm showing on here, I didn't show on every slide that we have minor arterial, minor collector.

There are no um major collectors in Carson City, and all of the major arterials are end-dot roads, and so um we have a little bit of difference in what we have shown there.

But anyway, um, where I'm getting at is that city of Reno, for instance, does not cover um three quarter access or what left in, right in, right out, or left out, right in, right out only type intersections.

I don't cover those.

But I did um take a look at the end dot spacings and think, well, this is probably a little bit aggressive.

Um we could go a little bit close.

Or I guess it's not aggressive, it's the opposite, but we could we could have shorter spacings than that, and that would be fine.

But consistently for signalized intersections, it's discussed briefly in numerous transportation guidance documents.

It's an end dots um access management, it's in the city of Reno's that the minimum spacing on full access signalized intersections is a quarter mile, and that's what 1320 feet is, it's a quarter mile.

And um in many cases you see third miles and you see half-lile requirements.

Since we're on the minor arterial, um, the spacing for end dot was 1320.

The spacing for city of Reno on a minor arterial is also 1320.

But again, thinking about those real world examples, the spacing between medical parkway and silver oak, which is potentially gonna be a signalized intersection in the future, would be 1200 feet.

Would we want to not signalize that intersection or an intersection with similar spacing at that point?

Well, I think that it would be reasonable to signalize that intersection.

It's close to that quarter mile.

I think we could attain any sort of signal progression that we were trying to attain.

And so I didn't feel any problems with reducing that number.

And I think we could probably go even a little lower than 1200, but we probably wouldn't want to go less than a thousand feet.

Well, I think even I don't know.

I get a lot of complaints about college parkway, uh light after light after light.

They're supposed to be able to stop at the one, it's gonna turn green, you go the speed limit, and of course you can hit every light green, and it never happens.

Um, but there's a lot of start and stop and start and stop and start and stop.

So I think these are very good ideas.

I'm just looking for what the rationale or maybe examples so that we understand what intended consequences that means.

I I don't want to just blindly come towards the end and adopt.

I want to know what did we do?

We measured uh four potential new projects that we know are coming, and we really did look at how many vehicles can stack in that left-hand lane that wants to turn there.

Should we put a light there?

I'm just looking for rationale for me as to where we come up with the numbers.

Ms.

Maloney.

Um I don't I don't want to speak for staff, but I can I can give three examples.

One of them being Appian Way that we've had a lot of discussion about with that signal.

It is too close to the interchange, right?

Right.

The property owners obviously want more access, but there isn't the tools for staff to say no.

Um the Sinclair gas station that was put in at College Parkway uh across uh north on the north side by the Walmart.

Yes.

Right there.

If you're headed westbound from the freeway, that came online and it was their driveway was very close to that retail signalized intersection.

Yes.

Staff had no tools to say no.

Um and then the third one would be um that turn at the jog on Ormsby way when at the top of college way by the college.

Turn right on Ormsby and it makes that jog to go up to Timberline.

Silver Oak came online and they wanted to do an entrance right there.

Right.

Um, and if you've driven it, it's real funky, right?

There's a stop sign that comes on the curve.

This is a stop.

Staff had no tools to say no, and so I think where staff are going to try to give more tools and clarity is is good, but those are some examples and those all came about within the same maybe six months, and I think that was part of the impetus for this project.

Yeah, and and I guess that even goes to my question, and it's a great example to look at Silver Oak and say, all right, w and is that not an access point that they use for having two ingress egress, right?

Because they need the stop sign there.

I I don't know.

I just want to make sure that we give you a tool that you need, and maybe it was would we have said no to Silver Oak that they couldn't put on that's that area, right?

Because they couldn't then meet the ingress egress requirements.

I just want to make sure that we're doing everything and it's okay, but it should be coordinated that we understand the impact of what we're doing, right?

So yes, this is a better idea, but would that have actually stopped that project because now I don't have a fire access point or I don't have a, right?

I just leads to creative planning, or at least to looking at other alternatives that might be better alternatives, but I think it does give uh businesses an opportunity to, you know, it's nice to know the expectations going into it, so there's no surprises or so there you don't have those requests that now are causing some conflict.

Right, so interesting okay.

Casey.

I mean we were talking about developers, but this would also apply to anything that the state of Nevada decides to do.

Right after hooking up to a city street, and if I remember right, this is one of the proven safety countermeasures, carter access management from federal highways.

That is correct.

It is a proven safety countermeasure, right?

That's one reason we're doing it.

If you can look around for streets that have good access management and ones that don't, and there's usually a correlation with crashes.

Well, that's one reason we're doing this.

Thank you.

Great.

Okay, next one.

Anyone have anything on the driveway or probably pretty obvious on this one, huh?

Are you okay?

All right, let's go to the next one.

On the site distance, I think.

Oh, I didn't think there was anything on the internet.

Everybody okay on that one?

Yeah.

No, I want to do driveway to intersection.

He had two different driveway to driveway, driveway to intersection.

Did you have anything on that one?

Or did that looked pretty excuse me, pretty reasonable?

Pretty reasonable.

Okay.

Site distance.

I go ahead.

Ms.

I just have a quick question on um the proposed language.

Is it problematic to provide more detail in that?

So it says defined by the addition of the Ashto Green Book most recently adopted, but could there be some standard information or is is that pretty fluid in terms of the definitions?

Sight distance varies depending on the intersection controlled type and the speeds and things like that.

And so I think that having it reference the green book instead of having a specific.

We probably match what's in the Ashto Green Book.

Um but it would it would simply be a match of that.

As far as the the change to language that I propose, I was being kind of a stickler about well, let's just be as explicit as possible.

However, um I don't I think that the second definition in the existing code that's shown there on the second bullet is certainly gonna meet our needs.

I think that this area is where I would like to dive in a bit um for implementation on everything and when so it's no different to me than the 2024 building code or there are many many national standards of fire code, this that um the city adopts, and then how long do people have to come into compliance and what do you do with the project that's already on the drawing board, things of that nature and so I how often does the green book change?

Not oh not that often.

Generally every six to ten years, and years, a little more stable than some of those other ones I was talking about that's changing on people who are gonna be back every three years, and it's like, well, there's always an unintended consequence, right?

Because you get a group of people together that goes, Oh, this is a better standard, but then when it says and we just automatically adopt the green book to that standard, and then if your community can't meet it, you're just out of compliance.

So I just bring that up way of this issue on some things in the building code in the fire code that we're actually allowed to go through and say, but Carson City's not gonna comply with 24.2 or things of that nature.

So is there anything I I just question is there anything in the green book most recently adopted by the city, maybe unless with exceptions or something.

Is there ever a reason we would exclude components?

Madam Madam Chair, there are times where sometimes the design standard doesn't necessarily apply to us, and and we have an established program and established process where perhaps that standard is appropriate for the city has worked, it's it's fine, and the green book changes that um standard.

It's the green book when it does change, usually isn't a significant change.

These site distance and things like that are pretty well established.

They've been in in the doc in the book for you know decades at this point.

Um the changes are a result of new technologies primarily as opposed to changes to long held items like site distance and stopping distances and things like that.

So I think the risk here is relatively small, but uh but your point is is uh understood that you know there could be changes to that where we're may not be comfortable with that.

So I mean I think Casey and I can work through some of those details to see how has this changed the last few green books, we have them in our office.

We can take a quick look at that and see is this something we need to be concerned about, and if it is, we can pitch that and propose that to the RTC if we need more specific language.

I mean, Ashto all 50 state DOTs have to vote on this stuff.

So don't expect anything radical, and there's enough leeway and get a quorum uh voters on that to do it.

There's enough, I guess, uh judgment in the current thing that it should help us deal with any real issues that come up.

But like these guys have said stuff site distance is site distance really not gonna change.

Okay, because uh and I think when it gets into the next steps, we'll dive in when we get to that slide um process-wise and and what our expectations are.

So is anybody else have anything on site distance?

Okay.

Auxiliary lane details and turn lane anything.

Pretty good on those okay.

Median turn restrictions.

I didn't see much on that one I think.

Okay.

Network connectivity.

It looks like we'd be the first to adopt something.

I saw on that earlier slide of all the other local agencies around I thought this was a good addition really.

You know I was doing some research this week in preparation for this and the City of Reno released a new access or a new um public works design guide in March.

And so I was not aware of that because I was still working on the information I collected in November when I put this presentation together and I apologize for that.

They are covering some of these things and just to be clear the first three bullets are covered specifically by City of Reno in their policy and the last bullet is discussed but not required.

They don't discuss a threshold as we have proposed here but they they talk about pretty the I guess the way it's talked about there's an assumption that there's two um uh accesses to most developments and that there's an exception for an emergency access is kind of the way it's worded but there's not a requirement there it's just sort of in discussion.

Miss Maloney can you provide a little more background case on where you came up with the 80 vehicles per hour.

Yes that is the threshold that we're currently using for when a traffic impact study is and that's in I believe that's in City code that there's 80 vehicles per hour in the peak hour and 500 vehicles per day.

And so when Chris and I were talking about this kind of going back and forth on where that line should be we felt like that was a very safe place only very large developments end up having to do a traffic impact study to start with and they're the ones who are probably going to be most applicable to that and we still have our um our our sort of statement at the end unless otherwise approved by the city engineer so that any case um that would be reasonable for development not to have multiple accesses um that would have to be um reviewed by the city but that it there was a an avenue for that to become approved that wasn't too onerous.

Do you have a I just to Mayor Bagless comment previously about stopping projects so like the average Chick fil A for example averages 120 vehicles per hour in peak hours according to a quick Google.

And so I you know you hear public comment about we want good restaurants and we want new things and so I just want to make sure that we're not going to preclude or provide um really burdensome restrictions on like a high turnover restaurant or development like that.

So just as long as we're being thoughtful on how we're implementing that that would be that's a good thing.

But I know what you mean I've I've recently reviewed a fast food proposal on a vacant lot in Carson City and we're struggling with them to sort of agree on how their one access is going to go which this would certainly help with um but uh have if they had to do two that would be you know a deal breaker.

But potentially also the avenue of approval for just one being there.

But I think there's definitely a lot of room for discussion and further um evaluating where that threshold should be so as an example that's just a general question if I look on highway 50 we have a coffee place next to a strip mall that has other restaurants and businesses and you come around and go to the drive through of the sandwich shop right but it's also the drive through to get to the coffee shop.

And I I'm trying to figure out where in our code or or what happened here because the people to the sandwich shop are stuck they literally have to stay in line as if they're gonna get coffee till they get close enough up to make a quick corner out and so do we account for shared drive-thru spacing or things like that anywhere in our code?

So as of right now we are not accounting for shared driveway spaces that is something that we negotiate with developers from time to time hey this driveway is not going to meet spacing but look there's one on the edge of this other parcel you could share with them that's something that we suggest um we don't have anything particular in code again going back to City of Reno they do have explicitly in code that that was required under certain circumstances.

I'm just telling you it's a nightmare I see it both ways coffee person I'm the sandwich person and I get to sit in that line usually about four cars and then I can squeak around the left if I'm lucky enough that the coffee person moved over to the right and I even often thought gosh if you could just draw a white line down that so people would realize leave enough room for the other car to get around but it is it would be a sharp turn if there's two you just wait but absolutely in a double access or a situation with multiple accesses would definitely go a long way towards solving that issue but does the coffee shop get to go in or does the sandwich shop get to go in if they have to add additional access and it's tricky you know there's it's definitely two sides of a coin there.

One was there first and paid for the drive through that's right.

But I just I bring it up that if we're working on these kind of things those are conflict and I I think that's what we're doing here or I hope that's what we're trying to accomplish was how do we eliminate conflicts right we don't want driveways on driveways we don't driveways next to stop lights we don't right the whole idea is to start reducing uh traffic conflicts and so I just bring up that as you get going through all this I think you should look at shared drive-throughs because I can even name a couple more that and I get the idea of sharing them and it makes sense except for again when you're the person in the line to the first business and you're like you gotta be kidding me.

There's certainly a queuing and internal circulation thing there.

I don't know if that's quite in this wheelhouse.

But there's something to be said for the city reviewing that sort of thing and I believe that development engineering does look into that sort of thing.

When we're approving projects right okay I just bring that up all right and then we have right of way management on this one just to clarify this is the full right-of-way width that would include travel lanes turn lanes curb and gutters sidewalk landscaping and we hadn't mentioned it yet but we've been talking about driveways and intersections well pedestrians are involved too so I don't know if we need anything in the access management guides to mention you know there's other users out there as well that we have to address but maybe that's in the design details but again this isn't isn't just for vehicles right I appreciate that comment I uh again reviewing codes and things city of Reno they do cover those sorts of things I'd be happy to add a section on that in our draft document that we put together and we can talk about that some more the next time so this one we're gonna get rid of industrial because it is specifically in the functional classification column.

And so I did also have the asterisk here.

I wanted to have a footnote that said that talked about this because I think it is appropriate for industrial to be a consideration here.

You need wider roads turning, think about semi trucks, long trailers, multiple trailers.

It makes a lot of sense for us to preserve the width that is necessary for the design vehicle.

But it's also not a functional classification.

We're trying to clean that up, so I'm trying to balance that.

The industrial zone.

If they're in industrial zoning, then you're gonna have okay.

So what what let me make sure I understand what we're trying to do?

Include a note.

Oh, you're saying you're going to put an asterisk or a note.

I misread this, I'm sorry.

Uh will be required to provide a minimum with 60, which covers what you're trying to accomplish.

Okay.

Anyone else come on now?

I could read right through that.

I didn't find the asterisk, so I kept looking for it.

So you're saying you're gonna add it.

Okay.

Next steps.

And I think that's um really where I want to spend the energy a little bit is to make sure that we're all on the same page here of where we're going, why we're going, uh, what we believe the implementation practices will be.

Um so it doesn't stop at the RTC, right?

Because you're indicating if you're actually gonna make a code change, it's gonna go to the Board of Supervisors upon recommendations from RTC, correct?

That is correct.

Okay, and then are we looking?

I think another important step, even though these are public hearings and everyone can come and talk to us about them, um, uh we've taken a tactic in our community development arena where we do hope loves to call them a listening session, but I don't care what you call it.

But that you go as an opportunity to the um builders, developers, things of that nature, and talk to them about this implementation and the impact upon their industry and get their feedback and find out if they say, Hey, we could we could live with this, we just need a six-month uh date, implementation date, or what we need on that.

So I would suggest we put one in that before it comes to us for any finals that you do a workshop or a workshop, maybe that's the right word for you guys.

Um Hope also has a quarterly builders, go and present, right?

Or something.

That's about specifically going to that builder's forum that she has and talking about it.

Um so it's definitely on our minds and something we intend to do.

We'll keep that in mind that we need to make sure that's part of the process.

Because I think it's um, and again, I just look at what the right date of implementation.

So there's lots of ordinances or projects or things that we do, and we can adopt them, but adopt them for a date that's out.

It's not effective until so I want to make sure, or we add something that it does not include any project that was permitted by said day, or that's under major project something, you know, that you have a date that you don't drop the surprises on the guy that's in the middle of his right, his design and he's all done and he's paid his money for all of that, and then we come back so sugar, we just adopted something and and you can't do it.

So I just caution that we we put whatever those specific answers and we add those components in because the objective is not to impact someone that's currently in the works, unless it is, and then we make that clear in major project review.

You might say, hey, just gonna give you the warning, we're coming down this path or something.

Yeah, I think we absolutely can do both where we provide a grace period and also where I mean I'll maybe grace periods the wrong word, but um uh a period of this document is public and out there, but it's not live yet, and we can also continue to let them know when we go to the major project reviews.

It'll be implemented such and such a date or something like that.

So I ask you all to think about that as you're working and developing this.

I had a question um related to what you were saying, uh, Mayor Big.

Well, is um, should this go to this document that we're developing?

Should this go to the planning commission or you know, be cons make sure that they're aware of this before they approve a building permit?

Yeah, make sure that the designs they know up front.

They don't nope.

They don't do this part.

These will go for technical review by different pieces of the team, and we have something that we call a major project review where every department head that has something to do with these standards will actually get together and meet and say nope, you little check, you pass the checkbox, you don't pass the check box, and then there are certain ones that the planning commission gets that's a different set of check boxes that they then address or do.

So which team is looking at this then?

Our team?

Our team.

Our team.

And actually, also a lot of times the fire department gets in on them a little bit too because they look for the turning radiuses to be able to get their um fire trucks in, and so they might come back and say, uh, I have to have two access points, or I have to have this because there's no insufficient turnaround.

I've seen that on some of their notes because the project's odd shaped, or you just can't do it.

So yeah, but so far, is that did we get what you were aiming at, Miss Maloney?

Is there some other further in depth looking for?

Just to I guess re put this out there.

So when we discussed it last time, there was the use of the word guidelines versus like policy or code.

And I I'm still in kind of the camp of guidelines clarifying kind of expectations with developers rather than adding more requirements.

It's it's just really hard to do a project in Carson, and I I don't I'm not supportive of more and more hurdles.

The big developers that are coming in with the sprouts and the home depots, they're gonna have consultants that are probably gonna do this anyway.

It's the little guys that are coming in with a one-off pad site or a quick service franchise um that are gonna be funky, and if we can have guidelines that can help them plan, I think that's awesome, but I'm really I'm I just want to make sure we're not being too restrictive on on those things.

Um and then my other last question, I guess was um, we talked about moving forward for new developments.

Uh how would this be applied, or what are staff thoughts on redevelopments?

So if there is an existing site like this huge Kmart parcel, for example, or not a specific parcel, but redevelopment in the future, how would this apply?

You guys thought about that.

Well, the way that we have approached redevelopment for a lot of things, and this is based upon something that's already existing in code for when you have to do half street improvements and things like that, is based upon the extent of the work they're doing.

If they're doing structural work, then this triggers improvements um for those.

And so I would say that it would make it would be somewhat defensible to say that that is the line for redevelopment on when they're gonna be held to these standards.

If they're doing structure work, then that's uh fairly significant, and then yes, they would be required to come up to code, and if and of course, that's not you know, I guess we're we're open to doing whatever um the RTC guides us to do, but that would be my initial reaction is let's draw a line in the sand somewhere, and that's a defensible location, I think.

I think that's probably one of the most in important issues that stops small business from being able to improve and expand their business.

So I want to say I get both sides of this equation.

I Darren and I have had lots and lots of discussions on particular projects.

Um, so it's very difficult for me when I see a blighted property owner that wants to improve, and then they have to come up to a new standard that makes them spend twice as much money than the improvement itself.

I find that very objectionable because I think there's a community benefit for the improvement to the property, right?

Because it eliminates a blight.

And so I think we need a lot more discussion on that, as to, and maybe there's a line that we draw, but the point is I I just don't think it's appropriate to make somebody put in a million dollar curbs, gutters, driveways, blah blah blah, blah, blah, two-side accesses for a $50,000 improvement.

Wait, something's wrong here.

Because it's an existing business.

And so we on one hand, as a city, that's what we want to do.

We want them to thrive.

We want them to stay here.

We want them to do more than just slap paint on it, right?

We want to let them have a little bit of expansion and room.

So I think that one is gonna take a further discussion by all of us to think about it.

Yeah.

Something ceremony.

For me, I think that's more rationale for a guideline.

And a good application of this, at least that I'm thinking of, is we have certain corridors where there are a lot of driveways, like William near the freeway, right?

And when you have a lot of driveways, you have a lot of opportunities for traffic to stop, which causes more traffic, right?

And no one wants to sit and stop and go through William Street.

At the same time, consolidating all those driveways costs money.

And so can we provide the tools to staff to have the conversation and help support these developments without stopping them?

I think that's that would be my goal.

And then similar to that, if we're to adopt these as guidelines, policies of code, and there's some existing situations that are really causing a problem.

Maybe we can come up with an RTC project to fix it, not put the burden completely on the property owner.

As we're going through, maybe we can make things better than they are today.

While we're at it, collaboration.

So long as we have dollars.

If you're in an existing, well, there were projects.

If we look at it, Sierra Vista Lane or things like that, where okay, we can go ahead and fix this driveway.

What was the other one?

We did some stuff uh at the top of the King's Canyon, right?

There were people and we wanted to put in that good parking, and so we fixed a few, like you said, we were able to accommodate some of the people were parking in other people's properties and everything else.

So I think our solution's pretty beautiful up there.

But I think the hard part is to write a code that fits everything, and that's but I also understand, and I'm not putting words in his mouth, he's kind of welcome to come up here and talk about it, because I also understand the difficulty, because we have something in our code that says unless exempted or approved or whatever, you know, kind of like you could get a waiver by the director of public works.

But then how does he make that decision on these little one-offs, right?

How come he gave it to that guy and he didn't give it to that guy?

So maybe even I don't know, maybe the answer is it it does come here or it goes some well, some some way to say the improvement of the property outweighs the piece of the code that we want to accomplish.

Right, that $50,000 improvement for this, and you you spread that burden.

I don't know, I don't know if that's the right idea or not, but I just suggest we have it's hard to write these standards so stringent.

Maybe that's a good word, right?

That says, okay, your project's no longer viable because it's a million dollar hit, or it's you can't even do it, as a matter of fact, because you can't do a second entrance, even though your business has been operating there for 60 years with the one entrance.

Anyway, it's just thoughts.

Just thoughts.

Then we have time, because this isn't a in a final, but I can leave those thoughts with you guys too, right?

Is do you see them as code or or policy or you know, what's in the best interest of everyone?

Cause that's what we're after.

Madam Chair, uh I think, you know, I I understanding the the discussion here.

I and I think the guidelines, policy coding, that's that's really what we need to know to get forward to move forward.

So I appreciate all those input.

I think, you know, looking at a policy for most of this, whether that's um how enforceable policies are, I I don't fully know, but that was sort of where we were going is is there a few elements that we can put in code or tweak in code that are really really important, and then we bring things out of code into a more policy level where the policy is much easily more easily amended by the RTC or or however staff you know would need to do that.

Um that that gives us the flexibility where if something's not working, it's an easier change.

Something's new, it's an easier change.

Um, that was where we were leaning toward, but I mean that could be easily changed to guidelines if if you all wanted uh in the same context.

Um so that that's sort of where we were leaning, not putting all of this in code.

That feels like a lot of work, and if there's tweaks needed, it's a lot of work to change that.

So let's let's talk about right now.

How much is do you actually have in policy that you don't have in code?

We don't have any access management policy.

Yeah, I was gonna say, wait, you've got zero, right?

Everything is I was just like, I I just think I have to think about it.

I don't think I'm prepared to truly give you an answer today, so I think maybe having those listening sessions or talking with the industry and some people and see what some of them might tell you, hey, no, I want you to nail it down for me, it'd be great.

Because then they know what to do.

I know what to give to the drafters, the designers, the you know, first, but I am super concerned about existing businesses that want to be able to expand.

I think that's my major concern is I don't want to have an unintended consequence.

Well, I I just like to, I guess, backtrack a little bit on that.

When it was brought up, I came up with a threshold that I thought made a lot of sense.

Um, not necessarily I'm I'm sticking my foot in my mouth again.

I apologize.

Um we will follow the direction um as discussed tonight, and we will make sure that our draft document is in line with that.

I appreciate it.

Again, I think it's it's hard.

None of this stuff is easy, huh?

Sounds good on a piece of paper, but what I ask for you to do when you get really working into the document, is run scenarios, right?

If you run a few scenarios through, things will become evident to you, just exactly like we've talked about tonight.

How does this fit?

How does this fit, or go back and look at the last 10 applications or things of that nature and say, what would have happened if we had this to the you know, and so then you you'll get a good feel for oops?

Here's an unintended consequence, or nope, that's something we should have had.

So I'm very interested in that.

Thank you, guys, for your hard work on this, because I know it's not easy, especially when something's new and you got a blank piece of paper, and everybody goes, Okay, go forth and do.

Is there any other yeah, general comments?

Well, it just makes me think about earlier in this conversation.

You know, we want to give staff the tools to be able to um, you know, make sure that there's proper traffic flow and there's not a safety issues, and yet we don't want to get in the way of improvements, and there lies the dilemma because guidelines and suggestions are helpful, but when push comes to shove, it does get difficult because the suggestion doesn't give you a tool.

Right.

And so lies the scenario.

I have no way.

Similar to what the mayor was saying the next project were brainstorming.

I went to the TAC meeting last week is North Carson complete streets.

Oh yes.

And that'd be almost like test drive this at some you know what what would it look like?

You know and see what you get.

It's wide open you know if nothing changes fine but you know how would it look so you you guys will do a good job.

Thanks.

Might be a great a great sample tool because there's a lot on that street.

You probably have every scenario going through.

Okay.

This is a non-action item so there's no motion or public comment needed.

But if there is any public that's listening or anything online please let staff know any of your input this is a document that they're trying to develop so please share.

Okay we're gonna move on to agenda item 5E this is a action item for a resolution for FTA section 5310 for campo to fund our Jack Paratransit services.

We're asking for 254905 on this one does anybody have any questions for Marcus on the application or anything.

Okay this is an action item is there any public comment are you all staff?

Every single one I was like yeah I'm like okay gee we kind of have a full room this is good all right um do I have a motion and move to approve resolution number 2026-RTC-R-1.

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 uh record reflect that was unanimous uh we're now on to agenda item five which is also an action item this is under section 5339 from Campo to be used towards our Americans with disability act for bus stop improvements this one's for oh I love this 141,871 dollars and 10 cents I can't yes I love it I can't forget the 10 cents um that includes uh we have a 10% then match of 14,187 and 10 cents does anyone have any questions for Marcus on this one okay is there any public comment on this item seeing none then I will accept a motion uh Miss Maloney I move to approve resolution number 2026 dash RTC dash R-2.

A 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.

Well now we're gonna go on to our non action items thank you I know you worked really hard there.

I'm gonna have to work on that Marcus we've been letting you off too easy I gotta think of something but thanks for your hard work on it.

Okay.

We're now on to agenda item 6A uh Chris your transportation manager's report please madam chair Chris Martinovich wanted to start off with uh an item that Commissioner Novak just mentioned about North Carson Street we held our first advisory uh working group meeting uh last week uh with members of uh variety of places community development and dot uh the school district sheriff's office utility companies uh internal city divisions uh we're all there just to get brainstorm their needs, their thoughts, their concepts of what's needed out there on North Carson Street.

At the same time, we also concluded our survey.

We received a little over around, I think it's around 570 total survey responses.

We've gotten multiple maps uh little dots on our comment map.

And so we've we've gone through those, taking that into consideration and and using all of that to develop you know a eventual alternatives that will roll back out to the the working group as well as the public and the RTC as well in future months.

So North Carson Street is continuing.

We are moving along there.

We're also taking some of the lessons from William Street and seeing what we can do better on North Carson Street.

How can we be better with utilities?

How do we coordinate more extensively with all the people and the stakeholders involved and learning from you know how each project we can get a little bit better each time?

So doing that on North Carson Street as early as we can.

I'm sure all of you are familiar with the number of road projects currently under construction in Carson City.

We have you know multiple projects, many of them are locally funded.

So it is our tax dollars, our fuel tax dollars at work building our projects in Carson City, preserving our pavement uh coupled with some of the federal dollars like William Street, those large federal grants that we've received.

So there's a lot out there, a few things are finishing up, but more will be starting later this year as we just awarded two contracts.

So those anticipated to happen later this summer into fall.

We are also working on our district four projects that we approved uh last month in May, looking at getting those going in terms of our project requests and and the setup of those projects.

Uh next time they will show up in the project status report.

They're not in this one.

We just haven't gotten all the dollars and all the utility needs programmed and the dollars moved in to do that.

But those are underway.

We'll start seeing some reporting on those in the coming months.

Marcus and team with assistance from Jared looking at some ADA compliance is working on possible route adjustments for jump around Carson following our transit development coordinated human services plan adoption.

So looking at what options we have, looking at what stops are used, utilized, where can we adjust to get better utilization?

So that that process is in the works, and we have some good good recommendations that came out of that report and that we were able to move forward relatively quickly and with some additional funding support.

Should we get that grant on the previous item?

We can start building some of those ADA improvements.

Next week, Tuesday and Wednesday is our annual senior bus pass uh sign up event.

So those will be available at the senior center.

Uh so feel free for those listening or any of you all who are eligible for that.

Well, feel free to come down and get the your free senior bus pass.

About 60 or 65.

I thought it was 60.

Some of us might be eligible.

So yeah, we're excited to do that.

Marcus and all of us will take turns coming down.

That'll be a good uh a good event on Wednesday.

Tuesday and Wednesday mornings.

Uh this Friday, Erica is assisting EndOut with an ice cream bike ride social at Governors Field uh 10 a.m.

Friday morning.

So those who want to come down and ride your bike along the linear ditch uh between Roop Street and then and Solomon, get some ice cream, come out to Governor's Field and do that.

And then lastly, last thing I have here is I'm not planning to hold a July RTC meeting.

So I wanted to make this board aware that we have no scheduled items.

We have no scheduled items for Campo as well, and that that is my hope that we can not have a July meeting.

If that's all okay with all of you, that's the plan at this moment.

Thank you.

Concludes my comments.

Thank you so much.

Okay, we will move on to agenda item 6B, our uh April Street Operations Report.

Uh Chris.

On the street operations report, um, nothing really to highlight here.

There is, you know, continuing to do potholes, potholes are down a little bit.

Well, yeah, crack ceiling's been the hot item lately.

So we're doing a lot of crack ceiling, crack ceiling has been completed.

It's not showing up here yet, but in a couple of months it will show up that the crack ceiling has been extensive the last couple of months.

So it's a little bit high on this one, and there's definitely more coming, and and that crack ceiling crew has been doing that uh as well as filling potholes on the side.

But potholes are down a little bit compared to previous months, and that's because those screws are doing crack ceiling.

A lot of sidewalk work is summertime, so we're able to do those curb ramps.

Um we did a couple of curbs, we did one curb ramp and sidewalk, flatworks, driveways, items like that.

And then there's been a lot of shoulder work occurring out on um Carson River Road toward um, you know, Buzzy's Ranch area and out toward the Carson River.

So crews have been out there reshouldering that pavement, and that's starting to show up here on these um on these reports.

Can you remind me and maybe we talked about this before, or I brought it up, I can't remember which on the um up near the college and everything, and backside of silver oak and everything on the tree.

Is did we decide that's public works?

Trees that are no more, um, or is that parks department?

There's a combination.

I'm not sure which exactly is just street you're looking you're specifically referring to.

I think a lot of the trees in the silver oak area are the responsibility of the parks department, but it could be depending on where the specific location.

So you might have some, they have some and some are the developers.

There could be some of that is a combination of whose whose tree is it?

Okay, because I I know I get a lot of questions on there were certainly several diseased trees or whatever that we ended up taking out, and am I understanding we're gonna put in like lower shrubs and things there, or you're not a are we doing that?

I'm of course, it's it's all parts.

Parks recreation and open space.

Well, somehow you're off the hook then.

Okay, because I have a lot of people asking me when those are because they were brought down and stumped out and stuff to to take them down, but when are we gonna do the replacements?

Okay, you're off the hook.

You do have a lot of trees in here, but those aren't yours.

You're like, yay, okay.

That's when you go, yay, Mr.

Costa.

Um, had a question.

There's obviously a lot of work done in here.

Um for crack seal operations and concrete work that's done.

I know we've talked about this before, and the way the work order program is, we can't really tie this to a maintenance district area to see how that's being impacted.

But I'm just throw this out um as an idea or something to brainstorm later, is some way to show the work that's accomplished here, other than just you know, how many um square feet of particular item that we used, or how much of the supplies we used, you know, how do we tell or is there a way to show what progress is being made or what good all this work is doing?

I know obviously there's some goodness coming to out of this, and it's important.

But um, how would we go ahead and illustrate that more clearly?

You know, can't have an answer now, but maybe that's something we can talk about in the future.

I'm I'm looking at chair, but I'm h I'm happy to I'm yeah.

If if you have a comment, you certainly can.

I think the next report on 6B is where on exhibit two, I think is where you potentially the one thing we see there is kind of where you're going.

Okay, here's how many work orders were created.

What do we have outstanding, right?

So the open, I I I was in shock.

I actually I wanted to I was gonna give them a huge attaboy because if you look at it, they they don't have any outstanding work orders.

And is that like a first?

Or am I reading that wrong, right?

No outstanding work orders.

Uh we have according to this report 200 open work orders.

Oh, in the current thing, but the year to date is not applicable.

Yeah, because it's so you can't have a current, yeah.

I don't know how you have a current year-to-date open work orders because every month it changes.

Well, that's the whole point.

How many open work orders are there?

But as of right now, there's 200.

Yeah, that there's 200 open work orders at the end of that month.

There were total 200 open work orders.

So if we didn't get any work orders and we completed 200, then at the end of the next month, there'd be zero open open work orders.

But fiscal year to date, it's not a number that I so you're just not sure how to add the first column.

Correct, that's okay as long as we understand the report, it works.

Okay.

Um, so we have 200 open work orders, and I think at a point we might be able to dive a little deeper there that we could maybe have that as a next section that broke it down into a hundred or sidewalk, 50 or potholes, you know, that that you might be able to take your top summary and at least have a little bit of depth that we can then watch these to say we're really doing well in potholes.

We're not doing so good in this, you know.

So I think if you're I still think only having 200 open work orders is probably doing pretty pretty good, but that might be an area that staff could look at to see if it's something easy for them to bring us because I don't want to create workload that means they're not out filling the pothole or closing a work order because they're giving us that information.

So that's just something you can you can look at and decide um if that's a little if that would help you, Mr.

Costa.

Is that what you were looking for?

Um that would be an improvement.

I would certainly at least show us where the work is going and under at least a general category, right?

Okay.

Um anybody else have something on this for Chris?

Um no one else has anything on six feet.

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

Um, nothing else to do.

Well I know I think there's a few projects.

We've just I don't think we plan to go through every project, but there's a few I think it might be good to just I think Casey's got a few that he wants to talk about or at least highlight.

Um so Casey, if you want to pick a few in particular, like that are coming up, Appian is one that comes to mind.

Or I can do that if you'd like, whichever is easy for you.

Um well, I guess uh jumping on to uh Appian.

I'm not sure what update you have, but I'll let you take Appy and then I'll jump through a couple others.

Okay.

On Appian, I just wanted to let everyone know we are planning to start construction uh the week after next.

The polls are should be here early July.

So the first step is starting to do some of the groundwork, the underground work, building foundations, some of the conduit poll boxes for that new signal at Appian Way and South Carson Street.

So we'll start to see some activity out there.

Uh the signal itself is likely to be turned on in a few months once it gets once all the polls are up.

So that one's gonna be a a shorter duration as compared to something like William Street.

But um just wanted to notice that it's because it is a new traffic signal, and we don't do a lot of ne traffic signals in Carson City.

And what is the uh distance from signal to signal on that one?

Since we were that was another one that I know Casey reviewed as part of the access management.

I think it's at the 1200 feet as well from Clearview.

Yeah, it's just about just about a quarter mile just under, yeah, 1200 or so.

Yeah.

So it would mean our proposed guidelines we discussed earlier.

Now that is a very busy section of road, you might argue that maybe that should be a major arterial, but I am truly concerned about that one.

I've brought it up at every meeting.

I've been quite clear, and the only reason that I could support it is because I wanted the public safety component of that particular one is so the fire department can get out of the station and across the street.

But otherwise, I think that one I don't know.

I can't wait to see how backed up and longer it takes to do Costco and all that other kind of stuff, or for people to get home at 5 p.m.

and how many lights they get to sit through because of another light stacking them.

And I recognize that people have been telling me it's only at certain hours, but I'm really not noticing that lately.

I'm noticing it doesn't matter what time of day it is.

So I think that one's even a good one to monitor after it goes up.

Did we accomplish what we thought we were gonna accomplish?

You know, is it the traffic count that we think?

Is it working as intended, or oh boy, we just created I don't know, another college parkway, which means you gotta stop and go and stop and go and stop and go.

And fewer cars can function through it.

So it'll be interesting to see.

But I really do love this report.

And oh, I wanted to ask you something.

I know that it's um within the document that we get here, but when I go and do talks and things with people, I use this report all the time to tell them about the open projects that are Carson City projects, and so I'm just asking you to think outside the box a little bit if this report can be highlighted, even if it's on the Carson crowd, right?

Where we're doing, I don't know if we shouldn't have a little banner at the top that current projects, so that people can see what they cost.

They can look at the status, they can see the comments that you're just writing in general, because I get a lot of people going, you have so many orange cones and glove.

I said they're not all our projects, these ones are ours, but there are people with hotels or uh other building projects going on in town that are not ours, and so I just think it would be something that's for open projects.

Yeah, Darren Schultz for the record.

We we have a plan to uh we're working on it right now to put all of our capital projects on uh on an overall map that is that is you can click on it and it gives you the specifics of that project, timing, cost, funding, all of that stuff on a on a layer of GIS.

So I can't tell you when that will be coming out, but I would expect within the next year, so it's in it's in works.

And that's but I don't want to go to the GI.

You're gonna have a link or something then from your site because people don't know how to use this.

Yes, oh yeah, no, no, it'll be it'll be very user-friendly.

A little interactive.

I love it.

It'll be all the idea.

Like I said, I want to tell you how much I use this document.

I I really do use the information that you're all working so hard, and I know it seems like you have to keep it up, but when you are able to tell everyone how many funding sources it takes to get a project done, right?

No, that project costs this amount of money, and it took four funding sources.

It's right, you gotta do it all, but anyway, it's a great job.

But does somebody have any questions of him on one of these that you'd like to draw out or talk about or it's not a question, it's a kudo.

Um Darren Anderson has been incredibly helpful when I've uh made phone calls regarding uh questions and um consternation about the East Williams Street project, and he has been really uh just a pleasure to work with.

So I just wanted to give him a kudo on the record.

I think um can you tell me also, or you can just put it out on the ethos here?

If someone believes they s um, what did I get today?

Um, that she had she told me it was on fifth street, and the signal was uh stop or no, and it was both directions.

And she says, How I don't know what am I just supposed to stop?

Where was I supposed to go?

Is it I think you couldn't turn left or right?

I had to go straight.

I think that's what it was telling you.

But if they have questions about the signage because they're not understanding what it's telling them to do, how should they contact you or call you?

What what's the method for the person that's just they're honestly confused?

They are honestly confused and they don't know what to do.

Who who can they call, who can they email?

Who what's the right place for them to say?

I'm at such and such a because it shouldn't be the mayor.

I just want you to know do not call the mayor.

So a qu question like with the with uh traffic control or a detour?

Yes, they're details.

They just need to, yeah.

I don't, I mean, anybody at Public Works can direct them to the appropriate project manager.

So is there a main phone number they can call and then they'll get routed right yeah there is uh anybody know what it is I knew that was coming my phone you can see I'm trying to get myself out of it though I can grab it I just think it's important that again we put that out there that you can the phone number is 775 887 2355 2355 eight eight seven two three five five yes I think that's great and I'll I'll use it when they're talking to me that anyway she gave me ten minutes of how she was stuck and that she felt bad because every car is behind her beeping at her and she was she was confused.

She didn't know what to do.

Didn't want to get in an accident but then she realized she had all those cars that did know what they wanted to do so right so okay um with that if we don't have any more questions on this then I will move to oh do we I'm sorry.

Yeah Casey you had some highlights that you want to go I thought he'd just sort of yappy and I apologize.

Did you have another one?

I was just going to cover the projects that are currently in construction right now the Roof Street project that's north of Fifth Street there.

Um sidewalk work is currently ongoing the underground utility work is just finishing up and we're expecting to begin paving in July.

Williams Street project the western edge of the project is nearing completion.

They're expecting to pave by the end of the month on west of June or excuse me west of Roop Street they're expecting to pave by the end of June we already covered Appian Carmine Street all of the underground stormwater work is complete.

They're just wrapping up a couple things they're expecting to continue working on sidewalk work for a little bit and then they'll be paving that section of uh car mine that's all tore up and then that project will be wrapping up pretty soon the college parkway and airport project um is the way the surface treatment for that project is working is it's two steps and so they'll be doing a fog seal on that next week or actually I think I got an update on that to this morning they're gonna do that fog seal tomorrow and Friday and so the road will be um looking appropriately black and then they can come in and stripe next week.

Fairview and Stewart you guys have probably seen our um surface treatment is complete their striping is ongoing they're just about finished with that project and I believe that is all the ones that I was planning on highlighting.

Okay.

And just in case anybody just point out on little lane I check with Chris we're doing Roop Street east but west of Roop Street that's a state route and it'll be state public works or somebody building that when they put the rest of their buildings or parking garages in.

So I don't know when that's going to happen but we'll get our side done.

Well I have to tell you I was laughing the other day I said this better not get dug up right I'm like we're not doing anything that's wasteful right because I don't want to put money down that then six months later here comes somebody else we should coordinate that project then we delay ours or whatever to or you do it and we'll pay you the piece or I I just don't want it cut up that we put something in and their current phase is not fronting our particular projects we're not anticipating any any issues Darren Anderson has been coordinating with the state public works guys and so on that coordination I'm sure is ongoing but as of right now Little Lane is not going to be impacted by their project.

Okay.

As long as we know somebody's staying on that because we really do not want to cut roads twice or in a certain amount of time right you want them to last so okay.

Okay then we will go to our final public comment.

I have met the legal obligation okay and then if there is no object oh you have something you know what I just when that since you sorry the kudos well this was Erica nice job with the um school books and uh the book delivery right and um you did a nice job with that and the ghettos were thrilled about it and so kudos fun it's fun I want the walking stuff no bicycles I've been known to fall off them so or I have a few friends that hit my wheel and knock me over so anyway my safe route is walking okay I don't have anything else okay then we're adjourned thank you all for a good meeting good discussion