REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGIONAL ROAD IMPACT FEE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGIONAL ROAD IMPACT FEE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Thursday, September 28, 2017, 2:00pm-4:00pm 1105 TERMINAL WAY, RENO, NV 1 ST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM I. The RTC Engineering Conference Room is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids to assist individuals with disabilities should be made with as much advance notice as possible. For those requiring hearing or speech assistance, contact Relay Nevada at (TTY, VCO or HCO); other requests should be directed to RTC Engineering at II. The Regional Road Impact Fee Technical Advisory Committee (RRIF TAC) has a standing item for accepting public comment on topics relevant to the RRIF TAC that are not included on the agenda. No action may be taken on a matter raised under this item of the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on an agenda as an item upon which action will be taken. For specific items on the RRIF TAC agenda, public comment will be taken at the time the item is discussed. Individuals providing public comment will be limited to three minutes. Individuals acting as a spokesperson for a group may request additional time. Attempts to present public input in a disruptive manner will not be allowed. Remarks will be addressed to the RRIF TAC as a whole and not to individual members. III. The RRIF TAC may combine two or more agenda items for consideration and/or may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda at any time. ITEM 1 ITEM 2 ITEM 3 ITEM 4 ITEM 5 ITEM 6 Approval of Agenda (For Possible Action) Public Comment - please read paragraph II near the top of this page Approval of the August 24, 2017 Meeting Minutes (For Possible Action) RRIF Capital Improvement Plans by Service Area (For Possible Action) Public Comment - please read paragraph II near the top of this page Member Items a) next RRIF TAC meeting: December 14, 2017 ITEM 7 Adjournment (For Possible Action) The Committee may take action on any item noted for possible action Posting locations: Washoe Co Admin Bldg, 1001 E. 9th St., Reno, NV; RTC, 1105 Terminal Way., Reno, NV; 4 th STREET STATION, 200 E. 4th St., Reno, NV; CENTENNIAL PLAZA, Victorian Square, Sparks, NV; Sparks City Hall, 431 Prater Way, Sparks, NV; Reno City Hall, 1 E. First St., Reno, NV; Incline Village General Imp. Dist., 893 Southwood Blvd., Incline Village, NV; area press & media via fax; RTC website

2 September 28, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 2 TO: Regional Road Impact Fee Technical Advisory Committee (RRIF TAC) FROM: Julie Masterpool, P.E. RRIF Program Manager SUBJECT: Public Input This agenda item allows the public the opportunity to provide information on topics within the jurisdiction of the Regional Road Impact Fee Technical Advisory Committee (RRIF TAC). Any person wishing to wait to provide public comment on a specific agenda item should indicate that item number on the comment card. The RRIF TAC reserves the right to take all public comment during Public Input. Individuals addressing the RRIF TAC during the Public Input portion of the meeting will be limited to three minutes total. However, an individual acting as a spokesperson for a group of individuals may request additional time. Individuals are expected to provide public input in a professional and constructive manner. RTC Board: Ron Smith (Chair) Bob Lucey (Vice Chair) Paul McKenzie Marsha Berkbigler Neoma Jardon PO Box 30002, Reno, NV Terminal Way, Reno, NV rtcwashoe.com

3 ITEM 3 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RTC) REGIONAL ROAD IMPACT FEE (RRIF) TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes Thursday, August 24, 2017 Members Present: Amy Cummings, Regional Transportation Commission Brian Stewart, Regional Transportation Commission Janelle Thomas, City of Reno Community Development John Krmpotic, Private Sector Jim Rundle, City of Sparks Community Development Kraig Knudsen, Private Sector Mike Lawson, Washoe County Planning Commission Peter Gower, City of Reno Planning Commission Randy Walter, Private Sector Scott Carey, City of Sparks Planning Commission Steve Bunnell, City of Reno Public Works Ted Erkan, Private Sector Members Absent: Clara Lawson, Washoe County Public Works Jon Ericson, City of Sparks Public Works Mojra Hauenstein, Washoe County Development Review Andrew Jayankura Cole Peiffer Julie Masterpool Michelle Kraus RTC Staff: Blaine Petersen Jelena Williams Lee Anne Olivas Nelia Belen Page 1 of 5

4 ITEM 3 Stephanie Haddock Art Sperber Jeremy Smith Guests: Xuan Wang Carl Savely The meeting was called to order at 2:04pm. Item 1: Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved unanimously. Item 2: Public Comment There was no response to the call for public comment. Item 3: Approval of the March 23, 2017 Meeting Minutes The meeting notes were approved by majority vote. Six members approved the meeting minutes and five members abstained because they were either new members or did not attend the March meeting. There were no members against the approval of the meeting minutes. Item 4: Introduction of New RRIF TAC Members Julie Masterpool briefly described the purpose of the RRIF TAC. She also discussed who the committee was comprised of with representatives from the RTC, City of Reno, City of Sparks, Washoe County, and the private sector. The RRIF TAC welcomed seven new members to the committee: Brian Stewart, RTC Engineering Director; Janelle Thomas, City of Reno Community Development Director and Reno RRIF Administrator; Peter Gower, City of Reno Planning Commission Member; Mike Lawson, Washoe County Planning Commission Member; Mojra Hauenstein*, Washoe County Community Development Director; Scott Carey, City of Sparks Planning Commission Member; and John Krmpotic, Private Sector. Page 2 of 5

5 ITEM 3 *Mojra Hauenstein, Washoe County Community Development Director was not present at the meeting. Item 5: RRIF General Overview Julie Masterpool gave a RRIF General Overview presentation (see Attachment A). She discussed how impact fees were developed as a funding tool for collecting the cost of building additional public capacity improvements required to accommodate new development. She explained the Supreme Court decisions that helped define the requirements for impact fees as well as the Nevada Revised Statutes that outline the components for the program and the adoption of the RRIF Program by the local agencies. Julie described how the RRIF Program is administered, the methodology to develop the impact fee and the guidelines and procedures for the implementation of the program. She discussed how projects are selected (10-year Capital Improvement Plan), how the impact fee rate is measured in dollars per vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and how the fee is assessed at the building permit stage. Lastly, Julie explained Offset Agreements, the biennial review of the program, service areas (service areas are broken into a north area and south area and do not include Nixon or Gerlach), and what the program has generated to date. Randy Walter asked how the new waiver system was working. Julie responded that the process is working well so far. Ted Erkan asked if we ve thought about recording the waivers against real property. Julie stated it was something to look into and possibly incorporate into the 6 th Edition update. Mike Lawson asked who identifies the regional road system. The RTC s Regional Transportation Plan identifies the regional road system. New roads are added to the traffic model as they are developed. Item 6: RTC Travel Demand Model & TMRPA Build Out Model Xuan Wang from the RTC s Planning Department presented an overview of the RTC Travel Demand Model (see Attachment B). She discussed the history of the model, explained the Page 3 of 5

6 ITEM 3 methodology used in the model (trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and traffic assignment). Xuan also stated the model is updated every five years. There was discussion about what was included in the model such as trips to TRIC and Carson City. Xuan stated that the model does account for those trips. This year s model is the same model structure that was used for the 5 th Edition RRIF Update. Jeremy Smith from TMRPA gave a presentation on a build out model (see Attachment C). Jeremy explained how development is tracked, the sources that are used to verify data, and that the purpose of the build out was specifically for the RRIF TAC. The information is for internal use only and will not be presented anywhere else. The committee agreed to include maximum build out (i.e. Spring Mountain), see what it looks like and then determine what should be pulled out. Item 7: RRIF General Administrative Manual Julie Masterpool stated there were a lot of changes with the 5 th Edition Update, but doesn t think this 6 th Edition Update will be as intense. She asked for everyone let her know if they think anything needs to be updated or added. She discussed the possibility of adding language to allow the local agencies to collect processing fees when credit cards are used to pay for impact fees. Everyone agreed that the local agencies should not have to absorb the transaction fees charged by the credit card companies. Item 8: Public Comment There was no response to the call for public comment. Item 9: Member Items The next RRIF TAC meeting is scheduled for September 28, 2017 at 2pm in the RTC s 1 st Floor Conference Room located at 1105 Terminal Way, Suite 101. Julie Masterpool will present the Capital Improvement Plan broken out by the north and south service areas. Item 10: Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:24pm. Page 4 of 5

7 ITEM 3 Respectfully Submitted, Lee Anne Olivas Page 5 of 5

8 ATTACHMENT A Regional Road Impact Fee General Overview RRIF Technical Advisory Committee August 24, 2017 Julie Masterpool, P.E. RTC Engineering Manager Traffic/RRIF What is the Regional Road Impact Fee Program? Impact Fees are a funding tool for collecting the cost of building additional capacity needed on regional roads due to new development New Development Impact Fees Regional Road Capacity Improvements 1

9 ATTACHMENT A US Supreme Court Decisions Rational Nexus Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, (1987) Rough Proportionality Dolan v. City of Tigard, (1994) Capital Improvement Plan with a list of capacity improvement projects (Need) Fees based on cost of facilities necessary to meet growing population (Benefit) Reasonable sized Service Areas (Benefit) Cost attributable to new development (Proportionality) Components of the RRIF Program Nevada Revised Statute (NRS 278B) Local enacting ordinances Reno, Sparks and Washoe County Impact Fee Cooperative Agreement (ICA) RTC, Reno, Sparks and Washoe County Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Describes methodology used to establish net cost per service unit of new roadway capacity General Administrative Manual (GAM) Guideline and procedures to administer the RRIF program Identifies land use definitions used in assessing impact fees 4 2

10 ATTACHMENT A Regional Road Impact Fee Development Long Range Plan 10 Year Plan Consensus Forecast (Population & Employment) Reno, Sparks, & Washoe County Master Plans TMRPA Land Development Model RTC Travel Demand Model New Trips on the Regional Road Network (VMT) Regional Transportation Plan Calculate RRIF Rate by Service Area ($/VMT) RRIF Capital Improvement Plan by Service Area Developer share of RRIF CIP Costs ($) RRIF Fee Schedule by Land Use Regional Road Impact Fee Service Areas NORTH Separate CIP s and fees for each Service Area RRIF Fees collected stay within Service Area SOUTH 3

11 ATTACHMENT A RRIF Capital Improvement Plans North vs South Service Areas North Service Area 5 th Edition Capital Improvement Plan South Service Area RRIF 5 th Edition Fee Schedule Year 2 Indexing 4

12 ATTACHMENT A What are Impact Fee Credits and Waivers? Developer conditioned to build road improvements listed on RRIF Capital Improvement Plan NRS 278B.240 Improvements built by a developer listed on the CIP, must be credited against the impact fee owed Agreement between developer, RTC, and local entity Credits or Waivers to be used as alternative payment of impact fees Credits or Waivers are associated with a specific Development of Record and Benefit District Roadway Improvements Regional Road Capacity Improvements through the RRIF Program $ 203 M Developer Built $ 95 M RTC Built RRIF Revenue $ 298 M RRIF Capacity Improvements Capacity Relief Projects

13 ATTACHMENT A Questions? Julie Masterpool, P.E. RTC RRIF Program Manager 1105 Terminal Way, Suite 108 Reno, NV jmasterpool@rtcwashoe.com 11 6

14 ATTACHMENT B Overview of RTC Travel Demand Model RRIF Technical Advisory Committee August 24, 2017 Xuan Wang, PhD RTC Senior Planner History of the Model MINUTP Developed in 1993 by Barton Aschman Associates Emme Developed in 2002 by TJKM TransCAD Developed in by Parsons Brinkerhoff 1

15 ATTACHMENT B Model Components Residential Model Visitor Model Transit Model Truck Model External Mode How travel demand is modeled 2

16 ATTACHMENT B How travel demand is modeled Production of trips population data Attraction of trips employment data Step 1 Trip Generation Number of trips produced by the TAZ Number of trips attracted to the TAZ No connections between the zones From Zone To Zone How travel demand is modeled Step 2 Trip Distribution 4 5 FROM ZONE TO ZONE

17 ATTACHMENT B How travel demand is modeled 1 Centroid Connector 2 Road Network Step 3 and 4 Mode Choice and Traffic Assignment The Centroid represents the loading point of the zone all trips in a travel demand model start and end from/to a TAZ Centroid. Model Applications Travel demand/traffic forecasts Transit analysis Truck traffic analysis Vehicle Miles Traveled/Vehicle Hours Traveled Delay, speed and planning level of service Trip generation and distribution of TAZ s Desire lines analysis Select link analysis Trip length calculation Air quality analysis input 4

18 ATTACHMENT B Major Model Inputs TAZ Population and employment data Street network RTC transit system FAF3.2(FHWA s Freight Analysis Framework) External volumes 2040 RTP Model Input Data TAZ data developed from 2016 Consensus Forecast by TMRPA Current network and 2040 RTP project listing Model years: 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035,

19 ATTACHMENT C TRUCKEE MEADOWS BUILD OUT SCENARIO RRIF TAC Jeremy M. Smith, TMRPA August 2017 How many units? Jobs? To support the RRIF program and to assess impacts of growth to the regional road network we are contemplating a build out of all planned developments within the Truckee Meadows Service Area (TMSA) 1

20 ATTACHMENT C DEVELOPMENT TRACKING Parcel-level Data Tracking Current and Future Land Use Tracking residential development present and future potential Washoe County Parcels Tracking employees by business location Tentative Maps (TMs) TMRPA Land Use Fabric Existing Dwelling Units Planned Unit Developm ents (PUDs) Final Maps Monthly Process for Updating Land Use Fabric WC Parcels Vacancy status Update DU and LU Class Update Final Maps PUDs TMs TMRPA LU Fabric 2

21 ATTACHMENT C Parcel Data Identify existing land use and zoning designation Is it already developed? Identify vacant parcels Unconstrained areas are buildable (remove slopes, public land, water bodies, flood) Estimate capacity of that land Future housing units based on zoning and development approvals Future employment based on existing employment mix and zoning PROJECTIONS AND SPATIAL ALLOCATIONS Population and Employment Modeling 3

22 ATTACHMENT C Washoe County Consensus Forecast Assessment of forecasted population and employment growth; performed every 2 years by TMRPA to inform planning efforts across the region. Sources Nevada State Demographer Truckee Meadows Water Authority Woods and Poole IHS Global Insight Population Projections For 2016 to 2036 Consensus Forecast 580, ,000 Extrapolation of CF population projection results in a value of 578,350 at year , , CF Population Average Population 520, , ,000 NV State Demographer (with TESLA) TMWA Woods and Poole IHS-Global Insight 460,000 EPIC Scenario A 440,000 EPIC Scenario B EPIC Scenario B2 420,000 EPIC Scenario C 4

23 ATTACHMENT C Employment Forecasts: Existing 2014 and Draft 2016 Consensus Forecast Projections 375, , , ,000 Employment 300, , CF Employment DRAFT 2016 CF Employment 250,000 Spatial Allocation of Predicted Growth Translate time series projections to spatial allocation of housing units and employment Rule-based allocation model that uses an overall suitability score Parcel-based Dual-mode suitability model Population Employment Written in Python Model results can be aggregated to any geography Traffic analysis zones Wastewater treatment facility service areas Etc. 5

24 ATTACHMENT C Suitability Analysis Suitability score controls timing of development in the model For residential, based on the spatial relationships of many factors to the location of housing development over the past 15 years Single Family and multifamily distributions evaluated separately Logistic regression used to predict development from 2000 to 2015 (using spatial variables like distance to major roads) 75% prediction accuracy Informs assignment of weighted suitability BUILD OUT ASSUMPTIONS Planned developments and zoning 6

25 ATTACHMENT C Zoning indicates possibility Best ability to predict residential due to development tracking and approved densities Employment build out is a derivative Zoning check: Reno (complete) Sparks (data acquired, in process) Washoe County (TBD) Ensure accurate accounting of potential units Predict Units, Population is a Derivative Person per household (PPH) multipliers: Reno 2.47 Sparks Washoe County 2.58 Units are predicted then multiplied by PPH in each jurisdiction Time is not an element in this analysis (unless we want it to be ) 7

26 ATTACHMENT C No target population! Usually we are constrained by a projection value, however in this case we are only constrained by the totality of what is planned Year Pop Jobs Factor Average Factor Inverse factor MAX 687, ,750* * Does not include Storey County New employment footprint Location and type of employment more difficult to predict Some employment grows in place (ca. 50%) Other employment utilizes vacant land (ca. 50%) Footprint of vacant land usage based on nonresidential zoning 8

27 ATTACHMENT C Projects for further consideration Usually we track only approved plans, however some unapproved developments may be more likely than some that are approved! Approved in question: Spring Mountain Copper Canyon Not approved, but possible Stonegate Sunny Hills Ranchos Others? Conflate to TAZ Upon completion, data will be attached to appropriate TAZ and inherit all necessary fields E.g. household size distribution Job categories (build out values based on regional mix) Hand off to Xuan! 9

28 ATTACHMENT C Questions? 10

29 September 28, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 4 TO: Regional Road Impact Fee Technical Advisory Committee (RRIF TAC) FROM: Julie Masterpool, P.E. RRIF Program Manager SUBJECT: RRIF Capital Improvement Plans for North and South Service Areas RECOMMENDATION Acknowledge receipt of information regarding the Regional Road Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plans for the North and South Service Areas. SUMMARY The 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) identifies the region s 20 year long range plan. The plan defines the long range polices and priorities for the community s future transportation system and services as the blueprint to maintain our public transit network and improve our roadways, improving accessibility to all, regardless of age or ability. Federal transportation legislation (Fixing America s Surface Transportation Act FAST Act) requires that the 2040 RTP be based on a financial plan that demonstrates how the program of projects can be paid for and implemented. The financial plan must: Demonstrate how the adopted transportation plan can be implemented/funded; Identify resources from public and private sectors that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan; and Recommend any additional financing strategies for needed projects and programs. The 2040 RTP financial plan uses Year-of-Expenditure (YOE) dollars. In developing projections, historical growth trends of current revenue sources attributable to the region were considered, as well as current conditions, effects of inflation, and changes in population. Using these indicators as a base, assumptions were made that there will be increases in all revenue sources over the life of the plan and that the program of projects included would not exceed the reasonably foreseeable future revenues, which meet the fiscally constrained plan requirement. RTC Board: Ron Smith (Chair) Bob Lucey (Vice Chair) Paul McKenzie Marsha Berkbigler Neoma Jardon PO Box 30002, Reno, NV Terminal Way, Reno, NV rtcwashoe.com

30 RRIF Capital Improvement Plans September 28, 2017 Page 2 The transportation needs were divided into planning horizons: Roadway projects were also identified into various categories, i.e., pavement preservation, system efficiency, livability, and congestion relief projects for regional roads and highways. Preservation includes preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of existing pavements and bridges. System efficiency projects include traffic signal coordination, communications technology, and other Intelligent Transportation Systems that improve traffic flow without adding new travel lanes. Livability projects include ADA accessibility improvements and pedestrian/bicycle facility improvements. Congestion relief projects typically include the addition of new lanes for general purpose traffic and other improvements to increase the efficiency of existing road segments and intersections. Congestion relief needs are identified through the regional travel demand model. Costs for these projects were completed via preliminary design studies or by utilizing unit costs by facility type using recent cost experience on projects designed and constructed by the RTC, NDOT, and others. The Regional Road Impact Fees are based on the development of a regional impact fee capital improvement program (CIP) that identifies planned projects over a 10 year period to provide capacity for new development within the service areas. The regional road impact fee CIP consists of new road projects, road widening projects, freeway ramps, and intersection improvements. Using the first ten (10) years of the Regional Transportation Plan as the Capital Improvement Plan for the RRIF program, we can establish the capacity projects needed to accommodate new growth as projected by the consensus forecast and land use assumptions. The list of projects in the first ten (10) years of the 2040 RTP was divided into the CIP for the North and South Service Areas (See Attachment A). Estimated costs based on 2017 projections are provided along with the type of facility improvement and percent of the project which falls within the Service Area. NRS 278B.280 identifies that impact fees must not be used for repair, operation, or maintenance of existing nor new capital improvements; upgrading, expansion, or replacement of existing capital improvement to meet more stringent safety standards or to better service existing development; or for the payment of principal and interesting on bonds or other indebtedness. Therefore, the costs associated with projects related to ADA improvements, Preventive Maintenance, and Debt payments will be deducted from the RRIF CIP costs. Program or system-wide projects, such as, Bicycle-Pedestrian and Intersection projects will be divided equally between the Service Areas. NRS 278B also requires that impact fee calculations take into other funding sources which may be used to construct RTP improvements. The major source of outside funding for improvements to the regional roadway network is Federal and State highway funds. Estimated Federal and State funding over the tenyear period covered by the CIP will be based on the amount of funding currently programmed for CIP projects in the current five-year Regional Transportation Improvements Program (RTIP). Once the outside share of funding is established, the remaining local share of the growth-related costs attributable to new development will become the cost used to develop the impact fee rate ($/VMT). A detailed analysis will be provided to the RRIF TAC at a future meeting.

31 South Service Area Capital Improvement Plan Item 4 - Attachment A Service Year Project Limits Description 2017 Estimate Category % Service Area Area S nd Street Keystone Ave to I-580 Multimodal improvements - Phase 1 $3,000,000 Multimodal 100% NS th St/Prater Way Bus RAPID Transit Project Evans Ave to Pyramid Hwy RAPID Extension & Complete Street Improvements $57,800,000 Multimodal 55% S Arrowcreek Pkwy Wedge Pkwy to Zolezzi Ln Widen 2 to 4 lanes $6,500,000 Capacity 100% S Center Street S Virginia to I-80 Widen sidewalks & add bike lanes $5,400,000 Multimodal 100% S Damonte Ranch Pkwy Veterans Pkwy to Rio Wrangler Pkwy New 2 lane road $7,100,000 Capacity 100% S Forest Street California Avenue to Mount Rose Street Bike facility $4,100,000 Multimodal 100% S Geiger Grade Toll Rd to Rim Rock Widen 2 to 4 lanes $20,600,000 Capacity 100% S Geiger Grade Realignment Virginia St to Toll Rd New 4 lane road $64,000,000 Capacity 100% S Glendale Ave Kietzke Ave to McCarran Blvd Pavement reconstruction & multimodal improvements $16,400,000 Multimodal 100% S Keystone Ave California to I-80 (design, permitting, and Multimodal improvements $5,000,000 Multimodal 100% right-of-way) S Kietzke Ln Virginia St to Galletti Way Multimodal improvements - Phase 1 $3,800,000 Multimodal 100% S Kietzke Ln Virginia St to Galletti Way Multimodal improvements - Phase 2 $8,400,000 Multimodal 100% S Mill St/Terminal Way Reno-Tahoe International Airport to Lake St (downtown Reno) S Mill St/Terminal Way Reno Tahoe International Airport to Lake St (downtown Reno) Multimodal improvements, intersection improvements, additional eastbound lane from Kietzke Ln to US 395, PE/NEPA Multimodal improvements, intersection improvements, additional eastbound lane from Kietzke Ln to US 395, Construction $1,600,000 Multimodal 100% $13,725,000 Multimodal 100% S Plumb Lane Lakeside Drive to Kietzke Lane Bike lanes $6,400,000 Multimodal 100% NS Sierra Street California Ave to 9th St Widen sidewalks & add bike lanes $4,400,000 Multimodal 91% S South Virginia Street E Patriot Blvd to Mt. Rose Hwy/Geiger Grade Add sidewalks and bike lane, convert travel lane to bus/bike lane $14,140,000 Multimodal 100% S SouthEast Connector South Meadows Pkwy to Greg St New 6 lane road (under construction) $130,000,000 Capacity 100% NS Sparks Blvd Greg to Baring Multimodal improvements, widen 4 to 6 lanes $1,600,000 Multimodal 18% from Greg to I-80, widen 4-6 lanes I-80 to Springland on the east side PE/NEPA NS Sparks Blvd Greg to Baring Multimodal improvements, widen 4 to 6 lanes $44,145,000 Multimodal 18% from Greg to I-80, widen 4-6 lanes I-80 to Springland on the east side S Vassar Street Holcomb Avenue to Terminal Way Bike lanes $4,300,000 Multimodal 100% NS Vine Street Riverside Drive to University Terrace Bike lanes $3,200,000 Multimodal 85% NS Virginia St Bus RAPID Extension Plumb Ln to 17th St Pedestrian improvements & pavement reconstruction $77,800,000 Multimodal 68% S W 2nd Street (Reno) Keystone Avenue to Galletti Way Enhanced sidewalks, landscaping, bike lanes $8,225,000 Multimodal 100% S Additional ramps TBD - (5 ramps) $50,000,000 Capacity 50% NS ADA Accessibility Systemwide - ADA Transition Plan $1 million/year $5,000,000 ADA 0% N ADA Accessibility Systemwide - ADA Transition Plan $1.28 million/year $5,000,000 ADA 0% N Ped & Bike Facilities within Systemwide - Bike-Ped Master Plan $1 million/year $5,000,000 Multimodal 50% ROW N Ped & Bike Facilities within ROW Systemwide - Bike-Ped Master Plan $1.28 million/year $5,000,000 Multimodal 50% N Traffic Signals/ITS Operations Systemwide $2.6 million/year $13,000,000 Capacity 50% /Roundabouts N Traffic Signals/ITS Operations Systemwide $3.32 million/year $13,000,000 Capacity 50% /Roundabouts N Pavement Preservation Systemwide $18.7 million/year $93,500,000 PM 0% N Pavement Preservation Systemwide $23.8 million/year $93,500,000 PM 0% N Debt Service $27.3 million/year $136,500,000 Debt 0% N Debt Service $27.4 million/year $136,500,000 Debt 0% $1,067,635,000 $464,987,237 9/20/2017

32 North Service Area Capital Improvement Plan Service 2017 Year Project Limits Description Area Estimate Category % Service Area NS th St/Prater Way Bus RAPID Transit Project Evans Ave to Pyramid Hwy RAPID Extension & Complete Street Improvements $57,800,000 Multimodal 45% N Buck Dr Lemmon Dr to N Hills Blvd Widen 2 to 4 lanes $1,300,000 Capacity 100% N Dolores Drive Existing Dolores west to Lazy 5 Pkwy New 2 lane road $1,500,000 Capacity 100% N Kiley Pkwy Wingfield Hills Rd to Henry Orr Pkwy New 2 lane road $6,400,000 Capacity 100% N Lazy 5 Pkwy W Sun Valley Arterial to Pyramid Hwy New 2 lane road $18,400,000 Capacity 100% N Lazy 5 Pkwy W Sun Valley Arterial to Pyramid Hwy Widen from 2 to 4 lanes $11,500,000 Capacity 100% N Lemmon Dr US 395 to Military Rd and Fleetwood Dr to Arkansas St N Lemmon Dr US 395 to Military Rd and Fleetwood Dr to Arkansas St Widen 4 to 6 lanes from US 395 to Military Rd and Widen 2 to 4 lanes from Fleetwood Dr to Arkansas St (PE & NEPA) Widen 4 to 6 lanes from US 395 to Military Rd and Widen 2 to 4 lanes from Fleetwood Dr to Arkansas St $3,000,000 Capacity 100% $9,600,000 Capacity 100% N Loop Rd Salomon Circle to Eastern Slope Rd New 2 lane road $3,800,000 Capacity 100% N Military Rd Lemmon Dr to Echo Ave Widen 2 to 4 lanes $17,700,000 Capacity 100% N Moya Blvd Red Rock Rd to Echo Ave Widen 2 to 4 lanes $13,700,000 Capacity 100% N N/S Connector Rd Stonebrook Pkwy to Wingfield Hills Rd New 2 lane road $6,600,000 Capacity 100% N North Virginia St Stead Blvd to McCarran Blvd Sidewalks and bike lanes or Shared Use path $22,015,000 Multimodal 100% N Oddie Blvd/Wells Ave I-80 to Pyramid Way Multimodal improvements $37,600,000 Multimodal 100% N Parr Blvd Ferrari McLeod to Raggio Pkwy Widen 2 to 4 lanes $6,000,000 Capacity 100% N Pyramid McCarran Blvd Improve capacity, safety & multimodal access $30,000,000 Capacity 100% N Pyramid Hwy/US 395 Connector Queen Way to Golden View Widen Pyramid to 6 lanes from Queen Way to $5,000,000 Capacity 100% Phase 1 Golden View (PE/NEPA) N Pyramid Hwy/US 395 Connector Queen Way to Golden View Widen Pyramid to 6 lanes from Queen Way to $50,500,000 Capacity 100% Phase 1 Golden View N Red Rock Rd Moya Blvd to Evans Ranch Access Widen 2 to 4 lanes $40,700,000 Capacity 100% NS Sierra Street California Ave to 9th St Widen sidewalks & add bike lanes $4,400,000 Multimodal 9% N Sky Vista Pkwy Lemmon Dr to Silver Lake Rd Widen 2 to 4 lanes $6,900,000 Capacity 100% NS Sparks Blvd Greg to Baring Multimodal improvements, widen 4 to 6 lanes from Greg to I-80, widen 4-6 lanes I-80 to Springland on the east side PE/NEPA $1,600,000 Mixed 82% NS Sparks Blvd Greg to Baring Multimodal improvements, widen 4 to 6 lanes $44,145,000 Mixed 82% from Greg to I-80, widen 4-6 lanes I-80 to Springland on the east side N Stonebrook Parkway La Posada Dr to N/S Connector Rd New 2 lane road $11,300,000 Capacity 100% N Stonebrook Parkway N/S Connector Rd to Pyramid Highway New 2 lane road $8,100,000 Capacity 100% N Sun Valley Blvd 7th Ave to Pyramid Hwy/US 395 Multimodal improvements PE/NEPA $3,000,000 Multimodal 100% Connector N Sun Valley Blvd 7th Ave to Pyramid Hwy/US 395 Multimodal improvements $41,370,000 Multimodal 100% Connector N Victorian Avenue 16th Street to Pyramid Way Bike lanes $2,300,000 Multimodal 100% NS Vine Street Riverside Drive to University Terrace Bike lanes $3,200,000 Multimodal 15% NS Virginia St Bus RAPID Extension Plumb Ln to 17th St Pedestrian improvements & pavement reconstruction $77,800,000 Multimodal 32% N Whitelake Parkway Between US 395 ramp terminals Widen 2 to 4 lanes $6,000,000 Capacity 100% N Wingfield Hills Rd Existing Wingfield Hills Rd west to David New 4 lane road $5,000,000 Capacity 100% Allen Pkwy N Additional ramps TBD - (5 ramps) $50,000,000 Capacity 50% NS ADA Accessibility Systemwide - ADA Transition Plan $1 million/year $5,000,000 ADA 0% NS ADA Accessibility Systemwide - ADA Transition Plan $1.28 million/year $5,000,000 ADA 0% 9/20/2017

33 North Service Area Capital Improvement Plan Service 2017 Year Project Limits Description Area Estimate Category % Service Area NS Ped & Bike Facilities within Systemwide - Bike-Ped Master Plan $1 million/year $5,000,000 Multimodal 50% ROW NS Ped & Bike Facilities within ROW Systemwide - Bike-Ped Master Plan $1.28 million/year $5,000,000 Multimodal 50% NS Traffic Signals/ITS Operations Systemwide $2.6 million/year $13,000,000 Capacity 50% /Roundabouts NS Traffic Signals/ITS Operations Systemwide $3.32 million/year $13,000,000 Capacity 50% /Roundabouts NS Pavement Preservation Systemwide $18.7 million/year $93,500,000 PM 0% NS Pavement Preservation Systemwide $23.8 million/year $93,500,000 PM 0% NS Debt Service $27.3 million/year $136,500,000 Debt 0% NS Debt Service $27.4 million/year $136,500,000 Debt 0% $1,064,230,000 $501,932,763 9/20/2017

34 September 28, 2017 AGENDA ITEM 5 TO: Regional Road Impact Fee Technical Advisory Committee (RRIF TAC) FROM: Julie Masterpool, P.E. RRIF Program Manager SUBJECT: Public Input This agenda item allows the public the opportunity to provide information on topics within the jurisdiction of the Regional Road Impact Fee Technical Advisory Committee (RRIF TAC). Any person wishing to wait to provide public comment on a specific agenda item should indicate that item number on the comment card. The RRIF TAC reserves the right to take all public comment during Public Input. Individuals addressing the RRIF TAC during the Public Input portion of the meeting will be limited to three minutes total. However, an individual acting as a spokesperson for a group of individuals may request additional time. Individuals are expected to provide public input in a professional and constructive manner. RTC Board: Ron Smith (Chair) Bob Lucey (Vice Chair) Paul McKenzie Marsha Berkbigler Neoma Jardon PO Box 30002, Reno, NV Terminal Way, Reno, NV rtcwashoe.com