NV - Reno: Reno City Planning Commission

Get alerted when your passions are being discussed in Reno, Washoe and more for free

Issues discussed this meeting include:

Get Alerts On New Meetings
Sign Up
When and Where is the Next Meeting?
[ See More ]

Reno City Planning Commission

Commissioners Mark Johnson, Chair 326-8864

Kathleen Taylor, Vice Chair 326-8859 Ed Hawkins 326-8862 Peter Gower 326-8860 John Marshall 326-8863 Britton Griffith 326-8858 Paul Olivas 326-8861

Posting: This agenda has been physically posted in compliance with NRS 241.020(3)(notice of meetings) at Reno City Hall One East First Street, Washoe County Downtown Reno Library 301 South Center Street, Evelyn Mount Northeast Community Center 1301 Valley Road, McKinley Arts and Culture Center 925 Riverside Drive, Reno Municipal Court One South Sierra Street, Washoe County Administration Building 1001 East 9th Street and Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority 4001 South Virginia Street, Suite G. In addition, this agenda has been electronically posted in compliance with NRS 241.020(3) at http://www.reno.gov, and NRS 232.2175 at https://notice.nv.gov/.

Accommodation: Reasonable efforts will be made to assist and accommodate physically disabled persons attending the meeting. Please contact the Community Development Department at (775) 334-2576 in advance so that arrangements can be made.

Tagged Passions:legal, streets, disability, arts, development, downtown, conventions, Development, compliance, community center, library, court, and community development

Support Materials: Staff reports and supporting material for the meeting are available at the City Clerk's Office. Please contact Ashley D. Turney, City Clerk, 1 East 1st Street, Reno, NV 89505, (775) 334-2030; turneya@reno.gov. Staff reports and supporting materials are also available on the City's website at http://www.reno.gov/meetings. Pursuant to NRS 241.020(6), supporting material is made available to the general public at the same time it is provided to the Planning Commission.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:planning, boards and commissions, streets, and materials

Order of Agenda: A time listed next to a specific agenda item indicates that the specific item will not be heard before that time it does not indicate the time schedule of any other items. Items on the agenda may be taken out of order and the public body may combine two or more agenda items for consideration. The Planning Commission may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda at any time.

Tagged Passions:planning and boards and commissions

Public Comment: A person wishing to address the Reno City Planning Commission shall submit a Request to Speak form to the Secretary. Public comment, whether on action items or general public comment, is limited to three (3) minutes per person. Unused time may not be reserved by the speaker, nor allocated to another speaker. No action may be taken on a matter raised under general public comment until the matter is included on an agenda as an item on which action may be taken. The presiding officer may prohibit comment if the content of the comments is a topic that is not relevant to, or within the authority of, the Planning Commission, or if the content is willfully disruptive of the meeting by being irrelevant, repetitious, slanderous, offensive, inflammatory, irrational or amounting to personal attacks or interfering with the rights of other speakers. Any person making willfully disruptive remarks while addressing the Reno City Planning Commission or while attending the Reno City Planning Commission meeting may be removed from the room by the presiding officer, and the person may be barred from further audience before the Reno City Planning Commission during that session of the Reno City Planning

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:planning and boards and commissions

Agenda Capital Improvements Advisory Committee August 21, 2019

Tagged Passions:capital spending and Capital Spending

Commission. See, Nevada Attorney General Opinion No. 00-047 (April 27, 2001); Nevada Open Meeting Law Manual, 8.05.

Appeal Process: Any final action (not including recommendations) or failure to take action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the Reno City Council by the applicant, the Mayor or a City Council Member, or any person who is aggrieved by the action or inaction. An appeal (together with fees) must be filed with the City Clerk within ten calendar days starting on the day after written notice of the action is filed with the City Clerk, and if the tenth calendar day falls on a weekend or holiday when the Clerk's office is not open, the appeal may be filed on the next business day. Watch Meetings: Planning Commission meetings are streamed online when the Commission is in session in Council Chamber at http://www.reno.gov/meetings and broadcast on Charter Channel 194. I Call to Order II Public Comment (This item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment.) III Public Hearing
Tagged Passions:planning, business, council, legal, boards and commissions, hearing, and holiday

3.1 Staff Report (For Possible Action - Recommendation to City Council): The City of Reno Planning Commission will convene as the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) for a presentation by the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of the 6th Edition Regional Road Impact Fee (RRIF) General Administrative Manual (GAM), Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and revised fees, for recommendation of adoption to the Reno City Council.

IV Public Comment (This item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment.) V Adjournment (For Possible Action)
Tagged Passions:planning, council, boards and commissions, streets, capital spending, Capital Spending, and transportation

1
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT

Tagged Passions:capital spending and Capital Spending

Date: August 21, 2019

To: City of Reno Capital Improvements Advisory Committee

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:capital spending and Capital Spending

Subject: 3.1. Staff Report (For Possible Action - Recommendation to City Council): The City of Reno Planning Commission will convene as the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) for a presentation by the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of the 6th Edition Regional Road Impact Fee (RRIF) General Administrative Manual (GAM), Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and revised fees, for recommendation of adoption to the Reno City Council.

From: Michael Mischel, Engineering Manager Ward : All Applicant: City of Reno Request: This is a request for the review and approval of the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) 6th Edition Regional Road Impact Fee (RRIF) General Administrative Manual (GAM), Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), and Associated Fees for recommendation of approval to the City Council. Location: Citywide, including the entire sphere of influence. Proposed Motion: I move that the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of the 6th Edition Regional Road Impact Fee (RRIF) General Administrative Manual (GAM), associated land use assumptions, Capital Improvement Plan, and Fee Schedule as outlined in the staff report.
Tagged Passions:planning, council, boards and commissions, streets, capital spending, Capital Spending, transportation, and manager

BACKGROUND: The Regional Road Impact Fee (RRIF) was created in 1996 as a funding mechanism for roadway capacity improvement projects which are directly related to new development. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS 278B) allows the imposition of such a fee. An impact fee is defined as: A charge imposed by a local government on new development to finance the costs of a capital improvement or facility expansion necessitated by and attributable to the new development.

Tagged Passions:funding, finance, facility, expansion, streets, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, and Development

Part of enacting an impact fee is the creation of a capital improvement plan. This plan indicates the nominal capacity improvement needs on the regional road network within the following ten years to accommodate future development, the cost of which is the basis of the impact fees. The

3.1
Tagged Passions:streets, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, and Development

2
nominal capacity improvements, such as new and widened roads, as well as intersection and ramp improvements, are listed in the RRIF Capital Improvements Plan (CIP).

Per NRS 278B.150, the City Council may establish the Planning Commission as the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC). On January 28, 2009, the City Council passed Resolution No. 7285 establishing the City of Reno Planning Commission as the City s Capital Improvements Advisory Committee for Impact Fees pursuant to NRS 278B.150. Provisions in NRS 278B require the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee to review the land use assumptions and determine whether they are in conformance with the Master Plan; review the capital improvements plan; and file written comments to the governing body reporting any perceived inequities in the implementation of the capital improvements plan or the imposition of an impact fee. The RRIF program is jointly administered by the RTC, the City of Reno, the City of Sparks, and Washoe County through an Interlocal Cooperative Agreement. Day to day operations are conducted by a RRIF Administrator for each participating agency with RTC responsible for updates to the RRIF program, establishing a list of projects for which the fees are based and expending RRIF revenue on eligible capacity improvements. The RRIF GAM and RRIF CIP provide the methodology used to develop the impact fee and the guidelines and procedures for implementation of the RRIF program. The update process is undertaken by the RTC in conjunction with the RRIF Technical Advisory Committee (RRIF TAC), which includes local government experts, development representatives from the private sector, and members of the local planning commissions and the RTC. The RIFF TAC recommended approval of the 6th Edition RRIF GAM and RRIF CIP on March 28, 2019, the RTC TAC and the RTC Citizens Multimodal Advisory Committee (RTC CMAC) also recommended approval on May 1, 2019 to the RTC Board. The RTC Board acknowledged receipt of, and authorized staff to present the 6th Edition RRIF GAM and RRIF CIP to each participating local government for adoption on May 20, 2019.
Tagged Passions:planning, council, boards and commissions, streets, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, procedure, program, Development, and administrator

ANALYSIS: The analysis behind the development of the CIP and proposed changes to the RRIF GAM are detailed in the attached Staff Report for the request to Approve proposed modifications to the Regional Road Impact Fee (RRIF) General Administrative Manual (GAM) and Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) by the RTC Board. The RTC Board unanimously approved the GAM and CIP in the included staff report.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:streets, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, and Development

Recommendation: I move that the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) recommend approval to the Reno City Council to adopt the 6th Edition of the Regional Road Impact Fee (RRIF) General Administrative Manual (GAM), the Capital Improvement Plan

3.1

Tagged Passions:council, streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

3
(CIP), and revised fees for the City of Reno.

Tagged Passions:capital spending and Capital Spending

Proposed Motion: I move that the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of the 6th Edition Regional Road Impact Fee (RRIF) General Administrative Manual (GAM), associated land use assumptions, Capital Improvement Plan, and Fee Schedule as outlined in the staff report.

Attachments: 6th Ed RRIF GAM-CIP RTC Staff Report (PDF) 6th Ed RRIF CIP (PDF) 6th Ed RRIF GAM (PDF) 6th Ed RRIF Fee Schedule DRAFT (PDF) 3.1 RTC Board Bob Lucey (Chairman) Neoma Jardon (Vice Chair) Vaughn Hartung Oscar Delgado Ron Smith PO Box 30002, Reno, NV 89520 1105 Terminal Way, Reno, NV 89502 775-348-0400 rtcwashoe.com

Tagged Passions:council, streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

TO: Regional Transportation Commission

FROM: Julie Masterpool, P.E. Engineer Manager/RRIF ____________________________ Lee G. Gibson, AICP Executive Director
Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, transportation, and manager

SUBJECT: 6th Edition Regional Road Impact Fee (RRIF) General Administrative Manual

(GAM) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) RECOMMENDATION Acknowledge receipt of a presentation on the Regional Road Impact Fee Program and authorize staff to present the 6th Edition of the Regional Road Impact Fee (RRIF) General Administrative Manual (GAM) and Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to the Planning Commission and Elected Board of each participating local government for adoption. SUMMARY In accordance with the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperative Agreement entered into by the RTC, Washoe County, the City of Reno, and the City of Sparks, the RTC is responsible for initiating periodic reviews of the program and proposing modifications to the participating governments. The review process is undertaken by the RTC in conjunction with the RRIF Technical Advisory Committee (RRIF TAC), which includes local government technical experts, development representatives from the private sector, members of the local planning commissions, and the RTC. Final recommendations of this committee were made by unanimous vote on March 28, 2019. The proposed revisions were endorsed by unanimous vote by the RTC TAC and RTC CMAC on May 1, 2019. Approval of this item will authorize staff to present the 6th Edition RRIF GAM and CIP recommended by the RRIF TAC to the planning commissions and elected bodies of the participating governments for adoption.
Tagged Passions:planning, boards and commissions, streets, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, program, and Development

RRIF Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)

The RRIF Capital Improvement Plan (RRIF CIP) outlines the methodology used to calculate the RRIF fees. See Attachment A. The proposed changes to the RRIF CIP include the following: 3.1.a A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F G AM -C IP R TC S ta ff Re po rt

Tagged Passions:capital spending and Capital Spending

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed

RRIF GAM and CIP RTC Staff Report May 20, 2019

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:capital spending and Capital Spending

New list of capacity improvement projects based on the first 10 years of the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan Amendment No. 1 and divided into separate CIPs for the North and South Service Area.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:capital spending, Capital Spending, and transportation

Cost of the improvements included in the proposed RRIF CIPs adjusted to 2019 dollars and new development s share of the CIPs adjusted to account for anticipated federal, state, and local funding.

Growth in development units, measured in Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMTs), based on the 2016 Consensus Forecast. Updated average trip lengths on the regional road network based on the 2040 Travel Demand Model. Updated average daily traffic (ADT) for individual land uses based on the ITE 10th Edition Trip Generation Manual. The analysis resulted in new impact fee rates for the North and South Service Areas and are presented in the RRIF Schedule in Attachment B. While the /VMT rates for both the North and South Service Area increased slightly, the impact fees owed decreased for the majority individual land uses. The reduction in cost is a result of lower average trip lengths and the average daily traffic (ADTs) used in the 6th Edition.
Tagged Passions:funding, streets, travel, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, Development, rates, traffic, and growth

RRIF General Administrative Manual (GAM)

The RRIF General Administrative Manual (RRIF GAM) provides the guidelines and procedures used to administer the RRIF Program and identifies the land used definitions used in assessing impact fees. See Attachment C. The proposed changes to the GAM consisted of minor text modifications/clarifications to remove ambiguity, to provide additional detail necessary for consistent administration, and the addition of some new features which address the timing and sequence of real world development activities while maintaining the control necessary to insure the delivery of quality constructed projects. The proposed changes to the RRIF GAM included the following:
Tagged Passions:development, procedure, program, and Development

IX.
Exemptions B.4. State Buildings Per an opinion issued by the State Attorney General, the State of Nevada is exempt from the payment of impact fees.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:legal

X.
Impact Fee Offsets Requested after the 5th Edition RRIF GAM CIP (3/2/2018) Update B.1. Offset Agreements Due to the timing of adoption of the RRIF CIP and subsequently eligible improvements constructed by private development, the RRIF TAC determined it would be in the best interest of the program to modify language regarding RRIF Offset agreements to allow RRIF Waivers to be earned for improvements constructed prior to an executed Offset Agreement pending approval of the agreement within 12 months after start of construction or completion of work or prior to completion of the eligible improvements.

3.1.a A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F G AM -C IP R TC S ta ff Re po rt

Tagged Passions:construction, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, program, and Development

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed

RRIF GAM and CIP RTC Staff Report May 20, 2019

FISCAL IMPACT There is no budgetary impact associated with this Board action. Adoption of the RRIF GAM and CIP by the local jurisdictions will establish the new impact fee rates to be charged to new development building permit applications. The selection of roadway capacity improvement projects to be designed and constructed with collected impact fees will continue to be included in the appropriate Programs of Projects (POP) and fiscal year budgets submitted to the RTC Board for approval. PREVIOUS ACTIONS BY BOARD There has been no previous Board action or direction on this matter. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND Impact fees were developed as a funding tool for collecting the cost of building additional public capacity improvements required to accommodate new development. The Nevada Legislature enacted NRS 278B in 1989 which outlined the general components required for impact fee programs. NRS 278B allows for specific infrastructure improvements such as streets, fire and police stations, sanitary and storm sewers, drainage projects, water projects, and parks to be funded with impact fees. Impact fees can only be used for new capacity improvements established for a specific service area and identified in a Capital Improvement Plan, not to exceed 10 years. Impact fees cannot be used for maintenance or operating expenses. Impact fees are not intended to pay for all new capacity needs, only new development s share. The Regional Road Impact Fee (RRIF) Program was implemented in 1996 through the adoption of local impact fee ordinances by Reno, Sparks and Washoe County. Impact fees have advantages over previous negotiated exaction methods as it allows all new development to pay their fair share in funding transportation improvements. Under the exaction process, the first project to develop could be conditioned to build significant roadway improvements that ultimately benefit more than their single development. When another project was ready to develop, the roadway improvements would already be complete, and therefore the second development would not be required to build or make contributions to accommodate the impacts their new development incurred on the road network. Under an impact fee program, all new development pays a fee proportional to their impact on the transportation network. The RRIF program is jointly administered by the RTC, Reno, Sparks and Washoe County through an Interlocal Cooperative Agreement. Day to day operations are conducted by a RRIF Administrator for each participating agency with the RTC responsible for updates to the RRIF program, establishing the list of projects for which the fees are based, and expending RRIF revenue on eligible capacity improvements. The RRIF Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and RRIF General Administrative Manual (GAM) provide the methodology used to develop the impact fee and the guidelines and procedures for implementation of the program. 3.1.a A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F G AM -C IP R TC S ta ff Re po rt

Tagged Passions:funding, ordinance, sewer, streets, budget, utility, development, capital spending, Utility, public safety, Capital Spending, transportation, procedure, program, water, parks, Development, administrator, rates, selection, and stormwater

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed

RRIF GAM and CIP RTC Staff Report May 20, 2019

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:capital spending and Capital Spending

Impact fees represent new development s share of the cost of regional roadway capacity improvements needed within a 10 year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to maintain the policy level of service. Using the consensus forecast, population and employment growth is allocated to various parcels based on the likelihood of development through an analysis of suitability factors through TMRPA s Development Model. The resulting growth patterns are incorporated into the RTC s Travel Demand Model to determine where roadway capacity improvements will be needed. New development s share of the CIP takes into account other anticipated funding sources, such as federal, state, and local funding that will be used to construct a portion of the capacity projects listed on the CIP.

Tagged Passions:funding, travel, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, employment, Development, property, policy, and growth

Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMTs) are used as the service unit for allocating the cost of future CIP improvements. Population and employment are converted into development units, ie, housing types and land uses, to estimate the number of new vehicle trips on the regional network. A cost per VMT rate is established by dividing the developer s share of the CIP by the growth in VMT s over the 10 year timeframe.

NRS included a provision that limited an entire city from being within the same Service Area. The RRIF Program established two separate service areas, dividing both the Cities of Reno and Sparks to satisfy this requirement. Therefore, two independent fee structures were developed for the North and South Service Areas. Impact fees are assessed at the building permit stage on new development using the land use category that best represents the additional traffic placed on the regional road system by the proposed development. Impact fees are collected by the local agencies and transferred to the RTC on a quarterly basis. The monies are then expended for CIP projects selected and approved by the RTC Board and local governmental agencies. The RRIF Program also allows private development to build the public capacity improvements, usually adjacent to the new development. In return, a developer receives impact fee waivers (previously known as credits) which may be used to pay impact fees owed within the development of record. Road improvements built by private development must be on the CIP and covered under a RRIF Offset Agreement with RTC, the developer, and the local agency having jurisdiction over the proposed improvement. RRIF fees may also be indexed in each year which new fees are not adopted due to revisions to the land use assumptions or update of the CIP. Indexed fees are increased based on a five (5) year rolling average of the Consumers Price Index or by 5 , whichever is less. Since the inception of the RRIF Program, 95 million in impact fees has been collected, which has been used to build additional capacity improvements on the regional network. In addition, private development has built 206 million in roadway improvements, and in return, received compensation in the form of impact fee credits (now issued as waivers) to be used as payment for impact fees. 3.1.a A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F G AM -C IP R TC S ta ff Re po rt

Tagged Passions:compensation, streets, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, program, employment, Development, traffic, growth, and housing

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed

RRIF GAM and CIP RTC Staff Report May 20, 2019

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:capital spending and Capital Spending

ADVISORY COMMITTEE(S) RECOMMENDATION

The Regional Road Impact Fee Technical Advisory Committee (RRIF TAC) met on March 28, 2019 and recommended approval of the 6th Edition of the RRIF General Administrative Manual (GAM) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens Multimodal Advisory Committee (CMAC) met on May 1, 2019, and acknowledged receipt of a presentation on the 6th Edition Regional Road Impact Fee General Administrative Manual (GAM) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and recommended approval. Attachments 3.1.a A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F G AM -C IP R TC S ta ff Re po rt
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed

REGIONAL ROAD IMPACT FEE SYSTEM

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 6TH EDITION 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P
Tagged Passions:streets

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page ii
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I.
INTENT AND HISTORY ....................................................................................... 1

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:history

II.
SERVICE AREA/BENEFIT DISTRICTS ............................................................... 1

No additional detail provided

III.
REGIONAL ROAD NETWORK ............................................................................ 4

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:streets

IV.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ...................................................................... 4

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:capital spending and Capital Spending

V.
SERVICE UNITS .................................................................................................. 5

No additional detail provided

VI.
PROJECTED VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL (VMT) ............................................ 5

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:travel

VII.
NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT ......................................................................... 7

No additional detail provided

VIII.
IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE EQUIVALENCY RATES .......................................... 10

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:rates

IX.
IMPACT FEE COST SCHEDULE ....................................................................... 13

3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page iii
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 North Service Area Travel Demand .................................................6

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:travel

Table 2 South Service Area Travel Demand ................................................7

Table 3 2040 RTP Revenue Projections .......................................................8 Table 4 Regional Funding .............................................................................8 Table 5 New Development Share Funding ...................................................9 Table 6 Capital Improvement Plans by Service Area ....................................9 Table 7 Vehicle Miles Traveled Rates ........................................................ 10 Table 8 Service Units Generation by Land Use North Service Area ........ 12 Table 9 Service Units Generation by Land Use South Service Area ....... 13

Tagged Passions:funding, travel, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, Development, and rates

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 RRIF Service Areas and Benefit Districts ........................................3

No additional detail provided

LIST OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT A ACCESS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS ....................................... 14

EXHIBIT B TYPICAL ROW SECTIONS ........................................................... 15 EXHIBIT C 2040 RTP 2017-2026 PROJECT LISTING .................................... 19

EXHIBIT D NORTH SOUTH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS ................. 20

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:capital spending and Capital Spending

EXHIBIT E NORTH SOUTH IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES ............................ 21

3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 1
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

REGIONAL ROAD IMPACT FEE SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN

Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

I.
INTENT AND HISTORY

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:history

Impact fees are charges against new development to fund the construction and/or expansion of future off-site capacity improvements necessitated by and to benefit new development within a defined region.

The Regional Road Impact Fee (RRIF) program was implemented in November 1995 as a way to fund regional road capital improvements and charge new development their proportionate fair share cost of needed capacity improvements. As required by the Nevada impact fee statute, NRS 278B, Impact Fees for New Development, impact fee programs require the preparation of a capital improvements plan (CIP), a list of capacity projects, over a period not to exceed 10 years for which the fees are based. With the preparation of the 10 year RRIF CIP and its companion, General Administrative Manual, the RRIF program is adopted and is jointly administered by the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (RTC), the City of Reno, the City of Sparks and Washoe County, within the framework of an Interlocal cooperation agreement as authorized by the State Interlocal Cooperation Act. Revenue collection through the RRIF program began in February 1996. As indicated in the General Administration Manual, the RRIF Program will be reviewed and updated every two years. Contained in this document is an explanation of the methodology used to compute the road impact fees, a listing of proposed roadway projects and their associate costs, and an impact fee schedule based on the cost per service unit.
Tagged Passions:construction, expansion, boards and commissions, streets, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, transportation, program, and Development

II.
SERVICE AREAS/BENEFIT DISTRICTS

No additional detail provided

Impact fees must be assessed uniformly within defined service areas. Impact fee service areas serve two distinct purposes. The first purpose is for fee calculation (i.e., a road impact fee schedule applies to all new development within a defined service area). The second purpose is to show benefit to fee-paying development (impact fees collected in the service area are spent within the service area).

Initially, the impact fee program was created using a single service area with three benefit districts under the assumption that a single regional service area is appropriate for a regional road network. The major roadway network functions as a system to facilitate the movement of traffic throughout the region. Travel on the major roadway system during the peak hour, the most critical time period, tends to be dominated by relatively long commuting trips. 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P
Tagged Passions:streets, travel, development, program, Development, and traffic

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 2 The Benefit Districts are shown in Figure 1 and defined as:
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

Northwest Benefit District Starting at the southwest corner of the district at the California Nevada state line and Interstate 80, follow the state line north to the northern boundary of the Washoe County North Valleys Area (i.e., northern boundary of the Red Rock Hydrographic Basin boundary), then east along the northern boundary of the North Valleys Planning Area (i.e. northern boundary of the Red Rock and Bedell Flat Hydrographic Basin boundary), then south along the eastern edge of the North Valleys Planning Area (i.e. eastern boundary of the Bedell Flat and Antelope Valley Hydrographic Basin boundary) to the western edge of the Washoe County Sun Valley Planning Area boundary, then continue south along the western edge of the Sun Valley Planning Area to US 395 at the Sutro Street terminus then southeast along the US 395 alignment to Interstate 80, then west along Interstate 80 to the state line.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:planning, streets, and transportation

Northeast Benefit District Starting at the southwest corner of the district at the US395/Interstate 80 interchange, follow US 395 northwest to the Sutro Street terminus, then continue north along the western edge of the Washoe County Sun Valley Planning Area to the eastern edge of the Washoe County North Valleys Planning area, then north to the western edge of the Washoe County Warm Springs Planning Area, then north to the northwest corner of the Warm Springs Planning Area, then east along the northern boundary of the Warm Springs Planning Area, then southwest and south along the boundary of the Warm Springs Planning Area, then west along the southern boundary of the Warm Springs Planning Area to the eastern edge of the Washoe County Spanish Springs Planning Area and the Washoe County Truckee Canyon Planning Area, then southwest along the western edge of the Truckee Canyon Planning Area to Interstate 80, then west along Interstate 80 to US 395.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:planning, streets, and transportation

South Benefit District Starting at the northwest corner of the district at the California/Nevada line and Interstate 80, follow Interstate 80 east to the western edge of the Washoe county Truckee Canyon Planning Area, then south along the Washoe County/Storey County line to the Washoe County/Carson City line, then west along the Washoe County/Carson City line to the southern jurisdictional line of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Washoe County Tahoe Planning Area, then north along the California/Nevada line to Interstate 80.

During the update to the 5th Edition RRIF GAM and CIP, the geographic area defining the service boundary was modified to meet NRS 278B.100 which limited a single service area from incorporating an entire city (or county) whose population 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P

Tagged Passions:planning, capital spending, Capital Spending, and transportation

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 3 NORTH SERVICE AREA SOUTH SERVICE AREA FIGURE 1 REGIONAL ROAD IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREAS AND BENEFIT DISTRICTS 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 4
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

is over 15,000. A North Service Area was created by combining the Northeast and Northwest Benefit Districts and the South Benefit District was used as the boundary of the South Service Area. The boundaries of the North and South Service Areas divide both the City of Reno and Sparks, meeting the NRS requirement. Separate Capital Improvement Plans and subsequent fees are calculated for each Service Area with revenue generated from the payment of impact fees to be spent within the Service Area it was collected.

Tagged Passions:capital spending and Capital Spending

III.
REGIONAL ROAD NETWORK

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:streets

NRS 278B authorizes local governments to adopt impact fees for street projects, which are defined as arterial or collector streets or roads that have been designated on the streets and highways plan in the master plan adopted by the local government pursuant to NRS 278.220, including all appurtenances and incidentals necessary for any such facilities.

Only those roadways, existing and planned, that are identified as part of the regional road network in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) are eligible for funding with Regional Road Impact Fees. All high (expressway), moderate (major) and low (minor) access control arterial roadways, as defined in the RTP, within the service area, excluding freeways, are included in the regional road network. Most freeway ramps are deemed by the RTC as regionally significant and are included. In addition, collectors are included if they have a forecast volume of 5,000 average daily trips at build-out. Build-out is defined as the full development of the master planned land use in each jurisdiction. The roadways and their classifications are included in the regional road network as listed and defined in the 2040 RTP in Appendix E, Table E-3 Regional Road System. For purposes of the Regional Road Impact Fee Program, the RRIF Network excludes limited access highways, i.e., I-80, I-580, and US 395 and all local streets. In addition, the RRIF Program excludes collectors with a forecast volume of less than 14,000 annualized average daily trips at build-out. New roadways proposed by a private development and not listed on the RRIF Capital Improvement Plan may be added to the RRIF Network coincident with or after the first two lanes are constructed and if it provides a significant connection between other regional roads or services regional traffic in excess of the proposed development.
Tagged Passions:funding, streets, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, transportation, services, program, Development, access control, and traffic

IV.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN

The Regional Road Impact Fees are based on the development of a regional impact fee capital improvement plans (CIP) that identify planned projects over a 10 year timeframe to provide additional roadway capacity to accommodate new development within each Service Area. The RRIF CIPs were established based on the projects identified in the first 10 years of the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan Amendment No. 1 Appendix A: Complete Streets Project Listing. The projects included in the 2040 RTP were 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P

Tagged Passions:streets, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, transportation, and Development

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 5 identified as necessary to accommodate new growth based on analysis of existing and forecasted conditions, regional travel demand model outputs incorporating the adopted land use assumptions, and the professional judgment of transportation planners of the RTC and participating local governments. The RTP also includes livability projects which address the safety and mobility needs of all corridor travelers. While livability projects do not necessarily add lane capacity, bicycle and pedestrian improvements have been determined a benefit to new development based on regional growth and included in the RRIF CIPs. Construction cost estimates were developed as part of the RTP process for each roadway project based on generalized cost estimates for the various types of improvements.
Tagged Passions:construction, streets, travel, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, transportation, Development, Bicycles, corridor, Pedestrian, growth, and bicycles

V.
SERVICE UNITS

NRS 278B requires that capital facilities, and the demand for those facilities, be expressed in terms of service units . The statute defines a service unit as a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge which is attributable to an individual unit of development calculated for a particular category of capital improvements or facility expansions . Road impact fees use Average Weekday Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) as the service units for allocating the cost of future improvements.

Tagged Passions:facility, expansion, streets, travel, development, capital spending, Capital Spending, and Development

VI.
PROJECTED VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL (VMT)

Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) is the product of vehicle trips generated by land use categories multiplied by the average trip length.

Tagged Passions:travel

To determine the number of VMTs, an aggregate travel model was created to convert development units within each of the North and South Service Areas to vehicle trips. Projected development units are consistent with the master plans of Reno, Sparks and Washoe County. TMRPA s Population Employment model uses the 2016 Consensus Forecast to predict where and what type of growth will occur. Information on the future growth is incorporated into RTC s travel demand model by location (travel analysis zones). Population is converted to number of housing units and housing types based on statistical data from the 2016 American Community Survey for Washoe County. Employment is broken down into employment categories and total square footage using standardized square foot per employee by employment type. Vehicle trips can then be calculated using ITE Trip Generation rates.

The Average Trip Length, measured in miles, is an output of the regional travel demand-forecasting model. Trip lengths by service area represents travel on the regional road network, excluding travel on local residential streets and freeways. The average trip length for the North Service Area on the regional road network is 2.79 miles and 2.64 miles for the South Service Area. 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P
Tagged Passions:streets, travel, development, employment, Development, rates, growth, community development, and housing

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 6
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

Table 1 and Table 2 below show the conversion of Population and Employment to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Projections are calculated for 2015 and 2030 and prorated for the intermediate years to determine the 10-year growth in VMT per Service Area (highlighted in green).

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:travel, employment, and growth

Table 1 North Service Area Travel Demand

North Service Area 2015 2019 2029 2030 2019-2029 Increase Total Population 262,793 276,604 314,394 318,446 37,790 Total Housing Units 112,786 118,714 134,933 136,672 16,219 Single Housing Units 78,596 82,726 94,029 95,240 11,302 2+ Housing Units 34,191 35,988 40,904 41,432 4,917 Industrial Jobs 14,706 16,408 21,574 22,173 5,166 Commercial Jobs 12,244 13,056 15,330 15,578 2,274 All Other Services Jobs 48,757 51,639 59,610 60,472 7,971 Total Jobs 75,707 81,103 96,514 98,223 15,412 KSF Industrial KSF 32,877 36,682 48,232 49,571 11,550 Commercial KSF 6,122 6,528 7,665 7,789 1,137 All Other Services KSF 16,619 17,602 20,319 20,613 2,717 Vehicle Trips Single Unit Trips 349,845 368,232 418,540 423,934 50,308 2+ Units Trips 103,653 109,101 124,006 125,604 14,905 Industrial Trips 58,521 65,293 85,853 88,236 20,560 Commercial Trips 86,265 91,987 108,007 109,755 16,020 All Other Services Trips 91,656 97,073 112,058 113,679 14,985 Total Vehicle Trips 689,941 731,686 848,464 861,207 116,778 Weekday Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) 1,995,679 2,111,505 2,433,550 2,468,528 322,046 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P

Tagged Passions:travel, industrial, services, commercial, jobs, and housing

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 7
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

Table 2 South Service Area Travel Demand

South Service Area 2015 2019 2029 2030 2019-2029 Increase Total Population 161,371 169,853 193,058 195,546 23,205 Total Housing Units 69,258 72,898 82,858 83,925 9,959 Single Housing Units 48,263 50,799 57,740 58,484 6,940 2+ Housing Units 20,995 22,099 25,118 25,442 3,019 Industrial Jobs 35,608 36,327 38,189 38,380 1,862 Commercial Jobs 22,250 23,185 25,698 25,964 2,513 All Other Services Jobs 128,544 134,562 150,868 152,604 16,306 Total Jobs 186,402 194,074 214,755 216,948 20,681 KSF Industrial KSF 79,606 81,214 85,376 85,804 4,162 Commercial KSF 11,125 11,593 12,849 12,982 1,257 All Other Services KSF 43,816 45,867 51,425 52,017 5,558 Vehicle Trips Single Unit Trips 215,209 226,520 257,467 260,786 30,947 2+ Units Trips 63,763 67,114 76,283 77,266 9,169 Industrial Trips 141,699 144,561 151,969 152,730 7,408 Commercial Trips 156,762 163,350 181,056 182,929 17,706 All Other Services Trips 241,644 252,957 283,611 286,874 30,654 Total Vehicle Trips 819,078 854,502 950,387 960,585 95,885 Weekday Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) 1,903,071 1,988,703 2,221,055 2,245,814 232,352

Tagged Passions:travel, industrial, services, commercial, jobs, and housing

VII.
NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT

The cost per service unit is determined by dividing the cost of providing additional roadway capacity by the amount of new capacity supplied. NRS 278B requires that impact fees take into account other funding sources. The financial investment plan developed in conjunction with the 2040 RTP, Chapter 11 Investing Strategically, identifies the funding sources to be used over the various timeframes of the RTP. The major sources of funding for improvements to the regional roadway network are based on Federal, State, Regional (Fuel Tax, and Sales Tax) plus Other Revenue Sources, i.e., private development. 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P

Tagged Passions:funding, finance, sale, taxes, Taxes, development, Development, and investment

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 8 Table 3 2040 RTP Revenue Projections Fund Source 2017-2021 2022-2026 2017-2026 Total
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

Federal 188,534,000 222,985,000 411,519,000 State 168,300,000 356,489,000 524,789,000 Regional (Fuel, Sales, RRIF) 458,111,000 528,573,000 986,684,000 Other Revenues (Private) 57,000,000 83,800,000 140,800,000 Total 871,945,000 1,191,847,000 2,063,792,000

Tagged Passions:sale

Source: RTP Amendment 1 - Chapter 11 - Investing Strategically

No additional detail provided

Based on the above, approximately 936 million in Federal and State Highway funds are anticipated to be available over the ten-year period to help fund improvements identified in the Regional Road Impact Fee CIPs. Another 1.1 million in Regional and Other Revenue funds are anticipated to support roadway improvements.

Tagged Passions:funding, streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

Breaking down the Regional funding sources for Fuel Tax, Sales Tax, and RRIF, result in the following:

Table 4 Regional Funding Fund Source 2017-2021 2022-2026 2017-2026 Total Fuel Tax 406,344,091 465,378,079 871,722,170 Sales Tax 27,205,268 34,721,582 61,926,850 RRIF 24,561,522 28,473,535 53,035,057 Regional Total 458,110,881 528,573,196 986,684,077 Source: RTC Finance
Tagged Passions:funding, finance, sale, taxes, and Taxes

To determine new developments share, funding for RRIF revenues were added to the Other Revenues (Private) in Table 5. The costs listed in the RTP were based on year of expenditure, therefore revenues were converted to 2019 dollars for a total RRIF Share of 176 million.

3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P

Tagged Passions:funding, development, and Development

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 9 Table 5 New Development Share Funding Fund Source 2017-2021 2022-2026 2017-2026 Total 2017-2026 Totals (2019 ) RRIF 24,561,522 28,473,535 53,035,057 49,080,150 Other Revenues (Private) 57,000,000 83,800,000 140,800,000 126,970,015 Total RRIF Share 81,561,522 112,273,535 193,835,057 176,050,165 Since the RRIF program has two separate Service Areas, the projects in the the first 10 years of the RTP must also be divided into separate CIPs for each Service Area. The cost for each project was assigned to the service area it was located. If the project crossed the service area boundary, costs were prorated based on the length of the project within the service area. Costs for program level improvements, i.e., Traffic Signals, ITS Operations Intersections, Pedestrian Bicycle Facility Improvements, etc., were split equally between service areas. In addition, RTP which includes not only capacity and livability projects, but non- RRIF eligible programs, i.e., pavement preservation, freeway improvements, bridge replacements ADA Accessibility Improvement Program, and debt service. In addition, to avoid double payment for growth-related improvements using other funding sources, costs for projects fully funded by Federal, State, and Fuel Tax Bonding were removed from the list of projects used to develop the impact fee rates. CIPs by Service Area
Tagged Passions:funding, facility, streets, disability, taxes, Taxes, development, capital spending, bond, Capital Spending, program, Development, preservation, Bicycles, Pedestrian, rates, traffic, growth, and bicycles

Timeframe North Service Area South Service

Area 2017-2026 Total

2017-2021 RTP 390,582,000 481,318,000 871,900,000 2022-2026 RTP 645,775,000 545,975,000 1,191,750,000 Total RTP 2017-2026 1,036,357,000 1,027,293,000 2,063,650,000 Capacity Related RTP* 427,729,055 301,352,036 729,081,091 Capacity Related RTP 58.67 41.33 100

3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 10 Of the RRIF Eligible projects listed in the RTP, 58.67 are attributable to the North Service Area and 41.33 to the South Service Area. These percentages were then used to estimate the distribution of 176 million of RRIF Revenue used to fund the RRIF CIPs. Table 7 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Rates
Tagged Passions:streets, travel, capital spending, Capital Spending, and rates

Description North Service Area South Service Area

No additional detail provided

Total RRIF Share 176,050,165 RRIF Eligible RTP 58.67 41.33 RRIF Share by Service Area 103,283,121 72,767,044 VMT Growth by Service Area 322,046 232,352 /VMT for RRIF Share 320.71 313.18

Tagged Passions:growth

VIII.
IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE EQUIVALENCY RATES

This section describes the determination of an appropriate equivalency rate that estimates the number of service units generated by specific land use types. For the purpose of fee assessment, the demand placed on the roadway system by new development is expressed in terms of vehicle miles of travel during an average weekday. VMT is a product of trip generation and the average length of a trip. The input variables used to calculate VMT are summarized below. Trip generation rates, expressed as average weekday Vehicle Trip Ends (VTE) by land use categories, are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition). Rates were established for specific land use types within the broader categories of residential, office, commercial, industrial and institutional land uses. Rates are per dwelling unit, 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, or other appropriate unit of development. Since ITE rates represent the total number of trips (inbound and outbound) associated with a specific land use, all trip rates have been divided by two to eliminate double-charging any particular trip. This places the burden of travel equally between the origin and destination of the trip. Trip adjustment factors also include adjustments to accommodate pass-by and diverted trips. Pass-by trips are those trips that are already on a particular route for a different purpose and simply stop at a particular development on that route. For example, a stop at a convenience store on the way home from the office is a pass-by trip for the convenience store. A pass-by trip does not create an additional burden on the street system and therefore should not be counted in the assessment of impact fees. A diverted trip is similar to a pass-by trip, but a diversion is made from the regular route to make an interim stop. On a system- 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P

Tagged Passions:streets, travel, development, industrial, transportation, Development, commercial, and rates

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 11
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

wide basis, this trip also does not add an additional burden on the street system, so it is not considered in assessing impact fees. In addition, residential development has a larger trip adjustment factor of 52 to account for commuters leaving Washoe County for work. In other words, residential development is assigned all inbound trips plus 15 of outbound trips to account for job locations outside of Washoe County, calculated as follows. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey weekday work trips are typically 31 of production trips (i.e., all out-bound trips). As shown in the Census Bureau s web application, OnTheMap indicates that approximately 15 of resident workers traveled outside the county for work in 2011. In combination, these factors (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.15 = 0.02) support the additional 2 allocation of trips to residential development. For commercial development, the trip adjustment factor is less than 50 because retail development attracts vehicles as they pass by on arterial and collector roads. For an average shopping center, ITE data indicate 34 of the vehicles that enter are passing by on their way to some other primary destination. The remaining 66 of attraction trips have the commercial site as their primary destination. Because attraction trips are half of all trips, the trip adjustment factor is 66 multiplied by 50 , or approximately 33 of the trip ends. Many institutional land uses, like schools, also have significant pass-by and diverted link trips as children are dropped off and picked up by parents on their way to some other primary destination. Given this travel pattern, the pass-by adjustment for schools and daycare utilized the commercial trip adjustment factor. Average Trip Length, measured in miles, is derived from the computerized regional travel demand-forecasting model. The recommended trip lengths by service area for the regional road network excludes travel on local streets and freeways. The average trip length for the North Service Area on the regional road network is 2.79 miles and 2.64 miles for the South Service Area. Trip length weighting factors are used to account for trip length variations by the type of land use. Per the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, vehicle trips from residential development account for 121 of the average trip length. Conversely, shopping trips associated with commercial development are roughly 66 of the average trip length while other non-residential development typically accounts for trips that are 73 of the average for all trips.

The result of combining trip generation and trip length information is an equivalency table establishing the number of service units (VMT) generated by various land use types per unit of development. The recommended equivalency rates are presented in Tables 7 and 8. 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P
Tagged Passions:streets, preschool, travel, development, Development, commercial, education, Child Care, rates, and parents

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 12
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

Table 8 North Service Area

No additional detail provided

Service Unit Generation by Land Use

Development Type Development Unit Avg Wkdy

Tagged Passions:development and Development

Veh Trip Ends Trip Rate

Adjustment Trip Length Adjustment

No additional detail provided

6th Ed North VMTs

Residential Single Unit Dwelling 8.56 52 121 15.03 3+ Units per Structure Dwelling 5.83 52 121 10.23 Industrial Light Industrial 1000 Sq Ft 4.96 50 73 5.05 Manufacturing 1000 Sq Ft 3.93 50 73 4.00 Warehouse 1000 Sq Ft 1.74 50 73 1.77 Mini-Warehouse 1000 Sq Ft 1.51 50 73 1.54 Commercial Retail and Eating/Drinking Places 1000 Sq Ft 37.75 33 66 22.94 Casino Gaming Area 1000 Sq Ft 46.05 50 73 46.90 Office Other Services Lodging Room 3.35 50 73 3.41 Public Park Acre 2.28 50 73 2.32 Schools and Daycare 1000 Sq Ft 19.52 33 73 13.12 Hospital 1000 Sq Ft 10.72 50 73 10.92 Nursing Home 1000 Sq Ft 6.64 50 73 6.76 Office and Other Services 1000 Sq Ft 9.74 50 73 9.92 Medical Office 1000 Sq Ft 34.80 50 73 35.44
Tagged Passions:hospital, preschool, industrial, gambling, seniors, services, healthcare, parks, commercial, education, and Child Care

Sources: Trip Generation by land use category is based on the ITE Trip Generation 10th Edition. VMTs are the resulting calculation of Avg weekday vehicle trips x Trip Rate Adjustment x Trip Length Adjustment x Average Trip Length for the South Service Area (2.79 miles)

3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 13
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

Table 9 South Service Area

No additional detail provided

Service Unit Generation by Land Use

Development Type Development Unit Avg Wkdy

Tagged Passions:development and Development

Veh Trip Ends Trip Rate

Adjustment Trip Length Adjustment

No additional detail provided

6th Ed South VMT's

Residential Single Unit Dwelling 8.56 52 121 14.22 3+ Units per Structure Dwelling 5.83 52 121 9.68 Industrial Light Industrial 1000 Sq Ft 4.96 50 73 4.78 Manufacturing 1000 Sq Ft 3.93 50 73 3.79 Warehouse 1000 Sq Ft 1.74 50 73 1.68 Mini-Warehouse 1000 Sq Ft 1.51 50 73 1.46 Commercial Retail and Eating/Drinking Places 1000 Sq Ft 37.75 33 66 21.71 Casino Gaming Area 1000 Sq Ft 46.05 50 73 44.37 Office Other Services Lodging Room 3.35 50 73 3.23 Public Park Acre 2.28 50 73 2.20 Schools and Daycare 1000 Sq Ft 19.52 33 73 12.41 Hospital 1000 Sq Ft 10.72 50 73 10.33 Nursing Home 1000 Sq Ft 6.64 50 73 6.40 Office and Other Services 1000 Sq Ft 9.74 50 73 9.39 Medical Office 1000 Sq Ft 34.80 50 73 33.53
Tagged Passions:hospital, preschool, industrial, gambling, seniors, services, healthcare, parks, commercial, education, and Child Care

Sources: Trip Generation by land use category is based on the ITE Trip Generation 10th Edition. VMTs are the resulting calculation of Avg weekday vehicle trips x Trip Rate Adjustment x Trip Length Adjustment x Average Trip Length for the South Service Area (2.64 miles)

IX.
IMPACT FEE COST SCHEDULE

The Regional Road Impact fee for a given land use type is the product of the number of service units generated by the land use and net cost per service unit. Based on the North and South Service Areas Capital Improvements Program, and the data, analysis and assumptions contained in this manual, the impact fees by land use type are presented in Exhibit E. 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P

Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, Capital Spending, and program

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 14
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

EXHIBIT A ACCESS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS

3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 15 EXHIBIT B TYPICAL 2-LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 16 EXHIBIT B TYPICAL 4-LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 17 EXHIBIT B TYPICAL 6-LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 18 EXHIBIT B TYPICAL 8-LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION 3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, and Capital Spending

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) Regional Road Impact Fee System Capital Improvements Plan Page 19 EXHIBIT C 2040 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Tagged Passions:streets, capital spending, Capital Spending, and transportation

2017-2026 PROJECT LISTING

3.1.b A tta ch m en t: 6t h Ed R RI F CI P

34
: A

do pt

ion of

R TC 6t h E dit ion of R eg ion al Ro ad Im pa ct Fe e ( RR IF) an d a ss oc iat ed G AM an d C IP ) EXHIBIT C 2040 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2017 2026 PROJECT LISTING
Tagged Passions:transportation

Timefame A 1

Service Area Roadway Limits Description RTP

2017 21 S 2nd Street Keystone Ave to I 580 Multimodal improvements (Phase 1) 3,000,000

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:streets

2017 21 NS 4th St/Prater Way Bus RAPID Transit Project

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:Public Transit

Evans Ave to Pyramid Hwy RAPID Extension Complete Street Improvements 57,800,000

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:streets and streetscape

2017 21 S 4th Street (Reno) Keystone Avenue to Evans Ave Enhanced sidewalks and bus/bike lanes, intersection improvements

8,300,000

Tagged Passions:streets, Public Transit, Bicycles, Pedestrian, and bicycles

2017 21 NS ADA Accessibility Improvements Spot improvements systemwide ADA Transition Plan

Tagged Passions:disability

1
million per year 5,500,000

2022 26 NS ADA Accessibility Improvements Spot improvements systemwide ADA Transition Plan

1.28 million per year 6,400,000
Tagged Passions:disability

2017 21 S Arlington Ave At Truckee River Bridge Replace existing bridges (PE/NEPA) 500,000

Tagged Passions:watershed

2022 26 S Arlington Ave At Truckee River Bridge Replace existing bridges 25,500,000

Tagged Passions:watershed

2022 26 S Arrowcreek Pkwy Wedge Pkwy to Zolezzi Ln Widen 2 to 4 lanes 8,300,000

2022 26 N Buck Dr Lemmon Dr to N Hills Blvd Widen 2 to 4 lanes 1,700,000

2017 21 S Center Street S Virginia to I 80 Widen sidewalks add bike lanes 5,400,000

Tagged Passions:streets, Bicycles, Pedestrian, and bicycles

2022 26 S Damonte Ranch Pkwy Veterans Pkwy to Rio Wrangler Pkwy New 2 lane road 7,100,000

Tagged Passions:veterans and streets

2017 21 NS Debt Service NA 27.3 million per year 136,500,000

2022 26 NS Debt Service NA 27.4 million per year 145,800,000

2017 21 N Dolores Drive Existing Dolores west to Lazy 5 Pkwy New 2 lane road 1,500,000

Tagged Passions:streets

2017 21 S Forest Street California Avenue to Mount Rose Street Bike facility 4,100,000

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:facility, streets, Bicycles, and bicycles

2022 26 S Geiger Grade Toll Rd to Rim Rock Widen 2 to 4 lanes 26,300,000

2022 26 S Geiger Grade Realignment Virginia St to Toll Rd New 4 lane road 75,100,000

2017 21 S Glendale Ave Kietzke Ave to McCarran Blvd Pavement reconstruction multimodal improvements 16,400,000 3.1.b A t t a c h m
Tagged Passions:streets

e
n

t :

6
t

h E d R R I F C I P (

1
1

3
3

4
:

A d o p t i o n o f R T C

6
t

h E d i t i o n o f R

e
g

i o n a l R o a d I m p a c t F

e
e

( R R I F ) EXHIBIT C 2040 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2017 2026 PROJECT LISTING

Tagged Passions:transportation

Timefame A 1

Service Area Roadway Limits Description RTP

2017 21 NS I 580 Improvements South of Spaghetti Bowl

I
80 to Mill St interchange Widen EB I 80 ramp to SB I 580 to two lanes, reconfigure Wells Ave EB I 80 ramp, restore 3rd lane SB I 580, safety improvements between Second St/Glendale Ave and Mill St

101,300,000

2022 26 NS I 580 Improvements South of Spaghetti Bowl

I
80 to Mill St interchange Widen EB I 80 ramp to SB I 580 to two lanes, reconfigure Wells Ave EB I 80 ramp, restore 3rd lane SB I 580, safety improvements between Second St/Glendale Ave and Mill St

60,700,000

2022 26 NS I 80 East Truckee River Canyon Safety improvements add shoulders 9,000,000

Tagged Passions:watershed

2022 26 NS I 80 Patrick Interchange Interchange improvements 11,600,000

2022 26 NS I 80/I 580/US 395 (Spaghetti Bowl) I 80/I 580/US 395 interchange SB lanes on US 395 from I 80 to McCarran Blvd Operational capacity improvements widen US 395 to 8 lanes (Phase 2) 93,500,000 2022 26 S Keystone Ave California to I 80 Multimodal improvements and Truckee River bridge replacement 58,600,000
Tagged Passions:watershed

2017 21 S Kietzke Ln Virginia St to Galletti Way Multimodal improvements (Phase 1) 3,800,000

2022 26 S Kietzke Ln Virginia St to Galletti Way Multimodal improvements (corridor study initiated) (Phase 2)

10,700,000
Tagged Passions:corridor

2017 21 N Kiley Pkwy Wingfield Hills Rd to Henry Orr Pkwy New 2 lane road 6,400,000

2017 21 N Lazy 5 Pkwy W Sun Valley Arterial to Pyramid Hwy New 4 lane road west of Pyramid Hwy transitioning to 2 lanes at future development entrance 27,600,000
Tagged Passions:streets, development, and Development

2022 26 N Lemmon Dr US 395 to Military Rd and Fleetwood Dr to Chickadee Dr

Tagged Passions:military

Widen 4 to 6 lanes from US 395 to Military Rd and Widen 2 to 4 lanes from Fleetwood Dr to Chickadee Dr

12,300,000

Tagged Passions:military

2017 21 N Lemmon Drive US 395 to Military Rd and Fleetwood Dr to Chickadee Dr

Tagged Passions:military

Widen 4 to 6 lanes from US 395 to Military Rd and Widen 2 to 4 lanes from Fleetwood Dr to Chickadee Dr (PE NEPA)

3,000,000

Tagged Passions:military

2022 26 N Loop Rd Salomon Circle to Eastern Slope Rd New 2 lane road 4,900,000

Tagged Passions:streets

2022 26 N Military Rd Lemmon Dr to Echo Ave Widen 2 to 4 lanes 22,600,000

2017 21 S Mill St/Terminal Way Reno Tahoe International Airport to Lake St (downtown Reno) Multimodal improvements, intersection improvements, additional EB lane from Kietzke Ln to US 395, PE/NEPA 1,600,000 3.1.b A t t a c h m
Tagged Passions:airport, downtown, and military

e
n

t :

6
t

h E d R R I F C I P (

1
1

3
3

4
:

A d o p t i o n o f R T C

6
t

h E d i t i o n o f R

e
g

i o n a l R o a d I m p a c t F

e
e

( R R I F ) EXHIBIT C 2040 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2017 2026 PROJECT LISTING

Tagged Passions:transportation

Timefame A 1

Service Area Roadway Limits Description RTP 2022 26 S Mill St/Terminal Way Reno Tahoe International Airport to Lake St (downtown Reno) Multimodal improvements, intersection improvements, additional EB lane from Kietzke Ln to US 395, Construction 17,500,000

Tagged Passions:construction, airport, and downtown

2022 26 N Moya Blvd Red Rock Rd to Echo Ave Widen 2 to 4 lanes 17,500,000

2022 26 N N/S Connector Rd Stonebrook Pkwy to Wingfield Hills Rd New 2 lane road 8,400,000

2022 26 N North Virginia St McCarran Blvd to Panther Sidewalks and bike lanes. An off street shared use path may be considered 14,050,000 2022 26 N North Virginia St Panther to Stead Blvd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes and multimodal improvements 38,500,000 2017 21 N Oddie Blvd/Wells Ave I 80 to Pyramid Way Multimodal improvements 37,600,000

Tagged Passions:streets, Bicycles, Pedestrian, and bicycles

2022 26 N Parr Blvd Ferrari McLeod to Raggio Pkwy Interchange improvements 7,700,000

2017 21 NS Pavement Preservation Systemwide 18.7 million per year 101,200,000

Tagged Passions:preservation

2022 26 NS Pavement Preservation Systemwide 23.8 million per year 119,000,000

2017 21 NS Pedestrian Bicycle Facility Improvements
Tagged Passions:facility, preservation, Bicycles, Pedestrian, and bicycles

Spot improvements systemwide based on BPMP

1
million per year 5,500,000

2022 26 NS Pedestrian Bicycle Facility Improvements
Tagged Passions:facility, Bicycles, Pedestrian, and bicycles

Spot improvements systemwide based on BPMP

1.28 million per year 6,400,000

2022 26 S Plumb Lane Lakeside Drive to Kietzke Lane Sidewalks and bike lanes 8,200,000

Tagged Passions:streets, Bicycles, Pedestrian, and bicycles

2017 21 N Pyramid Hwy @ McCarran Blvd Improve capacity, safety multimodal access (under construction)

30,000,000 2017 21 N Pyramid Hwy/Sun Valley/US 395 Connector Phase 1
Tagged Passions:construction

Queen Way to Golden View Widen Pyramid to 6 lanes from Queen Way to Golden View (PE/NEPA)

5,000,000 2022 26 N Pyramid Hwy/Sun Valley/US 395 Connector Phase 1

Queen Way to Golden View Widen Pyramid to 6 lanes from Queen Way to Golden View 50,500,000

No additional detail provided

2022 26 N Red Rock Rd Moya Blvd to Evans Ranch Access Widen 2 to 4 lanes 51,800,000

2017 21 NS Sierra Street California Ave to 9th St Widen sidewalks add bike lanes 4,400,000

Tagged Passions:streets, Bicycles, Pedestrian, and bicycles

2022 26 NS Sierra Street At Truckee River Bridge Replace existing bridge 19,100,000

3.1.b A t t a c h m
Tagged Passions:streets and watershed

e
n

t :

6
t

h E d R R I F C I P (

1
1

3
3

4
:

A d o p t i o n o f R T C

6
t

h E d i t i o n o f R

e
g

i o n a l R o a d I m p a c t F

e
e

( R R I F ) EXHIBIT C 2040 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2017 2026 PROJECT LISTING

Tagged Passions:transportation

Timefame A 1

Service Area Roadway Limits Description RTP

2022 26 N Sky Vista Pkwy Lemmon Dr to Silver Lake Rd Widen 2 to 4 lanes 8,900,000

2017 21 S South Virginia Street South of Arrowcreek Pkwy to the I 580 interchange Safety and multimodal improvements including traffic signal and median 5,000,000 2022 26 S South Virginia Street E Patriot Blvd to Mt. Rose Hwy/Geiger Grade
Tagged Passions:streets and traffic

Add sidewalks and bike lane, convert travel lane to bus/bike lane

18,000,000 2017 21 S SouthEast Connector South Meadows Pkwy to Greg St New 6 lane road (under construction) 130,000,000

Tagged Passions:construction, streets, travel, Public Transit, Bicycles, Pedestrian, and bicycles

2017 21 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

1,600,000

2022 26 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

56,200,000 2017 21 N Stonebrook Parkway La Posada Dr to N/S Connector Rd New 2 lane road 11,300,000 2022 26 N Stonebrook Parkway N/S Connector Rd to Pyramid Highway New 2 lane road 8,100,000
Tagged Passions:streets

2017 21 N Sun Valley Blvd 7th Ave to Pyramid Hwy/US 395 Connector Multimodal improvements PE/NEPA 3,000,000

2022 26 N Sun Valley Blvd 7th Ave to Pyramid Hwy/US 395 Connector Multimodal improvements 52,700,000

2017 21 NS Traffic Signals, ITS Operations Intersections

Systemwide 2.6 million per year 14,100,000

Tagged Passions:traffic

2022 26 NS Traffic Signals, ITS Operations Intersections

Systemwide 3.32 million per year 16,600,000

Tagged Passions:traffic

2017 21 NS US 395 Clear Acre Ln to Lemmon Dr Freeway widening PE/NEPA 1,500,000

2022 26 NS US 395 N McCarran Blvd to Lemmon Dr Additional SB lane and auxiliary lanes NB and SB 66,800,000

2017 21 NS US 395/I 580/I 80 Spaghetti Bowl (Kietzke to N McCarran, Keystone to Pyramid)

Capacity expansion at Spaghetti Bowl, PE/NEPA 12,800,000

2017 21 NS US 395/I 580/I 80 System wide ramps and freeways ITS Auxiliary lanes/freeway management/ITS project 14,600,000

Tagged Passions:expansion

2022 26 S Vassar Street Holcomb Avenue to Terminal Way Bike lanes 4,300,000

Tagged Passions:streets, Bicycles, and bicycles

2017 21 N Victorian Avenue 16th Street to Pyramid Way Bike lanes 2,300,000

3.1.b A t t a c h m
Tagged Passions:streets, Bicycles, and bicycles

e
n

t :

6
t

h E d R R I F C I P (

1
1


[ See More ]
Council Map

Welcome!

Monitor up to five cities and counties and get alerts when they plan to vote on topics you're passionate about.