1. RTC Board Workshop Regional Road Impact Fee Program September 7, 2012

2. RRIF Program Overview History RTC Board WorkshopMay 2011 Open Discussion with Stakeholders RFP ProcessJun-Sep 2011 Intent to Award Aug 2011 Execute PSA Sep 2011 RRIF TAC MeetingsOct – May 2012 RTC Board Workshop Apr 2012 Presentation by TischlerBise Draft Final Report to RRIF TACJun 2012 Draft Final Report to RTC BoardJul 2012 2

3. RRIF Program Overview Report TischlerBise - Scope of Work  Land use assumptions  Methodology  Geographic service area and benefit districts  Development potential  Economic analysis  Credit program  Options for transit oriented development  Ordinances, agreements and General Administrative Manual 3

4. RRIF Program Overview Report TischlerBise – General Findings RRIF Program generated revenue (1996-2012) $ 83 Million – Impact Fee collections $187 Million – Developer built projects (actual costs) $270 Million - Total Capacity Improvements through RRIF Program Changes in collections over time  Fee collections: $10 million (2005) / $836,000 (2011)  Credit issuances for new developer built projects: $37 million (2007) / $1.4 million (2010) Economic downturn has had significant impact on the program  Reduced development = Reduced collections  Abundance of credits available = Increased use of credits in payment of fees Impacts of adopting less than 100% of maximum supportable fee  Collections not providing funds for future improvements  Credits issued that were based on a reduced rate resulted in more credits issued Credit program  Allows development to choose which CIP projects to construct 4

5. Roadway Improvements 1996-2012 Roadway Improvements 1996-2012 $ 155 MRTC Fuel Tax/Federally Funded Projects $ 83 MRRIF Funded projects $ 187 MDeveloper Funded projects $ 425 MTotal RTC Capacity Projects $ 65 MLocal Match for State built Projects $ 342 MPavement Preservation Projects $ 832 M Total 5

6. RRIF Program Overview Report TischlerBise - Recommendations At the April 20 th Workshop, TischlerBise identified a series of recommended improvements:  Update Demographic Data (underway with RTP process)  Consolidate land uses in the current fee structure  Index the impact fees annually between updates  Recommended changes to the CIP:  Prioritize the list of projects in the CIP  Re-define what are eligible improvements, ie, consider 1 st two lanes of a new road as development level improvements  Add cost recovery component  Develop a tiered urban/suburban service areas  Change how the impact fee program assesses credits 6

7. Why an Impact Fee Credit Program NRS 278B.240 - Improvements required as a condition of approval for which impact fees were collected must be credited against those impact fees 7

8. Existing RRIF Credit Program  Used to pay impact fees in lieu of cash  Represent dollar value of developer built projects  Actual cost/impact fee rate = credits  Measured in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)  Life span of 20 Years  Can be traded on the open market  Must be used in the Benefit District they were earned  May be limited to 50% use on projects outside the Original Development of Record 8

9. RRIF Program Overview Report TischlerBise – Recommendations (cont) Modify Future Credit Program  Eliminate the use of credits outside the development of record  Value credits in dollars in lieu of VMT’s  Issue credits based on a prioritized CIP, ie, less credits for improvements projected in the outer years  Issue credits based on the impact fees due or on the value of improvements listed in the CIP 9

10. Existing Credit Program Issues  Large amount of existing credits  Credits being traded on the open market for less than full value  Existing credits being used for payment of impact fees and little cash coming into the program  Credits approaching expiration dates  Economy is still struggling 10

11. Impact Fee Payment History 11 Impact Fee Payments (Credits and Cash) Calendar Year

12. Credits by Expiring Year 12 Year Issued Total Credits Year Expiring Automated Credits Missing Books (1) Total Credits Remaining % Remaining of Total 199632,717.84 20165,529.181,671.107,200.280.80% 199725,443.75 20170.003,913.463,170.190.35% 199898,747.14 201828,224.3414,610.8729,035.983.22% 199959,589.29 20193,191.2812,887.9314,689.551.63% 200065,264.67 202019,359.986,109.1319,502.462.16% 2001111,841.08 202119,945.893,563.2926,977.942.99% 200241,618.11 202221,688.243,633.4721,688.242.40% 2003187,695.36 202383,158.42206.40104,764.8911.61% 2004186,972.70 2024136,680.0013,634.06141,460.7415.67% 2005117,778.05 202590,879.1220,190.81101,783.7411.28% 2006248,426.44 2026116,192.9428,451.28152,460.8316.89% 2007284,552.50 2027228,726.600.00237,773.7826.34% 200827,436.23 202811,362.430.0013,301.601.47% 200936,659.67 202927,259.070.0027,259.073.02% 20106,981.81 20301,598.770.001,598.770.18% Totals 1,531,724.64 793,796.26108,871.80902,668.06100.00% (1) Credits estimated in Missing Books may include credits already redeemed and/or lost books

13. Major Impact Fee Credit Holders 13 Major Credit Holders Current Credit Balance % of Total Outstanding Credits Current Value ($217/Credit) Nevada Tri-Partners155,338.7217%$33,708,502.24 Sparks Galleria/Reno Corp Center/Tanamera78,355.569%$17,003,156.52 South Meadows Properties62,047.997%$13,464,413.83 Centex Homes49,489.465%$10,739,212.82 NN Development Corp/Lewis Land Corp39,362.814%$8,541,729.77 Spanish Springs Associates36,057.184%$7,824,408.06 CAV Investments26,730.873%$5,800,598.79 Corona Cyan, LLC21,815.502%$4,733,963.50 SOMERSETT30,152.923%$6,543,183.64 PROLOGIS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES11,584.631%$2,513,864.71 Subtotal510,935.6457%$110,873,033.88 Other Credit Holders (300 Various Holders)391,752.4243%$85,010,275.14 Total902,688.06$195,883,309.02

14. BANN Buy Back Survey Certificate Holder Current Balance (Credits) Dollar Value Current Balance Number of Credits Available for RTC Redemption (Estimate) Dollar Value of Redeemed Credits ($217/VMT) BARKER COLEMAN CONSTRUCTION 1,393$302,283.17 Barker Homes, Inc.9,259$2,009,220.369,259$2,009,220 CENTEX HOMES48,179$10,454,843.00 CENTEX HOMES OF NEVADA1,310$284,270.00 Community Development Group2,452$532,094.852,452$532,095 CQ Investment Co.1,590$345,053.871,590$345,030 Damonte Ranch Commerce Center, L22,751$4,937,014.74 DBSI Wingfield Village, LLC3,489$757,099.981,488$322,896 Development Solutionz, LLC485$105,245.00485$105,245 Di Loreto Homes196$42,629.65 Di Loreto Homes of Nevada457$99,210.23 Donahue Schriber Reality Group,3,471$753,150.583,471$753,151 DOUBLE DIAMOND RANCH L.L.C.*24,334$5,280,478.00 Heritage Bank of Nevada4,209$913,353.003,490$757,436 LIFE STYLE HOMES, INC7,754$1,682,618.00 Magnolia South Meadows II, LLC91$19,816.4491$19,816 Metro Phoenix Bank7,590$1,647,030.007,590$1,647,030 Mono County Resorts Inc.1,781$386,548.611,781$386,549 Nell J. Redfield Foundation5,386$1,168,762.005,342$1,159,244 Nevada Spectrum, LLC1,064$230,950.93532$115,444 NEVADA TRI PARTNERS, LLC132,573$28,768,341.0020,000$4,340,000 NN Develop. Corp. & Lewis Land C25,880$5,616,033.785,000$1,085,000 RBK Investments LLC482$104,672.12482$104,594 Reno Corporate Center, LLC24,163$5,243,371.0018,000$3,906,000 RRW Stonebrook, LLC464$100,731.40 Service 1st Bank of Nevada16,680$3,619,560.0016,680$3,619,560 Spanish Springs Assoc. LP36,056$7,824,152.0036,056$7,824,152 Sparks Galleria Investors, LLC50,688$10,999,296.0044,000$9,548,000 Sparks McCarran, LLC (Wall Stree84$18,256.2184$18,256 TICO Construction Company, Inc841$182,540.40841$182,540 Toll Brothers1,210$262,520.09 Toll North Reno, LLC6,844$1,485,148.00 Toll South Reno, LLC12,980$2,816,660.003,000$651,000 Washoe County School District17,067$3,703,539.006,095$1,322,615 Subtotal473,256$102,696,493.41187,810$40,754,874 Other Credit Holders Total Outstanding Credits902,668$195,878,969.02 BANN contacted various credits holders who may be interested in a redemption program Approximately 188,000 credits were identified to be returned to RTC, representing 21% of the outstanding credits 14 Represents $40 million at today’s rate

15. Discussions to address Existing Credit Program  Leave Program as is – use or lose  Extend existing credit expiration dates (IE, through 2 for 1 exchange program)  Allow credits to be used throughout the Service Area and not limited to the Benefit District  Institute a Buy-Back program (Proposed by the development community) 15

16. Next Steps  Open Public discussion  Continued analysis by TMRPA to develop projected growth by Land Use within various timeframes  Financial analysis by TischlerBise on impacts of a Buy Back program  Further discussion at the September 21 st RTC Board Meeting 16