Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Schools Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TMRPA and State Public Charter School Authority sign MOU; board previews draft school‑site policy
Summary
The governing board approved a memorandum of understanding with the State Public Charter School Authority to formalize information sharing about charter school applications and expansions. Staff also presented a draft regional policy that would ask local master plans to include school‑siting management strategies, public‑process triggers and cumulative traffic study guidance.
The governing board unanimously approved a memorandum of understanding (MOU) formalizing information sharing between TMRPA and the State Public Charter School Authority (SPCSA) on Feb. 12. The MOU will provide TMRPA with the same project‑notification information that school districts receive under state law so the agency can include charter school plans in regional planning products such as the public infrastructure plan and annual reporting.
Director Jeremy Smith said the MOU is intended to fill an informational gap: while Washoe County School District is an "affected entity" for conformance review under state law, the state charter authority had not previously provided consistent notification to TMRPA. Melissa MacDon of the SPCSA joined the meeting and signaled the authority’s willingness to participate in the information‑sharing arrangement; TMRPA staff will begin integrating incoming charter school application and intent data into GIS and planning products.
Separately, TMRPA staff previewed a proposed amendment to Regional Plan public facility policy (Policy 8) that would ask local jurisdictions to adopt school‑siting management strategies in their master plans. Elements under discussion include requiring a public process for school approvals above a size threshold, clarifying when traffic studies should be required, and directing local plans to address pedestrian safety and speed‑control measures near schools. Board members asked staff to refine thresholds (e.g., student capacity or proximity to jurisdictional boundaries), define which school types the policy covers (traditional K‑12 versus trade or postsecondary facilities), and engage in small‑group stakeholder meetings with school districts and local planning staff.
The MOU was approved at the meeting and the school‑siting policy remains in draft; staff will return with refined language after additional stakeholder engagement.
