CENTRAL YAVAPAI METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT
ADOT Tom
Foster, Sandra Gilbert
AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES ABSENT
Yavapai
ADDITIONAL ATTENDEES
Citizen Jim
Buchanan
Citizen Margot
Dava
& Associates Pete
Jorgensen
DVCA Walt
Matthew
Yavapai Co. Supervisor-elect Tom Thurman
Homeland Security A.
J. Valardo, PhD.
MEMBERS OF THE PRESS
Daily Courier Cindy
Barks
CYMPO STAFF
CYMPO Admin. Asst. Anne Confer
AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman Tarkowski called the
meeting to order at
The members and public
present introduced themselves.
The Chairman asked if there
were any comments from the public for TAC consideration and discussion of
general unscheduled comments; no response from public.
Mr. Willett introduced a
motion to approve the Minutes of the September 2, 2004 meeting as
submitted. Ms Gilbert seconded the
motion, which passed by unanimous vote.
In the absence of CYMPO
Administrator
Regarding the draft provided
by Mr. Shambaugh, Mr. Willett said it includes three technical phases –
developing the candidate list, ranking the projects, and getting the projects
into the program – which are the essence of the process itself. He said there are also ranking sheets
incorporated into the packet. Mr.
Willett said this Committee needs to decide either to go forward with this
process, or modify it.
Chairman Tarkowski said that
the assumption is that this Committee would go through a ranking process and
would then forward that to the Executive Board for their review and approval.
Mr. Willett added that every
other year the County follows a similar process at the NACOG level for local
government construction money. This (the
MPO process) is a little more detailed, but is a similar process.
Mr. Foster said they have the
three key elements, and suggested that they come up with a simplified ranking
process; whether ADT or something else. Then they would have that as their
model or system.
Chair Tarkowski said he had
been on the committee when NACOG established its criteria about ten years
ago. He also felt the process could be
simplified, but that the draft is a really good start. He suggested that Mr. Shambaugh refine it and
bring it back to the next meeting for adoption.
Mr. McConnell agreed.
Prescott Valley Council
Member
7. INTERIM
TIP AMENDMENTS – Mike Willett
Mr. Willett reported that the
Interim TIP had been put together by this Committee last June and July and
approved by the Executive Board in on
Mr. Willett said they need to
do an amendment to the existing TIP by including some things not previously
listed. He cited ADOT projects, regional
projects using local funds, enhancement awards within the boundary, plus bike
and pedestrian facilities using federal funds, which would probably extend to
transit facilities as well. He said Mr.
Shambaugh had provided a list of Prescott District projects in which they had
previously listed SR69/SR89 as one project and Sun Dog Ranch/Willow Lake Road
as one project. Mr. Shambaugh noted that
these projects have subprojects and more than one funding category, so it seems
the list needs to be expanded to include those projects.
Mr. Foster said that although
there are multiple funding sources, it is still just one project. He did not know if it should be broken out
for the list.
Ms. Gilbert said that all
projects within the boundary must be shown on the TIP, including their funding
sources (Local, STP, SPR, Planning, Bridge, Signal, etc.). She cited the example of the 69/89 T.I.,
which is in the STIP and has been moved to FY2005; the TIP does not reflect
that. This must be corrected, otherwise
the feds can come back and say this project is in ’03, but it is shown in the STIP
being done in ’05; why wasn’t an amendment done to move that forward in the
TIP? The amendment would show a
carryover from 2003 funds.
In response to a question
from Mr. Foster, Ms. Gilbert clarified that the MPOs usually do not show the
bridge and safety projects and such; it is up to the region. Since they are subprograms, they usually do
not show them.
MOTION
Chair Tarkowski introduced a
motion that the Committee direct Mr. Shambaugh to make the appropriate modifications
to the TIP so that it meets with ADOT’s review, including moving funds and
carryover funds, and general housekeeping as appropriate, to keep this on track.
Mr. Willett suggested that
everyone provide Mr. Shambaugh with their list of projects.
DISCUSSION
In response to a question
from Mr. Straub, Ms. Gilbert said that if a project is included in a town,
city, county, or regional plan, within the planning boundary, it needs to be
shown on the TIP. The purpose is that
the feds want to have a picture of what is going on in the area. However, this does not include maintenance
activities.
Mr. Straub said that if local
funds were being used and were not being counted as part of the match, the
project should not have to be listed on the TIP. Mr. Straub said that because the local
projects change quickly and often, it would not make sense to include them. He added that this had been thoroughly
discussed and agreed upon when the MPO was being formed, and is included in the
formation documentation. Ms. Gilbert
will check with Ed Stillings at FHWA for a ruling on that, since she was not
present at the beginning when that was discussed.
Mr. Foster noted that those
types of projects are referred to as “Maintenance Activities” and at ADOT they
do both major and minor maintenance. If
a project reaches a point where plan sheets are required, then they start
calling it a “project” and do environmental clearances and other activities
that are part of an actual project.
Those would then go into the list.
Otherwise, it is in the “Maintenance Funds,” without specifying where
those dollars are going. He suggested
that Ms. Gilbert find out if this would be appropriate for the County.
Mr. McConnell suggested that
they find out if this is a request from FHWA, or a requirement.
Mr. Willett suggested that
everyone review the draft list of sponsors and projects and make their
corrections, e.g., check that projects are in the correct year.
Chair Tarkowski noted that
there was a motion on the table.
MOTION – RESTATED
Chair Tarkowski introduced a
motion that the Committee direct Mr. Shambaugh to make the appropriate
modifications to the TIP so that it meets with ADOT’s review, including moving
funds and carryover funds, and general housekeeping as appropriate, to keep
this on track. Mr. Shambaugh should also
work with Ms. Gilbert to find out exactly what level they need to go to, noting
in particular the County’s concerns.
Mr. McConnell seconded the
motion
VOTE ON THE MOTION
The motion passed by
unanimous vote.
8. SIDE
ROAD/SR89A T.I. – Richard Straub
Mr. Straub reported that the
County had been discussing with the City of Prescott for the past several
months about constructing the interchange at Side Road and 89A. However, in the IGA with ADOT about four
years ago, it listed all the interchanges on the 89/Fain Road system and showed
which were ADOT’s and which were local government responsibilities. Side Road is a local government
responsibility. Also, in about 1998,
they had started negotiations with one property owner about contributing toward
that construction. They were ultimately
able to negotiate a quarter of a million dollars from a local developer.
Based on that history, Mr.
Straub said the agreement they have been negotiating with the city would
involve a partnership with private development, the City and the County. In the future, as ground is annexed into the City
as part of the Development Agreement, a traffic study would have to be done by
the development showing how much traffic they would be contributing to the
interchange. There would then be a pro
rata share of the construction costs put into the agreement with the developer
to help pay for that interchange.
Mr. Straub said the bottom
line is that they would build the interchange up front with partnership with City,
private and County, and each entity would get some reimbursement in the
future. He said he has told the Board of
Supervisors that this would be a very good model for future interchanges all
along the system where development is going to drive construction of the
interchanges. He said that they are
still negotiating this, and at the same time are also discussing how to build
the 89/89A interchange, which the Board of Supervisors is very interested in
pushing forward. He said there would
likely be a Study Session at the Board in the future to discuss that
interchange.
Mr. Straub said that the
agreement on the Side Road interchange is not finalized yet, but they are
looking at a four-year timeframe for construction. In response to a question from Chairman
Tarkowski, Mr. Straub said the cost is estimated at around $3 million.
Mr. Flannery commented that
at one point there had been discussion about a traffic signal there. He asked the status of that discussion. Mr. Straub said that in the original negotiations
with ADOT in the late ’90s, they discussed building a controlled access system
and decided then that signals would not work and would not be permitted. If the warrant indicated a signal, it would
also warrant the interchange. Therefore,
on these high-speed highways, signals are not going to be allowed.
9. PROGRESS
FOR THE MTP –
Mr. Bourdon reported that
Patricia has been moving forward with the data that has been provided by the
agencies, and compiled a draft 2003 network, which is one of the first
phases. She then created some draft traffic
analysis zones (TAZ) and divided them among cities, towns and counties, and is
awaiting input back from everyone on those zones. Mr. Bourdon asked that this input be provided
as quickly as possible because that will be the basis for the next step, which
will be confirming current conditions and preparing a draft working paper based
on that.
Mr. Bourdon added that as
they move forward, they will start public meetings, but they need to get the
network and basic information prepared prior to the public meetings. In response to a question from Chairman
Tarkowski, Mr. Bourdon confirmed that the project is on schedule and on budget.
Mr. Straub reported that they
have been getting good press on this project.
He said they have a partnership with ADOT to look at the corridor from
89A all the way to
Mr. Straub said there is a
series of three meetings scheduled in
Mr. Straub further explained
that they have also been in discussion with a major landowner about his
problems with making a left turn in the mornings headed north.
In addition, Mr. Straub said
they are in discussion with ADOT District about how to get started on the
actual construction of this corridor.
They would like to start on the 89/89A interchange. He explained that as traffic increases, the
signals there back up. Although ADOT has
done a good job of making adjustments, at some point more problems will
develop. Mr. Straub said he has
approached the Board of Supervisors about a Study Session in the early part of
November to discuss where the project is and how they might go forward.
Mr. Straub offered a
suggestion to the Committee. He noted
that they do have plans on the 89/89A intersection ready to go. The MPO has allocated a half a million
dollars towards that intersection; on the plan, they have also been looking at
another half million to the Viewpoint T.I., on which no design has yet been
done. He said until it is designed, it
is not going to happen. Mr. Straub asked
the group to consider putting another half million into 89/89A from the MPO,
then get started on the actual design of that interchange, which will take
about two years. After that, two years
in a row could be allocated to the Viewpoint interchange. Chairman Tarkowski agreed that the 89/89A
interchange is needed.
Mr. Straub asked for approval
to bring back this idea for discussion at a future meeting. Chair Tarkowski agreed, and added that they
also need to be thinking about the extension of Glassford Hill Road. He said that even with the improvements on
89, and a four-lane facility, if there are 20,000 vehicles per day and traffic
backups, the long-term solution will be the preservation of that corridor for
the extension of Glassford, building it to an urban freeway standard and
providing two corridors. However, that
is a little farther out in the time schedule.
Mr. Straub mentioned that the
County had prepared preliminary plans showing an urban corridor with the
necessary right-of-way and preliminary alignments. Since the two largest cities will be annexing
that area, he said he hoped the planners would take that into consideration
when they start doing development agreements.
Chairman Tarkowski said they had just been talking about that with both
Chino Valley and City of Prescott. If
development is imminent, preservation of that corridor is very important.
Prescott Craig
McConnell
Mr. McConnell reported that
they are building a parking garage downtown.
The contract awarded with a completion date of June 2005, for the Fourth
of July next year. He added that there
are also reconstruction projects downtown that will continue until the end of
the year.
Willow Creek 4 is going very
well. He said they worked hard at the
construction sequencing and traffic control and it seems to be very
effective. Traffic has flowed through on
pavement almost the entire time.
Mr. McConnell said that the
next big project is
No report.
Regarding the Williamson
Valley Bridge, Mr. Straub explained that Mr. Foster has done a lot to expedite
the project and they are seeing good progress now.
The County’s biggest project
is the
Mr. Bourdon reported that
they will be coordinating a public meeting on the
Mr. Straub informed Mr.
McConnell that they would also be doing a project just west of the City’s
project on Iron Springs. They will be
doing some intersection improvements, but had not decided if they would do it while
the City’s project is under construction, due to the potential of increasing
the impact on traffic in the area.
Mr. Straub said they are
winding down for the year and have two new Supervisors starting the first of
the year. During their budget process
they will be reviewing their plans for future needs in the tri-city area.
ADOT Tom Foster
Mr. Foster reported that they
are finishing the paving next week on I-17, Cordes Junction to Badger Springs. They have been doing night paving to keep
traffic flowing during the day and have been hitting some pretty low
temperatures, but they have been able to put down the rubberized A/C
upgrade.
There is another rubberized
A/C project from Junction 169 and
The 69/89 interchange
continues to move forward in design, although it is a little over budget. It might be necessary to reduce some
elements, such as some paving on the multi-use pathways or lighting, to stay
within the budget. He said they might
have to pursue some enhancement grants for the pathways if that becomes
necessary. Sun Dog to
No report for the Forest
Service.
Chair Tarkowski reported that
their most aggressive street building program is continuing to move
forward. He said that there could be
pavement going down on Robert Road either today or tomorrow between Yavapai and
Lakeshore.
Mr. Tarkowski further
reported that the transit voucher program has a robust demand, which they are
meeting.
Yavapai County Transit Update
Vice Chair Straub reported
that, based on previous discussions in this Committee, Yavapai County reviewed
its transit-related activity since the year 2000. He said that they have spent close to half a
million dollars on funding local transit programs, primarily in rural-to-urban rideability
programs.
Project Prioritization
Mr. Flannery said he had
attended a presentation at which Mr. Foster had explained the project
prioritization process at ADOT. He said
that Mr. Foster had suggested that CYMPO, the County, the Verde Valley
Transportation Planning Organization and NACOG get together to assist him in determining
one priority to forward to ADOT as a construction project for this region.
Mr. Flannery said the groups
did meet last Monday for this purpose and agreed that the top project for the
area is the 89/89A T.I. and the study for the 89 corridor. He said that since the Verde Valley TPO had
gotten their SR 260 into the five-year program, they were willing to go along
with this decision. He said that Yavapai
County is going to do a resolution to forward to the State Transportation Board
stating that this is the region’s priority project.
Mr. Flannery said that Mr.
Foster had noted that there are other areas of mutual interest, such as 169,
and that the groups might want to continue this cooperative effort. Mr. Flannery felt this could be beneficial and
would like everyone to consider meeting regularly in the future.
Mr. Foster commented that it
was difficult to get just the tri-city area to come together, and then it was a
struggle to get the
13. NEXT
MEETING
The next meeting of the CYMPO
Technical Advisory Committee will be:
8:00 a.m.
Prescott Chamber Boardroom
Mr. McConnell asked if there
would be meeting of the Executive Board in October. Chairman Tarkowski did not believe so. He said it likely would be more efficient to
have this Committee meet in November to act on the TIP Selection Process and
the Interim TIP amendment so they can be forwarded to the Executive Board for adoption
at a November meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Tarkowski adjourned
the meeting at
###