CENTRAL YAVAPAI METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Prescott Chamber Boardroom
AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT
Yavapai
County Richard
Straub, Vice Chairman
Mike
Willett,
ADOT Tom
Foster,
Prescott
Prescott Valley Larry
Tarkowski, Chairman
Prescott National Forest
Yavapai Prescott Indian Tribe Chris Moss
AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES ABSENT
Chino
Valley (Unassigned)
ADDITIONAL ATTENDEES
DAVA & Associates Gordon
Bowers
Citizen Jim
Buchanan
Fann Construction Mike
Fann
DVCA Walt
Matthew
Prescott Chamber of Commerce
Prescott Chamber of Commerce Hallie Scharf
MEMBERS OF THE PRESS
N/A
CYMPO STAFF
CYMPO Administrator Jack
Shambaugh
CYMPO
Admin. Assistant Anne
Confer
AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman Tarkowski called the
meeting to order at
The members and public
present introduced themselves. Ms.
Hallie Scharf introduced David Maurer, the new President of the Prescott
Chamber of Commerce.
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 October 7, 2004 meeting as submitted. Mr. McConnell seconded the motion, which
passed by unanimous vote.
Mr. Straub noted that this
had been discussed informally at the last meeting and the consensus was that it
should be on this agenda for formal action to move it forward to the Executive
Board. Mr. Shambaugh said that this is
in keeping with the Minutes from the previous meeting, which he had been unable
to attend, and the TIP for 05-09 does capture it. He said there might be a difference in what
year they want it programmed, but other than that is in accordance with what
they have in the TIP.
Mr. Straub said that the
County will be going to the Board of Supervisors the first meeting in December
where they will be discussing the 89 and 89A corridor and giving updates on
recommendations for moving forward.
MOTION
Mr. Straub introduced a
motion to approve two years’ funding for 89/89A T.I. and then two years to
89A/Viewpoint T.I. to be revised in the TIP as presented and that it be
forwarded to the Executive Board for action at their next meeting.
Mr. McConnell seconded the
motion.
VOTE ON THE MOTION
The motion passed by
unanimous vote: Mr. Foster, Ms. Gilbert,
Mr. McConnell, Ms. Moody, Mr. Straub, and Chair Tarkowski were in favor; no one
opposed.
7. INTERIM
2004-2008 TIP AMENDMENT #1–
Mr. Shambaugh noted that this
item is for the amendment to the 2004-2008 TIP.
To clear up some possible misconceptions from the last Minutes, he
stated that the priority schedules of locally government funded projects are
not a function of the MPO. The TIP
listing of locally funded projects is up to the discretion of the local
government sponsor. What they do want to
show in the TIP is what is financially constrained by year, which projects can
be implemented using current revenue sources, and which projects need to be
implemented using proposed revenue sources.
Mr. Shambaugh explained that
Congress has not reauthorized the transportation legislation, so they will have
to make an assumption on the STP funds amount.
The recommendation is that they stay with they have been currently
using, the $509,979, and perhaps making adjustments once the legislation is
passed. He suggested going through the
TIP line-by-line and make recommendations as to what fiscal years they want
projects to go in, and which projects should not be in at all. He noted there are a number of projects that
do not have sponsors and do not have funding sources identified. Mr. Shambaugh said this list was developed
off the TIP that was developed last year.
Since then, there has been input from member agencies in the development
of this product.
Mr. Willett noted that one project,
the 89/Airport connector, is a duplicate of the 89/89A project and should
probably be deleted.
Mr. Straub asked if it hurts
to have projects on the list even though they might never happen. Mr. Shambaugh said that the issue of whether
or not they have a funding source is the driving force. He said they only need to show a three-year
plan, not a five-year, which this is.
Therefore, they could put projects in the fifth year if they want to
show something they are interested in but that is not ready to be fully
developed. It is just the first three
years that are critical. Mr. Straub
clarified with Mr. Shambaugh that a project must have a funding source for it
to be included in the first three years.
Mr. Foster noted that a lot of
the projects on the TIP are actually “wish lists.” He said that ADOT is now working on 2010 and
none of those projects appear on the TIP.
He felt they should be showing additional years. He said that there is some money for the
three-year plan, but that would be for subprograms such as bridge
replacements. He cited year 2005, which
has projects funded through a number of sources including AGS, district minor,
pavement preservation and other dedicated lump sum programs.
Mr. Willett said that he did
not mind seeing years beyond three years because it seems to imply that
projects that take two to three years in scope and design are out there and may
be moving towards the goal of getting in the three-year plan, and it might be
good to show them in the fourth or fifth year.
He added that, beyond that, they need a category for projects that are
in the planning stages, and can sit there ready to move into the system.
In response to a question
from Chair Tarkowski about other MPOs, Mr. Shambaugh explained that a lot of
them are going to the five-year plan and showing only those projects that have
dedicated funding sources or that have the potential for a new revenue source,
in other words, a new funding category.
He said this does not preclude having a list within a region of
potential candidate projects. However,
the TIP is limited just to those projects that have funding or the potential of
funding from a new source.
Mr. Straub said that on the
89/89A, the TIP shows federal funds of $509,000, and they hope to have the
other $509,000. He asked if, in order
for it to stay there, they need something else under “local match” to show
there are going to be other funds. Mr.
Shambaugh said that is not necessary; they can keep it in the program showing
just the federal fund amount, even though there are not sufficient funds at
this point.
Mr. Straub then asked about
Side Road, which is listed as N/A, even though there is local money
available. Mr. Shambaugh said they can
put “Local” in that space to indicate that there is local funding.
Mr. McConnell asked that the
spreadsheet be reformatted to make it more understandable as far as what are
federal/state projects and what are local-only projects. He suggested it could be more effectively
organized to clarify funding. He felt it
should be a five-year program, and include only projects with identified
funding sources. He further suggested
that prospective projects be put on another sheet, separate from the funded
programs to be managed and implemented.
Chair Tarkowski suggested a category titled “Unfunded.”
Regarding prioritizing, Mr.
McConnell said the prioritization should be done only as it pertains to MPO
business. If ADOT and the feds want them
to prioritize, as a group, some project or projects, that would be
appropriate. He said, however, that it
does no good for the MPO to prioritize any of the city projects that are being
paid for and implemented by the local entity.
Mr. McConnell further
commented that when he takes a five-year CIP to the City Council of the City of
Prescott, it has to be a program of real projects that are needed and have
funding, because he effectively is making a commitment to the City Council, if
they approve it, to deliver it. He said
he feels the CYMPO should be operating the same way. If they take a five-year TIP, and there is
funding indicated, what they are saying to the community is that they are
making a commitment to do this.
Mr. Straub said he agrees in
a way, but that they have some ongoing negotiations for some of the projects
listed that he feels will be realized in the next two or three months, for
example, the 89/89A T.I.. He feels that
it is important, even though they do not have all the funding clarified today,
that it appears in the TIP.
Mr. McConnell responded that
it his feeling that since it is not funded now, it should not appear on the
funded sheet. If the funding comes
through in two or three months, the TIP can be amended to formally indicate
that. Then, when next year’s TIP is
adopted it can show as a funded project.
Mr. Straub did not feel they could wait until next year for ADOT; if
ADOT comes in tomorrow, the project has to be in the program. Mr. McConnell again suggested making an
amendment. Mr. Straub was concerned they
would get involved in red tape.
Chair Tarkowski asked if Mr.
McConnell would work with Mr. Shambaugh and Mr. Foster to bring clarity to the
spreadsheet, while keeping Mr. Straub’s concern in mind. He said he does believe they need to have
placeholders because if a project is not shown on the TIP there could be
problems finding funding. Mr. Foster
agreed that it would be difficult to find funding if the project is not
shown. He said that within the list they
should be able to show a few unfunded projects.
Mr. McConnell agreed as long as the projects are identified in the list
as unfunded. Then, if they do an
amendment to the TIP, they can show a project moving from one part of the list
to another.
Ms. Moody asked if Mr.
McConnell did not want his projects included.
Mr. McConnell said he does not have any objection to it; it just depends
on how the MPO, in total, wants to list the projects out. He would prefer to see his projects listed
out on a separate City of Prescott sheet, and if there are five sheets (for all
the local projects), that would be acceptable.
It is all part of the TIP, but sorted in a particular way that indicates
that there projects going on but they are locally funded.
Mr. Willett pointed out that
VVTPO, NACOG and CYMPO spent considerable time coming to agreement on some
fairly important projects, which were then taken to the Board of Supervisors
and passed by resolution. He feels that
showing projects outside that resolution, especially something as extensive as
the ’05 list, sends a mixed message.
Chair Tarkowski asked if the
CYMPO could entertain a motion to approve, per agenda item #7, the program as
presented, with the caveat that the format will be revised for clarity. Mr. McConnell asked for more detail on what
the program is.
Mr. Shambaugh explained that
the list was developed directly off the list that was adopted by the Executive
Board a year ago. What has been added
was to break the list out into fiscal years and be inclusive of the ADOT projects. For the interim TIP 04-05, the critical
nature is to make certain that projects that are listed in the ADOT
construction program are also inclusive of the MPO’s TIP. He said that is critical in that this TIP
gets wrapped into the state transportation improvement program. Once a project is ready to go out to bid, if
it is not identified, there is a hold up, certainly if it is using federal or
state funds, but excluding any local funds.
He said they have identified the
ADOT projects with an asterisk, and they need to get an amendment for those
projects. Then, they have some of the
transportation enhancement projects that were not previously listed that need
to be included. Also, there are MPO
funds in the STP category that need to be included in the amendment, ensuring
that they are in the right fiscal year.
Mr. Shambaugh said that the remainder of the information is not critical
to this amendment.
Mr. Shambaugh said it is his
recommendation to delete any project that does not have a sponsor or an
identified funding source.
Mr. Straub asked where the
column is that says what they need to say about funding sources. Mr. Shambaugh explained that there are two
columns, one for federal funds and one for local match. He said they could have a situation where a
project is totally locally funded, which does not have to be in the list. Those projects using some state and/or
federal funds must be listed. The group
agreed there should probably be more columns.
Mr. Straub said that they are
going before the Board next month with some recommendations on what they need
to go ahead with the 89/89A interchange, so he wants to do whatever they need
to do with regard to paperwork. He does
not want it to be a barrier to the implementation of the project.
Chair Tarkowski repeated that
he recommends that they move forward and adopt the TIP amendment, but commit to
refining it to make it more understandable.
MOTION
Mr. Straub introduced a
motion to adopt the TIP amendment and that the spreadsheet format be refined
for clarity as previously discussed.
Mr. McConnell seconded the
motion.
DISCUSSION
Chair Tarkowski requested
that Mr. McConnell and Mr. Foster assist Mr. Shambaugh in bringing clarity to
the spreadsheet.
Mr. Foster mentioned that one
item appeared to be missing from the TIP.
This is the tribal connector road.
Mr. Chris Moss explained the project, which includes replacing the Sun
Dog Ranch Bridge that is currently in progress.
He said they would be going to the BML for IRR, (Indian Reservation
Road) funds; however, the State owns the bridge and does not want to rebuild
it. The agreement is that the State
would turn back Old Sun Dog Bridge to the tribe along with a piece of connecting
roadway and that would be placed into the IRR/BIA system. Once the bridge is done, the old bridge will
be disabled, but the State would not be billed until 2009, assuming the work
has been done.
Mr. Tarkowski asked if the
group agreed to include the tribal connector road. Mr. Foster said it would be both the bridge
and the road, and it fits in with the Board of Supervisors’ resolution recently
passed, since it is a key element of the 69/89 interchange and the Sun
Dog/tribal connector. He said it is in
the ADOT fiscal year 2010 for $1.4 million, but the tribe can put it in their
fiscal year where they want it.
Mr. Straub noted that since
the tribe is not yet a member of the MPO, and is a sovereign nation, their
project probably should not appear on the MPO TIP. Mr. Moss said that they are part of the
boundary geographically, although they are not a signatory to the IGA.
In response to a request for
clarification from Chair Tarkowski, Mr. Shambaugh said that the portion that
belongs to the state should go into the TIP.
It was agreed that it should go into FY09, which will be acted on in
item #8 on this agenda.
Chair Tarkowski noted that
there was a motion on the table.
VOTE ON THE MOTION
The motion passed by
unanimous vote: Mr. Foster, Ms. Gilbert,
Mr. McConnell, Ms. Moody, Mr. Straub, and Chair Tarkowski were in favor; no one
opposed.
8. DEVELOPMENT
OF INTERIM TIP 2005-2009 –
Based on the discussion
regarding the state-owned property to be included for FY09, Mr. Tarkowski said
that they have agreed to include this as an addition to the interim TIP. With this in mind, he asked for a motion on
the interim TIP for 2005-2009.
MOTION
Mr. Straub introduced a
motion to adopt the interim TIP 2005-2009 with the addition as discussed.
Mr. Foster seconded the
motion.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Straub specified that it
should be stated as the ADOT bridge replacement. After discussion, Mr. Foster clarified that
it should be described as a roadway turnback.
VOTE ON THE MOTION
The motion passed by unanimous
vote: Mr. Foster, Ms. Gilbert, Mr.
McConnell, Ms. Moody, Mr. Straub, and Chair Tarkowski were in favor; no one
opposed.
9. PROGRESS
FOR THE MTP – Phil Bourdon
Mr. Bourdon said that early
in October, Patricia had worked with the communities to adjust the traffic
analysis zones (TAZ). Those were
returned on October 25th. She
then asked for comments back to be sure that all comments have been included in
the TAZ for the area; the deadline is November 5th. Mr. Bourdon said that Patricia believes she
has made all the changes, if she does not hear negatively by November 5th. The next step is to gear up with the TAC,
either before or after Thanksgiving, and begin monthly meetings. He said they need to sit down as a group to
be sure they have captured everything and start crunching the numbers and
moving forward. He asked if the group
1) preferred to start before or after Thanksgiving, and 2) would they want to
meet immediately after the TAC meeting, or do they want to set a separate
day. He said he prefers a separate day
and would work with the agencies to determine a time that works.
In response to a question
from Chair Tarkowski, Mr. Bourdon said they are still on schedule
timewise. Although they did lose a
couple of weeks on one item, Patricia moved on to working on the model and the
interface to ensure the entire project would stay on time. He said he would let the group know if they
fall behind on a major task.
Mr. Tarkowski said that if
they are still on schedule, he would just as soon wait until after
Thanksgiving. Mr. Bourdon agreed,
stating it would give them more time to work out a meeting date that would work
for everyone.
Mr. Straub said that the project,
under Mr. Willett’s direction is moving ahead.
They met with Mr. Foster yesterday and brought him up-to-date on a few
issues. They also met with the Town
Council and they have asked for another meeting on some specific items. They have also been meeting with property
owners along the northern end of the corridor and that seems to be going fairly
well.
Mr. Straub said they have
made progress in determining that things are going to happen along this
corridor. The town is working on a
signal and some improvements for Road 2 South.
He said they should have the first draft of the preliminary plan next
month for the northern part. He added
that the Board of Supervisors did approve them going south to 89A with the
preliminary study, which is underway now.
He said they have an aerial strip of the northern portion if anyone
needs it.
He reiterated that they will
have some recommendations for the Board of Supervisors in December on the
project and how they can move forward with concrete and steel, rather than just
paper on what can be done.
11. FY2004-2005
LTAF II
Mr. Shambaugh explained that
LTAF stands for Local Transportation Assistance Funds. He said he had given out preliminary numbers
to the agencies in August, and recently notified them of the actual funds
available and the deadline for submitting applications. He said applications are due to the CYMPO on
November 12th and that two signatures are required; the state is
adamant that the Council or Board of Supervisors approves of the application
and commitment of local match.
For future reference, Mr.
Shambaugh said that, while not directly eligible, non-profit agencies providing
transportation may approach local governments and request all or a portion of
those LTAF II funds. He said that eligible
activities include transit planning studies or portions of such studies.
Chair Tarkowski said that
Prescott Valley is planning to use their LTAF II money to fund their voucher
transit program more heavily than they have in the past. He added that their town and Prescott had
been funding the program with general funds when there were no LTAF
monies. Now, this will give them the
opportunity to fund it with LTAF II funds.
Mr. McConnell said that
Community Development handles that program for Prescott. He will find out if they plan to submit an
application.
Yavapai County
Mr. Straub reported that
Supervisor Brownlow had asked them to look at the Diamond Valley traffic
issues. Peter Jorgensen and DAVA are
also looking at issues to the east. He
said he does not know if they will have any solutions, but they are actively
looking at what might happen in that corridor.
After they assess the situation, they will get with ADOT and discuss
options to help traffic in the neighborhoods with ADOT.
Chair Tarkowski asked if this
should be on the next agenda to support the expansion of the Project Assessment
beyond the current scope, which basically ends at Victorian Estates. He said expanding it into Diamond Valley
makes a lot of sense.
After a brief discussion, it
was determined that this item does not need to be included on the next agenda.
Mr. Walt Matthews of Diamond
Valley asked that as things progress, someone from Diamond Valley be included
in the discussions. The group concurred
that this would be appropriate.
Forest Service Cynthia
Moody
Ms. Moody said things are
quiet now; there is nothing new to report.
ADOT
Mr. Foster reported that they
are moving forward with the designs for the 69/89/Sun Dog. He noted that the money is starting to run
out and some things are going to have to be cut out because they cannot afford
them. They had originally planned to cut
down on some of the enhancement features, such as pavement for the trails. However, they found out that they were
successful in getting a grant of around $300,000, which will be used for paving
those trails. Mr. Foster said they will
be consulting with the city and the tribe on what can be cut out.
Mr. Foster further reported
that the Sun Dog/Willow Lake project is very close and should stay on budget as
long as new items are not added.
Prescott
Mr. McConnell reported that
there is nothing new to report; they are shutting down for the winter and
working on designs for next year.
Chino Valley (Unassigned)
No report.
Prescott Valley
Chair Tarkowski reported that
Prescott Valley is likewise slowing down for the winter. He noted that the recent rains had made
Robert Road "interesting", but Fann Contracting has kept on top of
it.
Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Chris
Moss
Mr. Moss said they are still
moving ahead on their connector road project.
They are at 30% and ADOT‘s
bridge group has seen
it. They are adding the costs to the
ADOT transportation system.
CYMPO
Mr. Shambaugh reported that
they had recently met with Dale Buskirk, ADOT TPD, and one of the topics was
priority programming. Mr. Buskirk indicated
that MoveAZ will direct the next construction program. Projects scoped for 2010 will be scoped using
MoveAZ, and construction projects using the MoveAZ criteria will occur in
FY2011. He added that the State
Transportation Board did add the MAG Long-Range Transportation Plan into
MoveAZ.
Mr. Shambaugh further
reported that the State needs to make the submittal for the Highway Performance
Monitoring System (HPMS) on June 15.
They have had difficulty in meeting that deadline in the past and the products
have not been particularly complete. All
the data on the local level comes from the local government, so there is a
requirement for the collection and reporting back the data. ADOT will be holding a meeting in December or
January to update the MPOs and COGs regional planners on this issue. Mr. Shambaugh said he would be sharing those
requirements with this group once the meeting takes place.
In response to a question
from Chair Tarkowski, Mr. Shambaugh said the requirements would not be any different
than in the past.
Mr. Straub reported that they
counted traffic on Fain Road again. A
year ago they were at 4,000, right after opening; now they are at 8,000. Traffic has doubled in one year, and it will
be interesting to see what happens next year.
Chair Tarkowski asked Mr.
Shambaugh to “open the door” to the new community that was created in the
recent election, Humboldt-Dewey. They
will need to be a signatory to the IGA.
He said there is already a project for their area, which is their
portion of 69/169. Mr. Straub also noted
that the new community means that Old Black Canyon, by Young’s Farm, is no
longer the County’s responsibility. He
said they will maintain it until July 1, when the new city will receive State
shared revenues.
Mr. McConnell asked if there
would be an Executive Board meeting this month.
Mr. Shambaugh said there would be, on Wednesday, November 17th.
14. NEXT
MEETING
The next meeting of the CYMPO
Technical Advisory Committee will be:
8:00 a.m.
Prescott Chamber Boardroom
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Tarkowski adjourned
the meeting at
###