[0:06] Good afternoon and welcome to this uh uh

[0:10] transportation uh our coordinating

[0:12] committee uh transcom. We're grateful to

[0:15] have you here. I'm Commissioner Jim

[0:17] Harvey from Weber County. Uh it's always

[0:19] good to be here in person. This is one

[0:21] of the uh most outstanding meetings of

[0:24] the year and you'll find out later. This

[0:26] is also I remember this nine 10 years

[0:29] ago. My first meeting was I think uh

[0:32] this meeting and so really good. I

[0:34] appreciate all of you that are here. For

[0:37] those of you in the room uh who haven't

[0:39] yet found your seats, if you could find

[0:40] your seats and and uh that'd be great.

[0:44] We'll we'll get started. Uh we welcome

[0:46] those of you who have uh made it in

[0:48] person. Thank you for making that extra

[0:50] effort. I'm sure it'll be worth it for

[0:52] you today to be here. It's Tuesday,

[0:54] April 30th. It's just after 1:30 p.m.

[0:57] We'd like to excuse our chair, uh, uh,

[1:00] Mayor Mark Shepard. He's not able to

[1:03] join us today. Uh, but for those of you

[1:05] who are here in person, there are, uh,

[1:09] introductions that we're going to make

[1:11] around the around the, uh, table here

[1:14] today. And then Andrea, I'll ask you to

[1:16] do the introductions online if you would

[1:19] when we get to that point. Rosie, may we

[1:21] start with you today?

[1:24] >> Rosie Hernandez, and I'm part of the

[1:26] admin team at WFRC.

[1:29] >> Jordan Chandler, also part of the admin

[1:31] team at WFRC.

[1:33] >> Jerry Jackson, I'm the mayor of Mil

[1:34] Creek.

[1:35] >> Carlton Christensen,

[1:37] board of trustees for the Utah Transit

[1:39] Authority.

[1:41] Brooke Duza. I'm an atlarge city council

[1:43] member for Sandy.

[1:45] >> Andrea Pearson, part of the WFRC admin

[1:48] team.

[1:49] >> Good afternoon. I'm Andrew Guber. I'm

[1:51] executive director here at Wasach Front

[1:53] Regional Council. And welcome

[1:55] >> Wayne Ben, WFRC staff.

[2:00] Bryce Bird with the Division of Air

[2:01] Quality.

[2:05] » Michelle Bedoso representing the

[2:07] division of air quality board.

[2:10] I'm David Brams, Immigration Canyon

[2:12] Alternate.

[2:14] >> Jordan Bachman with UD do

[2:17] >> Alex Bame with UTA Planning and I'm

[2:19] sitting in for Nicole Bordeaux who

[2:21] couldn't be here today.

[2:27] I'm Holly Pearson, director of planning

[2:29] and transportation for Salt Lake County.

[2:34] » Fibultani, WFRC staff.

[2:39] >> Wagon, WFRC staff.

[2:42] >> Ben Wri, WFRC staff.

[2:48] » John A. Nardone, WFRC staff.

[2:53] Good afternoon, Beth Hullbrook, UTA.

[2:59] » Dan Doug, Salt Lake, City Council.

[3:01] >> Great. Thank you, Andrea.

[3:04] >> And those online, um,

[3:07] Council, I'm going to read three and

[3:09] then if you'll just, uh, introduce

[3:11] yourself. Council member Eric Stroberg,

[3:13] Mayor Chris K, and Mayor Lauren Palmer.

[3:22] Hey, good afternoon everyone. This is

[3:23] Eric Sherman with the Tula County

[3:25] Council.

[3:28] » Hey, good afternoon. Uh, Mayor Chris K

[3:30] in Saratoga Springs, Utah.

[3:33] >> Good afternoon, Mayor Palmer out in

[3:35] Haramman.

[3:38] » And, uh, Commissioner Railen Blocker,

[3:41] Mayor Brandon, I'm sorry, Braden

[3:43] Mitchell, and Mayor Paul Fatheringham.

[3:47] That's Commissioner Blocker from Morgan

[3:49] County.

[3:54] » Uh, Mayor Braden Mitchell from Riverdale

[3:56] City

[3:59] >> and Paul Fatheringham. Uh, sorry I

[4:01] couldn't be with you today, but I

[4:03] brought a cold home from Texas last

[4:05] night, so thought I'd stay away from

[4:07] you.

[4:14] Ted Nolton, uh, WFRC.

[4:18] >> You know, Mr. Chair, I'll I'll note it's

[4:19] fun to see people in the room and here

[4:21] online. I've had the opportunity to

[4:23] spend time over the last two weeks with

[4:24] a bunch of folks here down in sunny St.

[4:27] George. Many of you were there for the

[4:30] league conference or for the UAC

[4:32] conference. And it's nice to see you up

[4:34] here. I'll just say Carlton was joking,

[4:36] those of you that are in the room, it's

[4:38] the what did you say? the uh parking

[4:40] club of the month. Uh

[4:44] >> you mean the fact that we've mastered

[4:46] how to keep our car here without it

[4:47] getting towed?

[4:48] >> Yeah, it's um it's an aptitude test and

[4:50] so far everybody in the room is passing

[4:52] our parking system. So, well done.

[4:54] >> I realize you change it every month to

[4:55] keep us on our toes.

[4:56] >> Not our doing, just for the record. Not

[4:58] our doing, Mr. Chair.

[5:02] >> Thank you so much, Andrew. Uh

[5:05] we uh our last meeting of this body was

[5:08] held on February 19th of 2026. Uh those

[5:12] of you uh many of you on the line have

[5:15] had a chance to review those minutes

[5:16] that were taking taken at that time. Uh

[5:20] I'm looking for a motion to approve

[5:21] those minutes.

[5:25] » Durk, great to have you here. Wow.

[5:27] Wonderful.

[5:28] >> Wonderful.

[5:29] >> Thank you.

[5:31] Becking if that's a legitimate motion.

[5:33] >> That's a legitimate mo Durk. Give us

[5:35] that. Andrea, you've got that down. We

[5:38] got a motion in a second. Uh I'll

[5:41] Carlton. Was this

[5:42] >> No, I apologize. I'm I'm pointing at

[5:44] Mayor Gail to join the table, please.

[5:48] >> Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor

[5:50] Gail. Looking. So, we'll now place that

[5:53] for vote. All in favor say I.

[5:55] >> Opposed, if any.

[5:57] >> Great. That passes unanimously. Uh we'll

[6:00] look now to turn the time over to Wayne

[6:02] Benign for a few updates and reminders.

[6:04] Wayne,

[6:07] >> thanks Commissioner. Uh I want to share

[6:10] a couple reminders but give some bigger

[6:13] picture context at the same time. And so

[6:16] uh you'll recall that two of the primary

[6:18] products of the WFRC are the regional

[6:22] transportation plan and the

[6:24] transportation improvement program and

[6:27] major roadway and transit and active

[6:29] transportation product projects

[6:32] um are identified by local governments

[6:36] UD do and UTA and included in the RTP

[6:40] once they're in the first phase or the

[6:42] first 10 years of the RTP.

[6:45] they can be included in the tip. Here's

[6:48] the first reminder. Currently, the

[6:50] preferred scenario of the RTP, the

[6:53] regional transportation plan, uh is out

[6:57] for public comment. Um that includes and

[7:02] it's on the website on the WFRC website.

[7:05] Uh so it includes all the needs that

[7:07] have been collectively identified uh for

[7:11] surface transportation out through 2055.

[7:15] Uh if you haven't already, we'd

[7:17] encourage you to comment on uh on the

[7:21] website or contact a member of the long

[7:24] range planning team. Uh comments comment

[7:28] period is open through May 13th.

[7:32] Uh like I just mentioned, when funding

[7:35] is committed by UD do or UTA or a local

[7:39] government to one of these major uh

[7:43] roadway, transit or active

[7:45] transportation projects in phase one of

[7:47] the RTP,

[7:49] it can then be included in the tip. Uh,

[7:53] and as you're aware from the board

[7:56] modifications that Ben presents every

[7:58] month, uh, not only does the tip include

[8:02] major projects like new road

[8:04] construction or a new transit line, it

[8:07] also includes numerous smaller projects

[8:11] to address pavement safety and other

[8:14] operational

[8:15] uh, needs. Which brings me to the next

[8:19] reminder I'd like to share. Uh on April

[8:23] 10th, we sent an email

[8:26] uh in about the opportunity to apply for

[8:29] funding through the safe streets and

[8:31] roads for all SS4A uh federal funding

[8:36] program. If you haven't done so

[8:38] recently, would encourage you to take a

[8:41] look at the comprehensive safety action

[8:43] plan that's also on WFRC's website that

[8:46] Transcom approved two years ago. see

[8:50] what transportation safety needs are

[8:53] identified in your community and

[8:55] consider applying for funding. The

[8:58] deadline for applications is May 26th

[9:01] and a 20% local match is required. We'll

[9:04] include a link again uh to that notice

[9:07] of funding opportunity uh in the

[9:10] follow-up email from this meeting.

[9:13] Thank you.

[9:14] >> That's a great report, Wayne. Thank you

[9:16] so much. Before we move to public

[9:18] comments, there are also two other uh

[9:20] recent uh things that have just

[9:21] happened. I'd like to turn just a couple

[9:23] of moments over to Andrew Gruber to

[9:25] explain those.

[9:26] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have uh two

[9:29] items of very positive news to report.

[9:31] You may be familiar with both of these

[9:34] items. one is about the recent

[9:36] preliminary EPA determination about uh

[9:40] air quality and the second one is about

[9:44] the uh opening the ribbon cutting for

[9:47] the UTA bus rapid transit the Mid Valley

[9:50] Express. So, uh, in that order, the

[9:53] first item, and this is a rather

[9:54] technical item, but the basic news is

[9:57] that the EPA has made a preliminary

[10:01] determination that uh, ozone causing

[10:06] pollutants, emissions that literally

[10:10] blow in from outside of Utah, from

[10:13] China, from California, otherwise that

[10:16] are outside of the control of Utons will

[10:20] not be counted as we are determining how

[10:25] as we are being measured for the ozone

[10:28] concentrations in our atmosphere. Um

[10:32] this has been this is something that

[10:33] we've been working on. When I say we I

[10:35] mean WFRC U DOT uh particularly with the

[10:39] great experts at uh Utah DEEQ and DAQ

[10:43] and I'm going to put Bryce on the spot

[10:45] here in just a moment ask him if he

[10:46] wants to comment. We've been working on

[10:48] this for a while because if um if we had

[10:52] to be sort of held accountable, if you

[10:55] will, for emissions that are coming from

[10:57] uh overseas or from out of our control,

[11:00] it would be very hard for us to be in

[11:04] conformity with the applicable uh ozone

[11:07] requirements. Um, now I should note at

[11:11] the same time that I say that

[11:13] collectively we have been working and

[11:15] will continue to work incredibly hard on

[11:19] reducing emissions in our atmosphere

[11:21] because that matters to our health. Um,

[11:25] and in fact the the mobile sources,

[11:28] cars, trucks, buses, etc. That's really

[11:30] what we talk about most here. The

[11:33] emissions have been declining

[11:35] dramatically as vehicles have gotten

[11:37] cleaner, as we continue to provide more

[11:39] and more options for people to take

[11:42] transit or to bike or to walk. This is

[11:44] our transportation system, our community

[11:46] design. All of these things fit

[11:49] together. So, we'll keep making progress

[11:51] on air quality. But from a regulatory

[11:53] perspective, this is a very positive

[11:55] development. The last thing I'll say is

[11:58] that if we were not able to uh and this

[12:02] is where I always get in trouble because

[12:04] it's like what are the exact right words

[12:06] to use? Bryce will correct me. If we're

[12:08] not able to attain the standards,

[12:11] demonstrate conformity both

[12:14] with the applicable ozone requirements,

[12:17] there could be a restriction on how we

[12:21] use and uh transportation dollars, what

[12:23] transportation projects we invest in,

[12:25] including potentially transit projects.

[12:27] In other words, we might have

[12:29] restrictions imposed on our ability to

[12:31] do transit expansions, even though, as

[12:34] we know, that's helpful to air quality.

[12:36] So that wouldn't make much sense. So

[12:38] that's a positive development. Um Bryce,

[12:42] do you want to comment and or clean up

[12:43] anything that I just said?

[12:45] >> No, that's great. I think one thing

[12:47] we've been emphasizing of course is

[12:48] we're we're not yet uh out of the woods

[12:51] and really emphasize that. So, uh, by

[12:54] EPA reconsidering their their change in

[12:56] classification from moderate to serious,

[12:59] it does relieve us of some f future

[13:01] obligations like an enhanced emissions

[13:03] testing program, which would basically

[13:05] require roadside testing of our our

[13:07] vehicles to make sure that what we

[13:08] assume in our models is correct on the

[13:10] transportation side. um but also a

[13:13] requirement for uh kind of additional uh

[13:16] really hard reductions for us in

[13:18] particular because we just went through

[13:19] the Sirius PM 2.5 state implementation

[13:22] plan which we got the good news in

[13:24] December that EPA accepted the plan and

[13:26] we've been reclassified to attainment

[13:28] for that that standard but we said made

[13:30] such great work on that and had so many

[13:34] reductions there that it's hard to find

[13:36] additional reductions now under the

[13:37] ozone planning requirement. So, this uh

[13:39] helps us uh kind of buy us some time,

[13:41] helps us focus on local emission

[13:43] sources. Uh we're still in

[13:44] non-attainment, but we still and we

[13:46] still have to make reasonable progress

[13:48] over time, but it does kind of help us

[13:51] from the next hammers that we were

[13:53] expecting from that as well. If I could

[13:55] mention, there's also a second action

[13:57] that we have before EPA right now to to

[13:59] have them accept our state

[14:01] implementation plan for the moderate

[14:03] level of attainment that we submitted in

[14:05] December of 2024.

[14:07] And uh if EPA accepts that plan, that's

[14:09] what gets us out of the risk of a uh the

[14:13] sanction clock starting. Uh so that

[14:15] would freeze transportation planning at

[14:17] that point if if that if they were to

[14:18] take that action and then the sanctions

[14:20] come in uh two years after the the

[14:22] freeze. And so it's very important that

[14:24] we're still working on on that effort.

[14:26] And uh there's a lot of folks that are

[14:28] um very actively lobbying EPA to to make

[14:33] a decision on that front as well. Uh

[14:36] actually since it has been 18 months now

[14:38] uh they really need to act by next

[14:40] month. So

[14:42] >> Bryce, thank you. This is a a a

[14:44] complicated area from a scientific

[14:45] perspective, from a regulatory

[14:47] perspective. We're all working really

[14:49] hard on it to continue to be able to do

[14:51] good planning and good investment in

[14:52] transportation and say increase mobility

[14:56] to have a strong economy and to have uh

[14:59] cleaner air. These things are not

[15:01] mutually exclusive and so we're working

[15:02] on all of them. Colon,

[15:04] >> I was just curious, roadside testing,

[15:07] what does that mean? And also, what are

[15:10] some maybe examples of things that you'd

[15:13] have to try to do that now goes kind of

[15:16] beyond the current PM2

[15:19] requirements?

[15:20] >> Yeah, just quickly, it's mostly a a an

[15:23] US problem. Um and basically it is that

[15:26] so we have the emissions testing program

[15:27] now where uh after the first few years

[15:30] of a vehicle's ownership it requires

[15:32] annual testing to make sure that uh the

[15:34] vehicle is still operating as the

[15:36] manufacturer designed it to operate. Um

[15:39] the the

[15:40] big uh leap with the with enhanced

[15:43] emissions testing is again you have to

[15:44] verify that your assumptions that you

[15:46] use in your transportation planning are

[15:48] accurate based on uh actual tests uh on

[15:52] the road. So basically uh at uh freeway

[15:56] entrances or roads around the valley, we

[15:58] have to create a plan to to again

[16:00] demonstrate that the vehicles are

[16:02] actually in use meeting what the uh

[16:05] testing or the the check engine light is

[16:06] showing that they're supposed to meet.

[16:08] So it's a big lift. Uh again, a lot of

[16:10] more staffing for us, a lot of more

[16:12] demonstration for us, uh some expensive

[16:14] equipment to purchase and uh distribute

[16:16] throughout the valley, but that's the big lift for us. And it basically is

[16:20] verifying that the assumptions that we

[16:22] make based on uh the fleet both that are

[16:25] subject to emissions testing because

[16:26] they're registered in these counties and

[16:28] all the vehicles that are coming in from

[16:30] other areas that don't require testing

[16:32] and be able to get a more accurate

[16:34] number as to the actual transportation

[16:36] emissions on the road versus relying

[16:39] only on the model.

[16:42] And if anybody wants to go deeper uh

[16:45] into this issue, we can go really really

[16:47] deep in this issue. So, just let us know

[16:49] if you have any questions and we're

[16:51] happy to talk offline about this. And if

[16:53] you ask us anything that we can't

[16:54] answer, Bryce and Michelle can answer

[16:56] those questions. Thank you. Okay, the

[16:58] next thing, um, you probably all heard

[17:01] this, but the ribbon cutting was earlier

[17:04] this week for the UTA's bus rapid

[17:07] transit system, the Mid Valley Express.

[17:09] This is really exciting. This project

[17:12] has been in the plans for over 20 years

[17:15] and through perseverance and

[17:17] collaboration it is now operating. This

[17:19] is the BRT system that connects Murray,

[17:22] Taylorville, and West Valley City. Um

[17:25] the ribbon cutting was just earlier this

[17:27] week. Carlton is the chair of the board.

[17:30] You you might want to make a comment

[17:31] here. Carlton was there speaking. I know

[17:33] Beth was at the event. Holly uh spoke at

[17:35] the event and gave great comments also

[17:36] on behalf of Mayor Wilson. Um it's just

[17:39] an exciting progress. Carlton, brief

[17:42] comment.

[17:42] >> Yeah. Uh we're uh super excited. The

[17:45] system uh we completed a year ahead of

[17:49] schedule u thanks to some great timing

[17:51] and and our contractor's availability

[17:54] and thanks to the commitment of WFRC and

[17:58] really the local officials that make up

[18:00] that uh the first three years similar to

[18:03] some of our other bus rapid transit

[18:06] system will be free zero fair I should

[18:09] say. And um this is an all-electric bus

[18:13] uh system and it it also links the last

[18:16] u major um institution of higher

[18:19] education into our system. We didn't we

[18:22] had buses that served the slick campus

[18:24] but nothing with the kind of frequent

[18:27] connection service and it also helps

[18:29] connect a lot of the west side of the

[18:31] Salt Lake County into our front runner

[18:34] system more easily. So, I think it'll be

[18:37] a great system and my guess is it'll

[18:39] outpace the writership estimates

[18:42] >> and as Carlton said, WFRC was really

[18:45] happy to be able to help in the planning

[18:46] with this. Alex knows this. The planning

[18:48] UD do's involved in this. A lot of the

[18:51] BRT runs on UD dot roadway with the

[18:54] cities. I mean, just so much partnership

[18:55] and this body authorized some funding

[18:58] going to that project uh over time. So,

[19:01] it takes partnership. So, okay. Thank

[19:03] you, Mr. Chair.

[19:04] >> Thank you. So, thank you so much. Just

[19:06] to comment on that most recent one, you

[19:08] I think you will find that your usership

[19:10] with our Ogden or OGX line which is now

[19:14] more than three years old. We've tripled

[19:17] the estimate numbers. Our wrership has

[19:19] tripled what they anticipated using at

[19:22] that time and it does tie into that

[19:23] front runner. It's been a really good

[19:25] thing. I'll also just say for those in

[19:27] the room and those online since um

[19:30] Railen Blocker and I are the only two

[19:32] county folks that have the voice voice

[19:34] here for you folks in the city and the

[19:36] others just remember this as it comes to

[19:38] ozone Bryce and Michelle it's what we

[19:41] say in the counties it's pretty simple

[19:45] you graze it you log it or the good Lord

[19:48] will burn it so that stuff coming in

[19:51] from Northern California and across the

[19:54] pond to China. It it it matters a lot.

[19:57] But I'm really grateful. I I've uh I'm

[19:59] since your first presentation, uh Bryce,

[20:02] a couple three years ago, I've moved my

[20:04] two-stroke weed eater because you told

[20:06] me about that to an electric weed eater.

[20:09] And boy, that's been a peach. It's

[20:11] barely been a good thing. So, there you

[20:13] go. You made a believer out of me.

[20:16] >> Mr. Chair, if I could just add one

[20:18] thing. Uh we actually have an incentive

[20:19] program right now. So, if uh anyone is

[20:22] wanting to to take that leap into an

[20:23] electric uh either uh string trimmer,

[20:28] leaf blower, uh our our current uh air

[20:30] quality incent program, you just search

[20:31] at air quality incentives.utah.gov

[20:34] or charge your yard uh.utah.gov.

[20:38] Uh you can see those. And so we've been

[20:40] doing a lot of uh public or social media

[20:42] advertisings advertisements in all the

[20:45] counties that are uh that that's

[20:46] available for. So encourage your your uh

[20:49] citizens to to participate in that

[20:51] program as well.

[20:52] >> Well, I you know I I worried about them

[20:54] not having the power, but coming from a

[20:56] two-stroke, I think there's nothing that

[20:58] could have that much torque. And mine's

[21:00] actually twisted the shaft. There's so

[21:02] much torque. There's it's a lot of

[21:04] power. We love it. All right, we're

[21:05] looking now for public comments. Those

[21:07] of you in the public in the room, if you

[21:09] have any public uh comment, we'd limit

[21:12] your comments to three minutes. those

[21:14] items that are uh please address those

[21:16] items only on the agenda.

[21:19] Hearing none, we're going to move on to

[21:21] item number four now.

[21:22] >> See if there's anybody online.

[21:24] >> Anybody online? Andrea,

[21:26] >> there are no public commenters online.

[21:28] >> Thank you. No public online or There we

[21:30] go. So, we're going to move to item

[21:32] four. Uh Ben, if you'll get set up, this

[21:34] is you. Now, there there's six parts to

[21:36] item number four. A B CDE E and F. And

[21:39] so we're going to turn the time over to

[21:41] Ben Witch to to first off today the uh

[21:45] it's regarding the transportation

[21:47] improvement program or the TIP. Um

[21:52] the the last four are Transcom's annual

[21:55] opportunities to review the the

[21:57] recommended projects and to add fun

[21:59] federal funding programs administered by

[22:01] the WFRC regional council. Ben, go

[22:04] ahead.

[22:06] >> Wonderful. Emma does. Uh so Mr. Chair,

[22:10] you you introduced me well there. So a

[22:13] lot of us we had the opportunity today

[22:15] to talk about the transportation

[22:16] improvement program or the big picture

[22:19] is the tip and right now and currently

[22:21] we're functioning under the 2026 2031

[22:26] transportation improvement program but

[22:29] we'll be talking here in a few minutes

[22:30] on the preparations to move forward with

[22:32] the 2027

[22:34] 2032 tip. So, a little bit about today's

[22:38] meeting. Then, just to give us a a

[22:41] highlight there, we have a report on the

[22:43] board modification of the action that

[22:46] was taken by the regional council back

[22:47] in March. Then, we have a new board

[22:50] modification to bring before you today.

[22:52] And then, as the chair indicated, we've

[22:55] got to talk about the draft projects to

[22:58] move into the draft programs for the

[23:01] 2027 2032 tip.

[23:04] So, the first there being um an

[23:08] understanding or acknowledgement of what

[23:10] the transportation improvement program

[23:12] does. It's a six-year program of funded

[23:16] highway transit and active

[23:18] transportation projects. It's not

[23:20] another planning document. This is the

[23:23] funded projects that are moving forward.

[23:25] It implements the capacity projects in

[23:28] the long range plan. as Wayne indicated

[23:31] earlier, those that are in the phase one

[23:33] of the long range plan. And then it also

[23:35] helps us meet the short range needs

[23:38] along the Wasatch front. And then

[23:40] because the dynamic nature of the

[23:42] projects, the timing, the funding, um we

[23:45] have periodic modifications about every

[23:47] time we meet, we have a board

[23:49] modification for the transportation

[23:51] improvement program. So the board

[23:55] modification that that took place with

[23:57] the regional council was back in March.

[23:59] And in your meeting materials, you

[24:01] should have a copy of the table. That

[24:03] table identifies those projects that

[24:06] they reviewed and approved as a board

[24:08] modification. And there's a copy of that

[24:10] signed resolution. This is an

[24:12] information item. Are there any

[24:14] questions with this?

[24:19] Wonderful. Mr. Chair, we good to keep

[24:21] going?

[24:23] If there are no questions, just please

[24:25] keep going. Thank you.

[24:26] >> Now, now with just the modifications.

[24:28] Thanks.

[24:29] >> So, we have a board modification to

[24:32] bring before you today. And in your

[24:34] meeting materials, you'll also find a

[24:36] table. That table identifies the

[24:38] project. We have one project today

[24:41] before you to be modified into the

[24:43] transportation improvement program. This

[24:45] particular project is located up in

[24:48] Boxelder County. This is in the city of

[24:51] Willard and it's on 750 North at the

[24:54] intersection there of 200 West. This

[24:57] project is to address pedestrian and

[25:00] cyclists that would be crossing 750

[25:03] North here at 200 West as the trail

[25:06] facility is improved. Now, the intent of

[25:10] this project is to include the

[25:12] construction or the the installation of

[25:16] an RRFB,

[25:18] which is a a rectangular rapid flashing

[25:20] beacon. Cool acronym to utilize when

[25:24] you're in conversation with your

[25:25] friends.

[25:27] Do you know about the RRFBS? Anyway, or

[25:31] it could be implemented here where you

[25:34] have uh a pedestrian hybrid beacon which

[25:37] is actually more like a hawk signal that

[25:40] goes across the full facility. Now, back

[25:43] when this project was initially put on

[25:46] the tip, it was about back in 2014,

[25:49] it was identified that uh there wasn't a

[25:52] lot of activity in that area. And this

[25:55] particular project didn't warrant the

[25:57] ability to put a flashing sign or

[26:02] something there to indicate the traffic

[26:04] that there might be pedestrians.

[26:06] However, since that time, there has been

[26:08] an increase of use, but unfortunately,

[26:11] there's also been an increase of project

[26:13] cost. So, the intent of this board

[26:15] modification is to request that we add

[26:18] an additional 150,000 to this project of

[26:21] CMAC funds. These are the Ogden Lanton

[26:24] congestion mitigation air quality funds.

[26:27] and then the local match of just under

[26:29] 11,000 bringing us total project value

[26:33] to 252,000

[26:35] plus. So, Mr. Chair, that's the board

[26:37] modification before us. Thank you so

[26:40] much. Are there any questions or

[26:41] comments before I entertain a motion?

[26:44] Hearing none, I'm looking for a motion

[26:46] to approve the resolution to modify the

[26:48] 2026 to 2031 transportation improvement program as requested.

[26:56] » Mr. Mr. Chair, I move approval of the

[26:58] resolution.

[26:59] >> Thank you, Carlton. And a second by Dan.

[27:02] Thank you so much. If there's no other

[27:04] questions, I'll place that motion for

[27:06] vote. All in favor?

[27:08] >> Opposed, if any.

[27:11] >> Great. That's passes by unanimous. Thank

[27:13] you. We'll move on to now item 4 C. Ben,

[27:16] this is a recommend. This is to

[27:18] recommend the 2027 through 2032

[27:21] congestion mitigation air quality

[27:23] program or the CMAC

[27:26] and item 4D which will be action uh to

[27:29] commend the 20 to recommend the 2028

[27:31] carbon reduction program or the CRP. Mr.

[27:35] Wrich, go ahead please.

[27:36] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, if I was a

[27:40] drum player, we'd have a little drum

[27:41] roll here or maybe we'd have just a

[27:43] there. That's amazing. Thank you. So,

[27:47] um, the chair pointed out there are

[27:49] programs and we're going to identify,

[27:51] um, we're going to focus on the first

[27:54] two, but I just want to give these guys

[27:56] each an opportunity to introduce

[27:57] themselves. There say step forward and

[28:00] wave to you. So, these four projects are

[28:03] the capital funds or our funds for the

[28:07] capital projects in a while front. These

[28:10] are the programs that your key

[28:12] responsibility is to recommend the

[28:16] projects that'll move forward in these

[28:18] programs. So today we're going to

[28:20] present these projects to you for your

[28:22] approval and recommendation to the

[28:24] regional council that they be included

[28:27] in the draft programs. So where did that

[28:31] all start? Well, you you may recall that

[28:34] last August when we went to the regional

[28:36] council, we received direction from them

[28:40] to solicit the new project process that

[28:43] initiates in September. So, in

[28:46] September, we sent out a request for

[28:48] letters of intent. That's an intent to

[28:50] submit a concept report or an

[28:51] application. Then those were due back to

[28:55] us in the middle part of October. And we

[28:58] requested from those projects that were

[29:00] eligible. We had a very high level

[29:03] review of the projects, identified uh

[29:06] eligibility as well as conversation on

[29:09] where the the project may stand the best

[29:12] chance to compete for resources or where

[29:15] they could go for resources, but that we

[29:18] requested the potential project sponsors

[29:20] prepare a project evaluation concept

[29:23] report or an application. and they

[29:26] prepared that and that was due back to

[29:27] us in the early part of December. From

[29:30] that point through the months of

[29:33] January, February, March, we were

[29:36] involved in project evaluation. That

[29:38] included conversations with the

[29:41] potential project sponsor. That included

[29:43] field reviews where we were out on site

[29:46] looking at the projects. That included

[29:48] evaluating all of the data and

[29:50] information that we solicited and got

[29:52] back in their applications.

[29:55] Then we from this point forward we bring

[29:59] that information to transcom for

[30:01] transcom's review and we'll dive into

[30:04] that in just a minute and then their

[30:06] recommendation to the regional council

[30:08] and we'll take that information to them

[30:10] in their May meeting. After that we

[30:13] prepare the draft tip to go out for

[30:14] public review and comment which we will

[30:17] be directed by transcom in June that

[30:20] takes place during the month of July.

[30:23] After July, we bring that information

[30:25] back to all of our committees and we go

[30:28] through and share with them the

[30:30] information we received and then receive

[30:33] direction from Transcom and then into

[30:35] the regional council for approval of the

[30:38] 27 2032 tip. That information is then

[30:42] compiled with UD do and the other three

[30:45] NPOS's in the state and is submitted to

[30:48] Federal Highways FHWA and Federal

[30:51] Transit Agency FTA for their review and

[30:54] their approval come October 1

[30:57] is when our 2027 2032 tip becomes a real

[31:02] live document. That's where we're moving

[31:05] forward. But incidentally, back in

[31:07] September, we'll begin the process for

[31:08] the 2023 2028 process. But today, here's

[31:13] where we are. We're bringing this

[31:15] information to you of the draft

[31:17] projects. Now, where did we go or how

[31:19] did we get here? Well, when we solicited

[31:23] those projects and we received the

[31:24] concept reports in the Ogden area, Ogden

[31:27] Leighton area, which goes from

[31:29] essentially Bigham City all the way down

[31:32] to Utah County

[31:34] and is um west of the the Wasatch Front.

[31:39] We received 28 projects to evaluate. 28,

[31:44] but there's 24 unique project. That

[31:46] means there's four projects that also

[31:49] asked out of other funding sources. So,

[31:52] we got 24 projects that we're going to

[31:54] focus on and they totaled more than $177

[31:59] million

[32:00] for total project costs. They requested

[32:04] a little more than $111 million to

[32:07] construct or to implement these

[32:10] projects. and we had available in the

[32:12] Ogden Lake and urban area to program 25

[32:15] a.5 million.

[32:17] So a significant need on great projects,

[32:21] but it really narrows that

[32:22] responsibility down to identify what's

[32:25] going to make the best project for the

[32:28] funds that are available. So in the Salt

[32:30] Lake area and can I just let me just go

[32:33] back for one slide? Let me just jump in

[32:34] just for one point of clarification. So

[32:37] what you're showing on the screen right

[32:38] now are the project requests that came

[32:42] in from a particular a portion of our

[32:45] region. Right. Correct.

[32:46] >> Southern Boxelder County, Weber County,

[32:49] Davis County.

[32:50] >> Yes.

[32:50] >> And um we handle that area with with uh

[32:54] in one uh segment. And then we have Salt

[32:58] Lake County in another segment. You're

[33:00] about to go to that. And then Morgan and

[33:04] Tilla counties. We work with them. But

[33:06] this project funding of projects through

[33:09] these funds actually goes through UD do

[33:13] not through WFRC and we work with the

[33:18] rural planning organizations in Morgan

[33:19] and Tuella. We staff them to help them

[33:22] do their processes in Morgan and Tuella.

[33:24] So I just wanted to make sure that it's

[33:25] clear what the areas are that Ben is

[33:29] talking about uh with all of these

[33:32] project requests that are coming in. And

[33:34] Ben, just to emphasize what you said,

[33:36] the blue line is how much money is

[33:38] requested and the red line is bar is how

[33:41] much money we have available. So the

[33:42] need is so much greater than the uh the

[33:44] funds we have available. Thanks, Ben.

[33:47] Thank you, Andrew.

[33:49] If I may, I'll just note that the joint

[33:52] highway committee, the statewide joint

[33:54] highway committee uh made

[33:56] recommendations

[33:58] uh just a week ago in regard to funding

[34:02] of projects uh outside of the Wasatch

[34:06] Front area and uh those recommendations

[34:10] will be taken to the state

[34:11] transportation commission uh later in

[34:14] May or June. So,

[34:17] >> perfect. Thank you, Wayne. Thank you.

[34:20] So, as Andrew indicated, um, and we'll highlight just her or talk a

[34:26] little more. And so, in the Salt Lake

[34:28] area, there were 77 total projects to

[34:31] request, 56 of those projects are

[34:34] unique. So of those unique projects,

[34:36] they totaled more than 621 million

[34:40] requesting more than 235 million and we

[34:44] had available just under 40 million to

[34:47] program. So like on the the Ogden

[34:50] Leighton urban area, you can see that

[34:52] there were 28 projects that were

[34:54] requesting STP funds, surface

[34:56] transportation program funds. There were

[34:59] 16 that were asking for CMAC funds.

[35:02] There were 19 that were asking for TIP

[35:04] funds and there were 14 that were asking

[35:07] for carbon reduction program funds or

[35:10] CRP funds. So if you add those blue

[35:12] lines up, that's your 77. But there's

[35:15] some of those that are carried over. The

[35:17] part we want to point out though is the

[35:20] total and requested is not a

[35:23] duplication.

[35:25] that's unique to those unique projects

[35:28] or those numbers are are associated with

[35:31] unique projects. Yes.

[35:33] >> Are you saying that if you apply under

[35:35] one category, you cannot use that same

[35:37] application for another category?

[35:40] >> Um,

[35:42] no. But they can be considered in both.

[35:44] And and you will see here shortly,

[35:47] mayor, that there are projects that are

[35:48] funded in both categories to help us

[35:52] meet that project request or to program

[35:55] funds towards. It may not be the total

[35:57] amount being requested, but they may be

[36:00] funded out of.

[36:01] >> So it could be partial in one and

[36:03] partial in another one to make to go

[36:05] together because they fit.

[36:06] >> Boy, you're headed right down the road.

[36:09] We want you to. to just hold that

[36:10] question for just a little bit longer.

[36:14] >> Perfect. Perfect. Thank you. So, um, to

[36:18] get these projects, then here's the

[36:20] information that we we solicit with the

[36:23] potential project sponsors. So, these

[36:26] right here, these forms, that's the cost

[36:28] estimation forms. Every project sponsor

[36:31] fills out those forms, gives us the

[36:34] exact same information for every

[36:36] project. Right? Then these forms right

[36:39] here, these forms are for the STP, the

[36:42] CMAC and the CRP programs so that we can

[36:46] ask and get back data, the same kind of

[36:50] data from those projects. The next ones

[36:53] there in the yellow, the four sheets,

[36:54] those are for the TAP programs. And in

[36:58] the CMAC and the CRP where they deal

[37:01] with air quality benefits, they also

[37:04] have to submit an emission analysis

[37:06] form. So from all of this information,

[37:09] we're collecting a lot of data. A lot of

[37:11] data that we can measure, a lot of data

[37:13] we can do calculations from. We also

[37:17] have information that we collect when we

[37:19] go out for a field review. We validate

[37:21] information we've collected or the data,

[37:24] but we also collect additional

[37:26] information that we can see on site that

[37:28] maybe you can't measure. And so we got a

[37:34] source here of data or distribution of

[37:37] projects. We have these numbers can help

[37:40] us generate a score.

[37:43] That score will may include information

[37:46] on congestion or access, pavement

[37:49] condition or safety improvements,

[37:52] emission, air quality, project cost,

[37:55] etc. That category with criteria goes

[37:58] on. But we call this the data. This is

[38:01] stuff that can be quantified, can be

[38:04] measured. But we also because many of

[38:07] you know to identify a good project

[38:09] sometimes you just can't measure

[38:11] everything about a project. So we

[38:14] consider other relevant professional

[38:16] considerations.

[38:18] Some of these are on a field review.

[38:19] We'll talk maybe briefly about some of

[38:21] those examples. The sponsor's project

[38:24] history. We don't want to throw any

[38:26] project sponsor under the bus, but it's

[38:29] important that we've got didn't mean

[38:31] that to bad towards UTA either.

[38:34] >> I was going to say we have a very good

[38:36] safety record. Oh,

[38:37] >> so few people end up under the

[38:40] >> good. We won't don't want to throw them

[38:42] under a green bike or something, but but

[38:46] uh the longer we wait on a project, the

[38:49] more it cost and the less our dollar can

[38:52] afford. And so we want those projects

[38:54] happening as quick as they can happen.

[38:57] Distribution of funding across the area.

[38:59] Maybe some area is really heavy on

[39:01] funds, project synergy, what's happening

[39:03] with this project as this one moves

[39:05] forward. And we you see the others that

[39:08] are there. And so these are other

[39:10] considerations that are being included

[39:12] when we go. So we we gather all of this

[39:15] information from the field review from

[39:17] the data that is collected on the

[39:20] concept reports and then we look at all

[39:23] this other information and that's where

[39:25] we prepare recommendations or come

[39:27] forward with the project. So maybe if

[39:31] it's all right I actually I found this

[39:33] really cool definition

[39:36] that I kind of tweaked to address but it

[39:38] says this. that says quantify and

[39:41] qualify represent different approaches

[39:44] to information. There's part I added to

[39:47] identify the project with the most

[39:49] benefit at this time. Quantify measures

[39:52] with numbers, how much, how many,

[39:55] focusing on precision statist

[39:58] statistical data. Qualify describes

[40:01] characteristics, nuances, and context.

[40:04] What kind or why? And so using

[40:06] descriptive descriptive language,

[40:09] quantifying counts, qualifying defines.

[40:13] And so these are some of the tools that

[40:15] we're utilizing to identify the best

[40:17] project. But if it's all right with you,

[40:20] let's walk through an object lesson here

[40:23] to illustrate what we're talking about.

[40:28] Brace yourselves.

[40:34] So, I want to introduce I want to

[40:37] introduce project A and project B.

[40:41] So, we're going to put project

[40:44] I'm not nervous.

[40:46] Let's put project A over here.

[40:50] Maybe we'll

[40:52] put project B over here.

[40:56] Holy cow.

[40:58] >> Ben, are you saying that we don't with

[41:01] all the even with the 50 or so million

[41:05] dollars a year that we have available to

[41:07] put to projects, we can't fund all of

[41:10] them? So, somehow we have to make

[41:12] decisions about which projects. Is that

[41:14] what you're saying?

[41:15] >> Yes. Thank you, Andrew.

[41:17] >> Yeah. And you know, it it's a tough job.

[41:20] It's it's really tough and you know we rely heavily on our technical

[41:25] advisory committees to help us as we're

[41:28] going through all this information and

[41:30] that's made up of the engineers and

[41:32] public works and the staff of your

[41:34] cities. So let me introduce this is

[41:37] project A

[41:41] and let me introduce this is project B.

[41:44] Now, if we were out on a field review

[41:47] and you pulled up and saw project A and

[41:49] you pulled up and saw project B, they

[41:52] look pretty close, right? There's not

[41:55] much of a difference between either

[41:58] project. At least what we can see, we

[42:00] can handle, we can look at them, but

[42:02] they both look like they're doing their

[42:04] job. They both look like they're a good

[42:06] project, but we've got nothing to

[42:09] compare. So that's why we send out all

[42:12] of those forms requesting information so

[42:15] that we can generate data. So we can get

[42:18] data. So let's go after some data

[42:30] here. We got some data

[42:33] just to reduce the mess. All right.

[42:38] So

[42:39] project A

[42:41] we sent out the concept report and we

[42:45] said project A tell us the length of the

[42:48] project

[42:50] they responded. So

[42:53] project A sent in the concept report.

[42:55] They got information on how many the AAD

[42:59] that the traffic volumes they got

[43:02] information on the the length of the

[43:05] project. They got information on the

[43:08] condition of the project and that

[43:11] project

[43:12] looks like

[43:14] a pretty good project.

[43:18] So project A supplied us with the data

[43:21] we needed

[43:23] to know what's entailed in that project.

[43:26] Well, project B, they also submitted a

[43:29] concept report. They also prepared the

[43:32] information and told us how long the

[43:34] project is. They also told us what the

[43:37] traffic volumes are in the facility

[43:43] and and they also told us the conditions

[43:47] of the facility.

[43:51] Again, it was great to get the data from

[43:54] the city,

[43:56] but well, let's end it now.

[44:01] And if we're going after these projects,

[44:04] I don't know about you, but me myself, I

[44:06] would choose project A. Project A just

[44:09] has a lot more data. It has the

[44:12] information that's going to accomplish a

[44:15] lot more than project B if we went

[44:17] solely on the data that was collected on

[44:21] the forms, right? Sometimes that's not

[44:25] the only thing we're looking at on a

[44:26] project. Case in point, we had a safety

[44:30] improvement project years ago, but there

[44:33] was no safety concerns. There had never

[44:36] been an incident. There had never been

[44:38] an accident. There had never been an

[44:40] issue. But we've got this safety

[44:42] concern. We've got all of this projects,

[44:45] millions of dollars of requests, but not

[44:47] much. So, the data was just like this.

[44:51] all these other guys are showing a lot

[44:53] of information

[44:55] and this one just didn't have enough

[44:57] information that would help sell that

[45:00] project. So, we started to look at other

[45:02] things. So, let's look at some of those

[45:04] professional relevant information or

[45:07] relevant professional information that

[45:10] we could consider.

[45:15] So we went out on a field review

[45:19] and on that field review we looked at

[45:22] the projects.

[45:24] Project A, you got a pretty good

[45:26] project. But while we were out there on

[45:28] project B, we were standing alongside a

[45:31] busy road that had a very narrow

[45:34] shoulder that had a ditch next to that

[45:36] shoulder while little ones were coming

[45:39] to school, walking between that white

[45:42] stripe and the edge of the ditch, just

[45:45] inches, maybe a foot or two from cars

[45:48] that are passing. What did that tell us

[45:51] on that field review? Well, that let us

[45:54] know that, hey, this project is pretty

[45:57] important.

[45:59] Well, then we looked at sponsor project

[46:03] history. Well, you know, our project

[46:06] sponsors overall, we've got awesome

[46:08] cities. We work with some of the best

[46:10] people in the industry. And you know

[46:13] what? Project A people, well done. They

[46:16] are out there hustling. They're making

[46:18] that project happen. But you know, same

[46:20] thing. Project B. Those guys are out

[46:23] there making things happen. We're

[46:25] getting our projects on time. We're

[46:27] saving the funds by getting those

[46:29] projects built earlier. Well, then we

[46:32] went out and we started to look at

[46:34] programwise, how are we on equity of

[46:36] funding? Well, you know, on project A,

[46:39] there's a lot of big projects that are

[46:41] going on right now. Project B, it's been

[46:44] a while since we've been back out there

[46:46] with funding for that project. So

[46:49] project B, you know, we recognize that

[46:52] we haven't had much funding in this area

[46:55] right now. So project B. Well, then

[47:01] we look at project synergy. Now this

[47:04] what I had to I forgot this had to go

[47:06] back out in the fridge to get we can't

[47:08] go without synergy. So a synergy is when

[47:12] this project happens, what's it going to

[47:14] bring with it? What's happening in the

[47:16] area? Maybe there's another project

[47:18] that's going to happen. We got a couple

[47:20] of things that are going to tie into

[47:21] that. But this project synergy, if this

[47:24] project happens right now, we're going

[47:26] to get a lot bigger bang for the buck.

[47:28] So,

[47:34] project B, you got it. This is synergy.

[47:37] Project A, we recognize it's good

[47:40] project, but it's it's that's the

[47:43] project right now. We don't have much to

[47:45] build from right now. Well, then you

[47:49] know,

[47:50] timing efficiencies,

[47:53] that's a big one.

[47:55] And with our projects, both A and B are

[47:58] doing really good. So, we're going to

[48:01] recognize Sorry about that. A well,

[48:05] whoa. And B, look at you. All right. So,

[48:09] we've got

[48:11] that there. But you know there's a whole

[48:14] list of things that we're going to go

[48:15] through but right now on this example

[48:18] we're going to look at one last part

[48:21] and that's how does this project relate

[48:22] to the system?

[48:25] Well,

[48:27] project B with everything that's

[48:29] happening with your project,

[48:33] you have

[48:35] my tweezers are too big

[48:39] and my hands too nervous.

[48:41] >> Ben, I figured out why you got all the

[48:43] engineers and the public works directors

[48:46] to participate.

[48:50] All right. So, a cherry on top signifies

[48:54] Thank you.

[48:56] signifies that this is a total project.

[49:01] When we get this project, we're

[49:03] completing the system. We're filling the

[49:05] gap. We're making things complete. This

[49:09] one might be the very first project in

[49:11] that segment, which is a good thing. But

[49:13] right now, let's wrap up and fill the

[49:16] gap and complete the project. So now I

[49:20] come back

[49:25] and he's deflating a little. But

[49:29] now which project

[49:32] would have the delicious effect or would

[49:36] be the best project for the amount of

[49:40] funds for the time that we're

[49:43] programming right now would be project

[49:46] B. Wouldn't you agree?

[49:49] Project B has the information. So when

[49:53] we get into talking about the projects,

[49:56] we want to look at the data, but we also

[49:59] want to keep in mind the significance

[50:01] that those other relevant professional

[50:04] considerations have on the project. Now,

[50:07] you know, it's not as cool or as fun

[50:10] just to look at ice cream. We're going

[50:12] to award these by draw the number on who

[50:16] gets project A and who gets project B.

[50:18] So, so for all of you, you'll notice

[50:20] where you're sitting. Boy, we're sorry

[50:23] for those of you online. This is

[50:24] incredibly delicious and we hope that

[50:26] you're salivating at your stations. But

[50:29] for those of you who are here online,

[50:30] you'll notice a number. Rosie, if you

[50:33] could kind of explain or or tell us.

[50:39] I have a random number generator from 1

[50:43] through 27

[50:46] and the first number is number 19.

[50:51] » Oh, I think that council member is the

[50:54] closest.

[50:56] >> Sandy city seems to have been awarded a

[50:59] project.

[51:02] » So, you get project A. Did you need more

[51:06] professional considerations?

[51:10] » Appreciate it.

[51:13] >> Project B.

[51:14] is number two.

[51:17] >> Alex,

[51:21] » that is a great UTA project. Lots of

[51:24] synergy with the system.

[51:25] >> We You need us to add more data to that.

[51:33] » Thanks.

[51:34] All right. But that's no fair for us to

[51:36] sit and watch while they eat. So, we've

[51:39] got ice creams for everybody here. So,

[51:42] >> yay,

[51:49] » Ben. Thank you. I'm going to say as

[51:50] these as ice cream is being handed out

[51:54] in this room, everybody gets ice cream

[51:56] and every project is funded as

[51:59] represented by the ice cream. And just

[52:02] as Ben is uh uh closing up his

[52:04] evaluation process,

[52:07] I'll just note that unfortunately

[52:11] in the real world,

[52:13] we can't fund every transportation

[52:16] project.

[52:18] >> All right, got a napkin.

[52:20] >> Here's an there's project funding

[52:22] evaluation happening for those folks

[52:24] that are online. Just bear with us for a

[52:26] moment.

[52:28] I'm so glad to see that Ben's got the

[52:30] scoop on the projects.

[52:33] >> Okay.

[52:34] >> Well, you got fruit.

[52:35] >> I've got strawberry and orange.

[52:37] >> Orange.

[52:38] >> And there's ice cream, too.

[52:41] >> Orange. There you go.

[52:43] >> Oh, yeah.

[52:45] >> Thank you.

[52:47] >> Be delicious.

[52:49] For

[52:49] >> those of you who are on the line, we're

[52:51] going to be done just a bit. Please be

[52:53] patient with us.

[53:00] Dirk, from your comments earlier today,

[53:01] does that kind of answer your questions

[53:03] with regards to all the different things

[53:05] that go along with it?

[53:08] >> I think that was a sweet explanation.

[53:10] >> He's really cool with his words.

[53:14] >> Oh,

[53:14] >> but I could tell that was kind of nutty

[53:17] towards the end.

[53:18] >> Will you put that in the freezer?

[53:20] >> Yeah. I just feel I feel bad that

[53:22] Haramman isn't jetting or Riverdale

[53:24] aren't there no projects for them. I

[53:27] mean ice cream ice cream

[53:29] >> just to be clear about what we're

[53:31] talking about here. So again, Mr. Chair,

[53:34] just to be super clear about this.

[53:37] >> Um we wish that we had enough funding

[53:42] that every community could get the ice

[53:45] cream that they want. We wish that every

[53:47] project that was applied for there was

[53:50] enough res resources for that but that's

[53:53] not the case. We can't give uh we don't

[53:56] have enough money to award every

[53:58] project. Right Ben? Right. And so we

[54:00] have to do this really thoughtful and

[54:03] thorough process of evaluating projects

[54:07] as Ben said using data objective

[54:11] criteria and then also

[54:14] uh other relevant professional

[54:16] considerations and all of that goes into

[54:18] the decisions we make. So Ben, thank you

[54:21] so much.

[54:21] >> Thank you Andrew. Thank you. And so

[54:30] ah there we go. A boy. So, so with this

[54:36] combined effort, um, as we go through

[54:39] the information, hopefully that helps as

[54:42] we identify the projects that you can

[54:46] recognize

[54:48] and understand and um, feel free to ask

[54:53] questions as we move through the

[54:55] projects, but there's quite a few. And

[54:58] so

[55:00] in your meeting materials is a copy of

[55:04] the data sheets for each of the

[55:06] programs. So this is what the data sheet

[55:09] looks like for the CMAC program. You can

[55:12] see those projects that are highlighted

[55:14] in yellow. Those are the projects that

[55:16] are being recommended. And you can see

[55:19] in the blue column there on the left,

[55:22] that's the amount of funds that are

[55:23] being recommended for the project. And

[55:26] so this is the CMAC program and you can

[55:29] see the biggest um evaluation on the

[55:33] CMAC is the emissions analysis. We need

[55:37] to de demonstrate that we've got air

[55:39] quality benefits, right?

[55:42] So then we have the CRP or the carbon

[55:45] reduction program and the the format is

[55:48] the same but the carbon reduction

[55:51] program requires that we show a

[55:53] demonstration of reduction of CO2

[55:57] and so you can see how that and we'll go

[56:00] through the projects. Then we've got the

[56:03] TAP funds. And I I might highlight too

[56:06] that that on our team, the short range

[56:09] team is Wayne is our our coordinator on

[56:13] the short range team and oversees our

[56:15] work here and and the efforts that are

[56:18] being made. Far there she is the one who

[56:22] takes the lead in the evaluation of the

[56:25] data on the the CMAQ and CRP programs.

[56:30] This program that's showing here, this

[56:32] is the TAP program or the transportation

[56:34] alternative program. Hume Van Wagon is

[56:37] the one who takes the lead on this. And

[56:40] we've got actually three things that

[56:42] we're looking when we're programming TAP

[56:45] funds. The blue identifies those capital

[56:48] improvements. The red are project

[56:51] studies or plans and the green is safe

[56:54] routes to school. So if it's a blue

[56:57] project, you can see the points are in

[57:00] the blue. If it's a red project, you can

[57:01] see where the points are in red and

[57:04] green. If it's in green and that's how

[57:06] the projects are evaluated so that we

[57:08] can evaluate like projects against like

[57:12] projects.

[57:14] Then at the last table that we'll look

[57:17] at there, this is the surface

[57:19] transportation or STB program. And as

[57:22] you can see the various criteria on that

[57:25] project as well. And these are the

[57:27] tables included in your meeting meeting

[57:30] materials. So we have all of this

[57:33] information. We go through all of the

[57:35] projects and as the chair indicated,

[57:38] we're going to look at the CAQ and the

[57:40] CRP programs together because they're so

[57:44] closely related and you're going to see

[57:46] that some of the projects cross

[57:48] programs. So here's where we go and and

[57:52] I might add mayor to your question

[57:54] earlier some of these projects are also

[57:56] going to show in other programs as well.

[58:00] We try to identify the funds for the

[58:03] projects that'll get us the biggest

[58:05] benefit right now. So let's start here

[58:09] in the the CMAC program here. We've got

[58:12] three projects that are being

[58:13] recommended in the Ogden Leighton area.

[58:15] Those three projects total up to $5

[58:18] million being recommended from the TAC

[58:21] committee to Transcom. In the Salt Lake

[58:23] area, we've got six projects that are

[58:26] recommended from the TAC to Transcom.

[58:29] They total 9.6 plus million. So, we're

[58:33] going to go through these nine projects

[58:34] fairly quick. And so, here they are. So,

[58:37] this is the first project in the Ogden

[58:39] Lake urban area. This in South Weber. is

[58:42] a South Weieber UD do project on 27 East

[58:44] and South Weber Drive. This is to widen

[58:48] for turn lanes as well as intersection

[58:51] improvements. The estimated project cost

[58:53] on this is 3.7 plus million. Funds being

[58:57] requested are 3.3

[58:59] plus million and the TA committee

[59:01] recommended a million dollars.

[59:04] The next project is a project in

[59:07] Clearfield. This is on 1000 East just

[59:11] there on SR 193. This is to construct a

[59:14] pedestrian bridge that would go north

[59:16] and south over SR 193. Estimated project

[59:20] cost on this project is 20 plus million.

[59:23] Funds being requested are 17.6 million.

[59:27] The tax committee recommended 2 million.

[59:29] Now, I'm going to pause right there

[59:31] because I can see some of you wonder,

[59:33] well, that's a drop in a bucket. We're

[59:35] never going to build that with that. The

[59:37] intent is on some of these projects to

[59:40] recognize or acknowledge to everyone

[59:42] involved that the regional council

[59:44] identifies this as a priority project

[59:47] that facilitates when that project

[59:49] sponsor now then goes after other

[59:51] funding. They can use our funds for a

[59:53] match towards other funds and then they

[59:56] can go after other money. We also leave

[59:58] the door open so that they can come back

[1:00:00] and ask more from our money too. But we

[1:00:03] want to try to spread those funds out

[1:00:05] and utilize the best resource we can to

[1:00:08] work together to accomplish a priority.

[1:00:12] And so then the next project here, the

[1:00:14] last one in the Ogden Leighton area is

[1:00:17] for the Davis Salt Lake Connector. And

[1:00:19] this is for operations. And as you may

[1:00:22] remember, this goes from Farmington City

[1:00:24] all the way up through the U to research

[1:00:26] park. Estimated cost is 18 plus million.

[1:00:30] Funds being requested were 5 million.

[1:00:32] The TA committee recommended $2 million

[1:00:35] for this project. Now we move into the

[1:00:37] Salt Lake area. The first project and

[1:00:40] that's Oh,

[1:00:42] yes, please. M

[1:00:45] if they are awarded say the 2 million,

[1:00:47] it's a $20 million project. How long do

[1:00:50] they have to use that before they can

[1:00:53] how long can they hold on to that as

[1:00:54] they collect other funds until we say

[1:00:59] it's taken too long and we move that on

[1:01:01] to a different project?

[1:01:02] >> Mayor, that's an excellent question. So,

[1:01:05] in the CMAC funds and the STB funds,

[1:01:07] we're actually programming these funds

[1:01:09] for 2032. So, right out of the gate,

[1:01:12] we've got six years for that. But we

[1:01:15] also control how fast those funds move

[1:01:18] forward. If we see that the city is

[1:01:20] working hard, trying to do things, we

[1:01:23] can just keep bumping those funds back

[1:01:25] and just letting other projects go

[1:01:27] around them until we get enough funds.

[1:01:30] And so sometimes on some projects it the

[1:01:34] momentum builds fast and other times it

[1:01:36] takes a little longer for things to get

[1:01:38] going and then they happen. Case in

[1:01:41] point is the MVX that we just talked

[1:01:43] about today. 20 years on the program.

[1:01:46] The first funding for that came

[1:01:47] available in 2020 or 2019.

[1:01:53] Um sometime it was so it's been a number

[1:01:56] of years that we've all been working to

[1:01:58] try to make this project happen. Mayor

[1:02:00] Burton, just one thing though that I've

[1:02:02] noticed is is while that's all good and

[1:02:05] true and it's awesome that they'll hold

[1:02:07] those money those monies the what we've

[1:02:10] experienced is oft times the project

[1:02:13] cost the total project cost continues to

[1:02:16] accelerate faster than we're ability our

[1:02:19] ability to raise those monies. So there

[1:02:21] is an expeditious or or hurry up and get

[1:02:25] it done component to that. We've also

[1:02:28] seen in our area sometimes when this

[1:02:32] would be for 2032 if you're ahead of

[1:02:35] schedule sometimes they can be bumped

[1:02:37] up. So maybe you can get it instead of

[1:02:39] 2032 you might get it for 2030 or 2031

[1:02:42] because because others have done that

[1:02:44] and they kind of shift things around. So

[1:02:46] just a couple of things we've noticed up

[1:02:48] our way.

[1:02:50] >> Thank you Mr. Chair. because I find

[1:02:51] that's real important. In our city, we

[1:02:53] have this the same issues and sometimes

[1:02:55] we do a project like we're on 13th West,

[1:02:58] which has been in the works for similar

[1:02:59] to this UTA project for like 20 years.

[1:03:02] And if we had lost those funds that were

[1:03:05] there originally, then we'd be in

[1:03:07] trouble today, but we saved those and

[1:03:09] added them up over the years. So that's

[1:03:11] why I asked the questions if they ever

[1:03:13] dissolved and go away or if they stay

[1:03:15] there. It's all because you see the

[1:03:16] project is is gathering momentum. Ben,

[1:03:20] let me add on to that. In part, what

[1:03:23] Mayor Burton is is getting at is

[1:03:25] depending on the funding source, and

[1:03:27] these are federal funds that we're

[1:03:29] awarding here, um, federal funds, you can't just hold on to them

[1:03:34] indefinitely. They there are actual

[1:03:36] federal requirements for when they're

[1:03:38] spent, but that's not exactly what's at play here. We receive an

[1:03:44] allocation of federal funds every year

[1:03:47] and we WFRC working with our partners do

[1:03:51] an excellent job, Ben, Wayne and team do

[1:03:54] an excellent job of of making sure that

[1:03:58] those funds are put to use that are

[1:04:00] spent. We have a better track record in

[1:04:02] Utah than just about any other state in

[1:04:04] the nation of making sure that we're not

[1:04:06] giving any funds back. We're dynamically

[1:04:09] managing the program. WFRC working with

[1:04:13] UD do collaborating with UTA

[1:04:16] uh navigating with Salt Lake County and

[1:04:18] the fundings that the funds that they

[1:04:19] distribute and periodically adjusting

[1:04:22] the funding sources for various various

[1:04:24] projects to make sure that they're used.

[1:04:26] What this plan the TIP the

[1:04:29] transportation improvement program does

[1:04:31] these awards are for outy years. It's we

[1:04:34] so when that project is ready to go then

[1:04:36] we'll be able to apply real funds to it.

[1:04:39] So the fact that it's out a few years

[1:04:40] doesn't mean that the funds are in

[1:04:42] jeopardy. The real requirements come

[1:04:45] under federal law and regulation which

[1:04:47] kind of a separate management process

[1:04:50] that we're that we mind very very

[1:04:52] carefully to make sure that uh funds are

[1:04:54] not lost and we we work with all of the

[1:04:57] communities to make sure that when the

[1:04:59] project is ready when you're ready then

[1:05:01] the funds are actually available for

[1:05:03] you.

[1:05:05] >> Thank you Andrew. Thank you mayor. Um,

[1:05:08] and it just occurred to me too, I

[1:05:10] recognized uh this side of our short

[1:05:12] range plan staff. I didn't recognize

[1:05:15] Rosie or Jordan. Both of them are

[1:05:17] significant. Rosie helps us on the field

[1:05:20] review planning and scheduling, as well

[1:05:22] as she's in a different team, but we

[1:05:24] claim her as part of the short range.

[1:05:26] And then Jordan administers all our tech

[1:05:28] committees, too. So, you'll hear a lot

[1:05:30] from them. They really are driving the

[1:05:32] show. The rest of us are just in the

[1:05:34] wagon. So, as we move forward here on

[1:05:38] this particular project in uh is the

[1:05:41] first one in South Salt Lake on 300

[1:05:43] West. This is for a bike and ped

[1:05:45] facility between 2100 South to Haven

[1:05:48] Avenue. Little more than a quarter mile

[1:05:50] in length. Project estimated cost 1.2

[1:05:53] plus million. Funds being requested are

[1:05:55] 1.1 plus million and the TAC recommended

[1:05:58] the full requested amount. The next

[1:06:00] project is a request from UTA. This is

[1:06:03] for operating cost on the 5600 West

[1:06:07] which is um the hub from the old Bingham

[1:06:10] Highway up to now into town. Um the

[1:06:14] estimated operating costs on that

[1:06:16] project is sorry I cut that off there

[1:06:19] but it's 7 plus million. Funds being

[1:06:22] requested are uh 4.5 million

[1:06:26] and the attack recommended the $2

[1:06:28] million for the operating cost. The next

[1:06:31] project here is an intersection project

[1:06:33] in Salt Lake City. This on Chapeta Way

[1:06:36] and Wakara Way. This is to take a

[1:06:38] four-legged intersection and and

[1:06:40] construct a roundabout. Estimated

[1:06:43] project cost is 1.5 plus million. Funds

[1:06:46] being requested are 1.4 plus million and

[1:06:49] the funds that were recommended was the

[1:06:51] amount requested by the city on the

[1:06:54] project. The next project is a a project

[1:06:57] in Sandy City. This is on 1210 East in

[1:07:00] SR 209. It's an interesting project, one

[1:07:03] that changed dynamics in the field view.

[1:07:06] Initially, the project was requesting a

[1:07:08] hawk or a pedestrian hybrid beacon

[1:07:13] at this crossing here of 90th South.

[1:07:16] This is 90th 94th South there at about

[1:07:19] 12 East. Uh the amphitheater there to

[1:07:22] the north and the overflow parking

[1:07:25] across the street there below the

[1:07:27] hospital.

[1:07:28] When we were out there and about, it was

[1:07:30] identified by the Department of

[1:07:32] Transportation. We're way too close to

[1:07:33] the signal for a a ped crossing signal.

[1:07:36] We can't do that. And so that's why the

[1:07:39] description talks about a a hawk

[1:07:41] pedestrian signal. But working with the

[1:07:44] department, they identified that we

[1:07:46] would need some form of separated

[1:07:49] facility. So, in a real quick military

[1:07:52] in the field type of action, we

[1:07:54] identified that an underpass would be

[1:07:57] less expensive than an overpass. An

[1:08:00] underpass would cost about $5.5 million.

[1:08:03] So, the request was for $4 million and

[1:08:06] the TAC recommended $2 million towards

[1:08:09] that underpass.

[1:08:12] The next project is in Bluffale. That's

[1:08:14] on 146 South. Um, this is between

[1:08:17] Springway Parkway to 13th West. About a

[1:08:21] third of a mile. It's the the yellow

[1:08:23] line there. Estimated project cost is a

[1:08:27] little more than $4 million. Funds being

[1:08:29] requested is $1.5

[1:08:32] million and the TAC recommended the full

[1:08:35] requested amount of 1.5.

[1:08:39] The last project in the Salt Lake area

[1:08:41] is a request from South Jordan. This is

[1:08:43] on Shields Lane. This is phase two.

[1:08:45] Phase one was reviewed and recommended

[1:08:47] last year. This goes between 3200 west

[1:08:50] and 2700 west. Little about a half mile

[1:08:53] in length. Estimated project cost 5.6

[1:08:57] plus million. The funds being requested

[1:08:58] are 5.2 plus million and the tax

[1:09:01] recommended from this pot of money 1.5

[1:09:04] million.

[1:09:06] And that is all the projects in the

[1:09:08] CMAC. So now quickly into the CRP

[1:09:10] program. Mr. Chair, we're okay.

[1:09:16] Please. Thank you. So, in the carbon

[1:09:19] reduction program, we have two requests

[1:09:21] or two projects being recommended in the

[1:09:24] Ogden Lane area totaling 1.3 plus

[1:09:26] million. Four projects in the Salt Lake

[1:09:29] area um with the funding total of 3

[1:09:32] million. So, the first project in the

[1:09:35] Ogden Leighton is a request from UTA.

[1:09:37] This is for their Vampool expansion

[1:09:39] program. This is for the Davis Weber

[1:09:42] County. This is to purchase 10 new

[1:09:45] additional vans for expansion. Uh the

[1:09:48] project estimated cost is 500,000 funds

[1:09:51] being requested 466,000

[1:09:54] plus. TAC recommended the requested

[1:09:56] amount of 466,000

[1:09:58] plus. The next project is a request from

[1:10:01] UD do. This is on I-15 and 31st Street.

[1:10:05] This is the interchange. What this is is

[1:10:08] to widen the ramp. This is southbound

[1:10:11] there at 31st Street to to widen the

[1:10:14] ramp and install ramp meters to help

[1:10:17] reduce the congestion on mainline I-15.

[1:10:20] Estimated cost is a million dollars.

[1:10:22] Funds being requested 932,000 plus the

[1:10:26] TAC recommended the full requested

[1:10:28] amount. Then we move into the Salt Lake

[1:10:30] area. In the Salt Lake area, the TAC

[1:10:33] recommended that we also approve

[1:10:35] additional funds for the vampool

[1:10:37] expansion in the Salt Lake County. They

[1:10:39] were requesting 500,000. The funds being

[1:10:43] uh they were requesting 466,000. The

[1:10:46] project cost was 5500,000

[1:10:49] and this is also for 10 vehicles in the

[1:10:52] Salt Lake area. The TAC recommended that

[1:10:54] full requested amount. The next project

[1:10:57] in the Salt Lake area is the bike share

[1:11:00] expansion. Um this is to continue to

[1:11:04] expand on that bike share program. Uh

[1:11:06] the request is uh 647,000.

[1:11:11] The TAC recommended 400,000 for this

[1:11:14] project. The next project

[1:11:17] is a project in South Jordan, the

[1:11:20] Shields Lane project. This is phase two.

[1:11:22] We just reviewed this one in the CMAC

[1:11:24] program. The request is for 5.2 two plus

[1:11:28] million dollars and the TAC recommended

[1:11:31] out of this program we do $1.5 million

[1:11:34] for the Shields Lane project.

[1:11:39] Then oh I guess we had one more there on

[1:11:41] the South Salt Lake. This is on the

[1:11:43] Griggsson neighborhood byway project.

[1:11:45] Now byway projects pretty exciting.

[1:11:48] These are is improvements throughout the

[1:11:51] neighborhood. You can see the red line

[1:11:53] there identifying the project lengths.

[1:11:55] These are improvements that help those

[1:11:58] who may not be spandex bike rider types

[1:12:01] that are the neighborhood with the

[1:12:03] stroller type areas to be able to

[1:12:05] commute from one area to another. This

[1:12:08] goes from 7 east to Washington Street.

[1:12:11] Funds being requested is a little more

[1:12:13] than a million dollars or the project

[1:12:16] cost funds being requested are just

[1:12:18] under a million dollars and the tax

[1:12:20] recommended 633,000

[1:12:23] for this project.

[1:12:26] That's all the projects in the CMAC and

[1:12:28] the CRP.

[1:12:30] Perfect. Questions regarding that?

[1:12:34] If not, members, I'm looking for a uh

[1:12:38] I'm recommending that the regional

[1:12:39] council approve these projects

[1:12:41] recommended to be added to the draft of

[1:12:43] the 2027 through 2032 congestion

[1:12:46] mitigation air quality program and the

[1:12:48] 2028 carbon reduction program. Uh

[1:12:52] can I get a motion as such? I move to

[1:12:54] approve.

[1:12:55] >> Thank you, Mayor Burton.

[1:12:57] Dan Dug in a second. Any other questions

[1:13:00] or comments? With that, I'll place that

[1:13:02] motion for vote. All in favor?

[1:13:05] Great. Any opposed online? Unanimous

[1:13:09] eyes. Great. Thank you. Now, if we'll

[1:13:11] move forward, Ben, now we're going to

[1:13:13] ask him to review these uh

[1:13:15] transportation alternative programs or

[1:13:17] the TAP, different than the TIP. and uh

[1:13:21] go ahead if you'll take care of those if

[1:13:22] you would please.

[1:13:23] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, we had three

[1:13:26] projects in the Ogden Lane area that

[1:13:28] were recommended uh totaling more than

[1:13:30] 1.3 plus million and there were three

[1:13:33] projects in the Salt Lake area totaling

[1:13:35] 2.4 million. So, we're going through

[1:13:37] those projects starting in the Ogden

[1:13:40] Lake urban area. First project is in

[1:13:42] Ogden. This is on SR39. This is for a

[1:13:45] shared use path. This is phase two.

[1:13:48] Phase one is to the west of this yellow

[1:13:50] circle. This is from Mountain Road to

[1:13:52] Whisper Word Development. This area has

[1:13:55] no sidewalks. Those people from anyone

[1:13:58] that lives north of this road are

[1:14:00] required to come down and walk on the

[1:14:02] shoulder of SR39.

[1:14:04] Uh the estimated project cost is 523,000

[1:14:07] plus. Funds being requested were 488,000

[1:14:11] plus and the TAC recommended the

[1:14:13] requested amount of 488,000.

[1:14:16] The next project is a request in North

[1:14:19] Salt Lake. This is on Cutler Drive. This

[1:14:21] to install sidewalk in this area between

[1:14:24] Robinson Drive to Center Street. Uh

[1:14:27] about a third of a mile in length.

[1:14:29] Estimated project cost 877,000

[1:14:32] plus. Funds re requested are a little

[1:14:35] more than 700,000

[1:14:37] plus and the TAC recommended the

[1:14:39] requested uh amount of 790,000 plus.

[1:14:45] The next project, the last one in the

[1:14:47] Ogden Leighton area, is the green bike

[1:14:50] program in the Ogden Leighton area. Only

[1:14:52] this one's a little different.

[1:14:54] Currently, right now, they use a

[1:14:55] rickshaw type to balance their vehicles,

[1:14:57] which means that they ride with a bike

[1:15:00] with the trailer, grab the extra bikes,

[1:15:03] and ride to another station and drop off

[1:15:05] the bikes and move the bikes around

[1:15:07] because they need to get that

[1:15:09] distribution out so that the bikes can

[1:15:11] get used so that no station is sent

[1:15:14] empty. So, to really expand that program

[1:15:16] is limited because of the poor guy

[1:15:18] driving around on a bike pulling a

[1:15:20] trailer to deliver the bikes. The intent

[1:15:22] of this request is to purchase an

[1:15:25] electric van that they can use as a

[1:15:28] mobility or the the mobile distribution

[1:15:32] vehicle as well as haul equipment uh

[1:15:36] that may be necessary to repair or to uh

[1:15:39] keep things going. Um the project

[1:15:42] estimated cost is 100,000. Funds being

[1:15:45] requested is 93,000. TAC recommended

[1:15:48] that amount. The next project is a

[1:15:51] project in Midville. This is on the

[1:15:53] Bingham Junction Boulevard. This is for

[1:15:55] bike pad improvements between 7087 South

[1:15:59] to Center Street almost a mile in

[1:16:01] length. Estimated project cost is 500

[1:16:04] plus thousand. Funds being requested are

[1:16:07] 404,000

[1:16:08] plus and the TAC recommended 400,000 for

[1:16:12] this project.

[1:16:14] The next project is a project in South

[1:16:17] Jordan. It's on the Shields Lane. This

[1:16:18] is phase two of this project

[1:16:21] and the request is for 5.2 plus million

[1:16:25] and the TAC recommended a million

[1:16:27] dollars from this program to complete

[1:16:30] the Shields Lane project.

[1:16:34] The next project is in Midwell. This on

[1:16:36] the Jordan River Bridge. This is a bike

[1:16:38] pad improvement. Um they're at about 67

[1:16:42] South on the east side of the river and

[1:16:43] then 67 South on the west side of the

[1:16:46] river. There you can see where the

[1:16:48] parks, where the trail, it all ends at

[1:16:50] the river. And so the idea is to

[1:16:53] construct a bridge there. The project

[1:16:55] estimated cost 1.3 million. Funds being

[1:16:58] requested are 1.2 plus million. And the

[1:17:01] funds being recommended are a million.

[1:17:04] And that's all of the projects for the

[1:17:05] TAP program.

[1:17:08] Great. Thank you. Are there any

[1:17:09] questions for Ben?

[1:17:11] With that, I'm looking for a motion to

[1:17:12] recommend that the regional council

[1:17:14] approve the projects recommended to be

[1:17:16] added to the draft 2028 transportation

[1:17:18] alternatives program.

[1:17:22] » So moved.

[1:17:24] >> Thank you, Carlton.

[1:17:26] >> Second,

[1:17:27] >> Mr. Dugan. Thank you for that. I want

[1:17:28] you all to know that you also all of you

[1:17:30] can participate in those. But we

[1:17:33] appreciate Carlton and Dan leading out.

[1:17:36] We appreciate your leadership amongst

[1:17:38] this group. Great. If there's no other

[1:17:40] questions, uh, we'll place that for

[1:17:42] vote. All in favor?

[1:17:44] >> I.

[1:17:45] >> Are there any opposed? Great. That

[1:17:48] passes unanimously. Great. Perfect. Now,

[1:17:50] we'll talk to Ben about projects

[1:17:52] recommended to be added to the 2027

[1:17:53] through 2032 surface transportation

[1:17:56] program. Ben, thank you, Mr. Chair. So,

[1:17:58] in this program, we had seven projects

[1:18:01] in the Ogden Lake area that are being

[1:18:03] recommending totaling more than $17.8

[1:18:06] million. In the Salt Lake urban area, we

[1:18:09] have 11 projects being recommended

[1:18:11] totaling almost $25 million. We'll go

[1:18:14] through those projects here

[1:18:17] in a timely manner. The first request

[1:18:19] here is in from Clinton City. This on

[1:18:22] 2300 North. This is phase two. This is

[1:18:24] for reconstructing a narrow two-lane

[1:18:27] facility with minor widening to create a

[1:18:30] uniform crosssection with travel lanes,

[1:18:32] shoulders, curb gutter, and sidewalk.

[1:18:35] It's the blue line there on the picture.

[1:18:37] The project estimated cost is $8

[1:18:39] million. Funds being requested are $2.5

[1:18:42] million. The tax recommended the full

[1:18:45] requested amount of 2.5. The next

[1:18:48] project is a project in Centerville

[1:18:50] City. This some Parish Lane. This is to

[1:18:52] reconstruct Parish Lane between Main

[1:18:55] Street or SR 106 to 400 East. Uh about

[1:18:59] 3/4 or a third of a mile in length.

[1:19:01] Estimated project cost 1.7 plus million.

[1:19:05] Funds being requested are 1.25 million

[1:19:08] and the TAC recommended the full

[1:19:10] requested amount of 1.25.

[1:19:13] The next project is a project in West

[1:19:15] Point. This is on 3500 West. This is

[1:19:18] also to reconstruct with minor widening

[1:19:21] to take a narrow two-lane facility,

[1:19:23] widen it to a three-lane crosssection

[1:19:26] with shoulder, curb gunner, and

[1:19:27] sidewalk. This project is estimated to

[1:19:30] cost 4.2 two plus million. Funds being

[1:19:32] requested are 2.1 plus million and the

[1:19:35] tag committee recommended 2.1 million.

[1:19:39] The next project is a project in

[1:19:44] this is a Utah West Point project. This

[1:19:46] an intersection project that will be

[1:19:48] greatly impacted as SR u well as the

[1:19:52] west Davis highway is extended here

[1:19:55] going towards 1800 north from 193. This

[1:20:00] intersection here at 1800 north and 4500

[1:20:02] west um is a is an important

[1:20:06] intersection to where everyone coming

[1:20:08] off the new Mountain View corridor will

[1:20:11] drop down to this road and and dead end

[1:20:14] essentially because of the bottleneck.

[1:20:16] Um it's an offset intersection. Um West

[1:20:20] Point is the first one to come after for

[1:20:22] funding on this. Then UD do stepped in.

[1:20:24] The initial request was for $3 million,

[1:20:27] but UDOT stepped in and says, you know,

[1:20:29] if we can get $1.5 million for this

[1:20:32] project, we will come and we will

[1:20:35] address the other legs of the

[1:20:36] intersection. We've got currently just

[1:20:39] about a million dollars already

[1:20:40] programmed here. So that million plus

[1:20:43] 1.5

[1:20:44] will bring it up to where UDOT will come

[1:20:46] in and address three legs of the

[1:20:48] intersection with other funding. So this

[1:20:52] is one of them synergy types of

[1:20:53] projects. Um the other project we are

[1:20:57] the next one is in Leighton. It's on the

[1:20:59] Leighton Parkway Extension between 3200

[1:21:02] West to 3,700 West half mile in length

[1:21:05] of new construction. Estimated project

[1:21:08] cost 4.8 plus million. Funds being

[1:21:10] requested are 3.8 plus million and the

[1:21:14] TAC recommended that we program 2.5

[1:21:17] million for this project. The next

[1:21:19] project is a project in Ogden. This on

[1:21:22] Second Street. This is phase two to the

[1:21:24] improvements on Second Street which go

[1:21:26] east of uh Washington Boulevard. This

[1:21:30] project will widen with a uniform

[1:21:32] crosssection, improved curb, gutter, and

[1:21:34] sidewalk on this project. Estimated cost

[1:21:36] is 8.7 plus million. Funds being

[1:21:39] requested are 5.3 plus million. And the

[1:21:42] TAC recommended that we program $4

[1:21:44] million for this project.

[1:21:48] The next project is a request from Far

[1:21:50] West City. This on 3,300 North between

[1:21:53] 2575 West to 2000 West or SR26.

[1:21:58] Uh this will widen a narrow two-lane

[1:22:00] facility, curb gunner, and sidewalk.

[1:22:03] It'll address a bridge with a narrow

[1:22:04] crossing and also include sidewalks.

[1:22:08] This project is estimated to cost a

[1:22:10] little more than $9 million. funds being

[1:22:12] requested was 4.5 plus million and the

[1:22:15] TAC recommended 4 million on this

[1:22:17] project. The next project moves us into

[1:22:22] Sandy City. Uh this is an intersection

[1:22:24] on 7th east and 8800 South or Sai Road.

[1:22:28] Um this project is to realign the

[1:22:32] intersection there with the signal.

[1:22:34] Estimated project cost is 3.8 plus

[1:22:37] million. Funds being requested are 3.1

[1:22:40] plus million and the TAC recommended 1.5

[1:22:43] million for this project.

[1:22:46] The next project is a project in Salt

[1:22:49] Lake City. This is on Wakara Way. This

[1:22:52] is to reconstruct Wakara Way. This road

[1:22:54] is long lived its life. This will

[1:22:56] improve it from Foothill Drive up to

[1:22:59] Upper Drive. Um it's estimated cost 5.4

[1:23:04] plus million. funds being requested are

[1:23:06] a little more than $5 million and the

[1:23:09] TAC recommended that we program $3

[1:23:11] million on this project.

[1:23:13] >> Ben, is this the same car away where the

[1:23:16] roundabout you talked about earlier?

[1:23:17] >> It is only the roundabout is a little

[1:23:19] further east.

[1:23:21] >> Thank you.

[1:23:23] >> The next project is a request from

[1:23:26] Holiday City. This is on Highland Drive.

[1:23:28] This is to reconstruct with minor

[1:23:30] widening. This is a project that they're

[1:23:32] phasing. They've divided it into pieces.

[1:23:34] They're going after multiple sources. Uh

[1:23:37] this body's recommended funding in the

[1:23:39] past for this project as well. This

[1:23:42] phase is estimated to cost $6.4 plus

[1:23:44] million. Uh they're requesting $5.8

[1:23:48] million and the tax committee

[1:23:50] recommended that we program $3 million

[1:23:52] on this project.

[1:23:55] The next project is a project in Mil

[1:23:58] Creek. This is also on Highland Drive.

[1:24:00] This is to reconstruct and address the width of this facility here giving

[1:24:06] us a uniform cross-section. Estimated

[1:24:08] project cost is 7.8 plus million. Funds

[1:24:12] being requested are 7.2 plus million and

[1:24:15] attack recommended $3 million for this

[1:24:17] project.

[1:24:20] The next project is a request from Sandy

[1:24:22] City. This is on that crossing there

[1:24:26] where the amphitheater to the north with

[1:24:28] the parking across. You can just imagine

[1:24:30] at night when that amphitheater wraps up

[1:24:32] and all of those people are coming

[1:24:34] across the street with no crossing.

[1:24:37] They're just dodging cars as they move

[1:24:39] forward. We have not had a safety

[1:24:42] concern here. So, it's been a real

[1:24:44] blessing, but we've got a safety concern

[1:24:47] that we got to address. This project, as

[1:24:50] we earlier talked about, is being

[1:24:51] recommended that we build an underpass.

[1:24:54] Project estimated cost $5.4 $4 million

[1:24:57] funds being requested or 4 million and

[1:25:00] the TAC recommended that we program 1.5

[1:25:02] here giving us a total of $3 million

[1:25:05] programmed on this project.

[1:25:08] The next project is a project in West

[1:25:10] Valley. This is a project that they've

[1:25:12] been working on for a number of years

[1:25:14] with Magna between 4100 South and 3500

[1:25:17] South. They've also divided this into

[1:25:19] segments. This addresses the

[1:25:24] pavement reconstruction with uniform

[1:25:26] cross-section with completing the

[1:25:28] sidewalks, curb, and gutter on both

[1:25:29] sides and improving that existing curb,

[1:25:32] gutter, and sidewalk. This particular

[1:25:35] project is $23 plus million.

[1:25:38] They are requesting $7.7 plus million to

[1:25:42] complete this project in discussion with

[1:25:45] the project sponsor and with the ability

[1:25:47] to move those project funds forward. TAC

[1:25:50] recommended $3 million so that this

[1:25:52] project can move forward

[1:25:55] with the understanding that they should

[1:25:58] have enough.

[1:26:00] The next request is from Draper. This on

[1:26:02] Fort Street. This is to reconstruct with

[1:26:04] minor widening. This is one facility

[1:26:07] that they may need to shrink because of

[1:26:09] the the width in some areas between 132

[1:26:12] south and 138 south. Um almost a mile in

[1:26:15] length. Estimated project cost 11.5 plus

[1:26:19] million. Funds being requested are 10.6

[1:26:22] plus million and a tag committee

[1:26:24] recommended $3 million for this project.

[1:26:28] The next project is a project in Murray

[1:26:30] City. This on 6400 South. Murray City

[1:26:34] has done a diligent job on working at

[1:26:36] one road at a time over multiple years

[1:26:39] requesting the funds. This is to seed

[1:26:42] this project with funds. Estimated

[1:26:44] project cost 10.5 plus million. Funds

[1:26:47] being requested are 9.8 eight plus

[1:26:49] million. The TAC recommended we program

[1:26:51] $3 million on this project.

[1:26:56] The next project is a request from UD

[1:26:58] do. This is on 7200 South. As you the

[1:27:02] northbound lanes, as you go online,

[1:27:04] you've got as you go on to I-15, you've

[1:27:07] got a blind corner. As you come around,

[1:27:09] you've got a merging lane that you have

[1:27:12] a lot of accidents because this ramp is

[1:27:14] so narrow. The idea, the intent is to

[1:27:17] widen this facility so that it

[1:27:19] eliminates that merge. The estimated

[1:27:21] project cost is 7.3 plus million. Funds

[1:27:24] being requested are 2 million. TAC

[1:27:27] recommended that we program $2 million

[1:27:30] for this project.

[1:27:33] The next project is a project in

[1:27:35] Haramman. This is on 126 South um and

[1:27:39] Haramman Main Street. This is a very

[1:27:41] busy area. This is a very large

[1:27:42] intersection, but there's some big

[1:27:45] unknowns on this because this is in the

[1:27:47] same area where in not too long in the

[1:27:50] future, the Mountain View corridor is

[1:27:52] going to be separated facility, whereas

[1:27:54] now it this as you travel east goes into

[1:27:57] an intersection. Their intent is to

[1:28:00] improve the intersection because of

[1:28:02] backup that goes um to the west and and

[1:28:06] to the south. Estimated project cost is

[1:28:09] 4.7 plus million. Funds being requested

[1:28:12] are 4.2 plus million. The TAC

[1:28:15] recommended we put a million dollars on

[1:28:16] this project till we see what happens

[1:28:18] with Mountain View and then we can

[1:28:20] address what improvements need to be

[1:28:21] made and know. But we wanted funds on

[1:28:24] this to identify it as a priority

[1:28:27] project.

[1:28:28] The next project that we have is a

[1:28:30] request from Riverton. This on 128 South

[1:28:33] at Beehive Parkway.

[1:28:36] Um, this is between South Jordan Canal

[1:28:38] and 1300 West. Estimated project cost is

[1:28:42] a little more than a million dollars.

[1:28:43] Funds being requested are 976,000

[1:28:46] plus and attack recommended the full

[1:28:49] requested amount of 976,000.

[1:28:53] That's all of the projects in ASB

[1:28:55] program. Mr. Chair,

[1:28:57] >> thank you, Ben. Any questions for Mr.

[1:28:59] Wrich?

[1:29:01] Great. So, I'm looking for a motion. I'm

[1:29:04] looking for a motion to recommend that

[1:29:07] the regional council approve the

[1:29:08] projects recommended to be added to the

[1:29:10] 2027 through 2032 surface transportation

[1:29:12] program.

[1:29:15] >> So moved.

[1:29:17] >> Thank you, Mr. Souza.

[1:29:21] » I'll I'll second it. Chair is not going

[1:29:23] to recognize your second. I'll look for

[1:29:25] another second.

[1:29:26] >> I'll second that.

[1:29:27] >> Thank you so much. Appreciate that. I've

[1:29:30] heard some other Thank you so much.

[1:29:31] Appreciate your participation. Finally.

[1:29:34] Okay, there's no other questions.

[1:29:37] I'll make a mo uh I'll place this motion

[1:29:40] for vote. All in favor?

[1:29:42] >> I.

[1:29:42] >> Great. Any opposed? That passes

[1:29:44] unanimously. Thank you so much, Ben.

[1:29:46] Let's give Ben a special round of

[1:29:48] applause for today.

[1:29:51] » Thank you to all of you. Thank you.

[1:29:56] >> Great. Now, if all of you would pull out

[1:29:58] your phones, please. All of you pull out

[1:30:00] your phones if you would, please. If you

[1:30:04] transcom appears on your calendar,

[1:30:06] Andrea does such a wonderful job getting

[1:30:08] those out to us and the staff. I I I

[1:30:11] just would like you to put on your phone

[1:30:12] for next year that we've got the ice

[1:30:16] cream social, so to speak, in April or

[1:30:18] May of next year. Make sure you attend.

[1:30:20] For those online, if you don't hit that

[1:30:23] one, it might happen again for you in

[1:30:25] your next lifetime. But just uh put that

[1:30:27] on your put that on your calendar. but

[1:30:29] also our next transcom meeting will be

[1:30:31] held on Thursday, June 18th, uh likely

[1:30:35] around the same time at 1:30. Andrew,

[1:30:38] any questions for you?

[1:30:39] >> Go ahead. Sorry,

[1:30:40] >> I'm going to end the meeting. If not,

[1:30:43] >> I shouldn't stand in the way of that. I I did just want to make a one brief

[1:30:46] comment. We appreciate your indulgence

[1:30:50] with the object lesson uh with the

[1:30:52] delicious object lesson explaining the

[1:30:55] process. We know that this work that we

[1:30:58] do can be can seem a little dry

[1:31:00] sometimes. There's a lot of detail to go

[1:31:03] through. There's a lot of processes to

[1:31:05] go through. We take it really seriously

[1:31:08] to do this work well and effectively and

[1:31:11] use good information and be transparent

[1:31:13] about what we do and have lots of

[1:31:15] engagement with the communities and with

[1:31:18] you. And so, uh, we, uh, Ben has has,

[1:31:22] um, does an amazing job managing the

[1:31:24] program in collaboration with all of

[1:31:25] his, uh, partners. And we hope that you,

[1:31:28] uh, appreciate our attempt to explain

[1:31:32] the way that we, uh, do that work. Um,

[1:31:34] take a little extra time to have a

[1:31:36] little bit of fun as well. So, thanks to

[1:31:38] all of you.

[1:31:39] >> Thank you.

[1:31:41] >> Anything else? Dirk, go ahead.

[1:31:42] >> I just want to remind everybody about

[1:31:43] the Golden Spoke is May 16th, so hope to

[1:31:46] see you out riding on the trail. What's

[1:31:47] that, Mayor Burton?

[1:31:49] >> What's the golden spoke? That's an

[1:31:50] opportunity to ride your bicycle on the

[1:31:52] Jordan River Trail and they'll be ending

[1:31:54] at the Tracy Aviary.

[1:31:57] So, depending wherever you live, start

[1:31:59] from that point and then end up at Tracy

[1:32:01] Aviary.

[1:32:02] >> You can start in the mouth of Ogden

[1:32:04] Canyon

[1:32:05] >> and ride the second longest contiguous

[1:32:07] bike trail all the way to Provo if you

[1:32:09] like and stop on your way. longest uh

[1:32:13] continuous separated familyfriendly

[1:32:16] bike trail west of the Mississippi in

[1:32:18] the United States.

[1:32:19] >> Say that fast three times.

[1:32:21] >> I will not.

[1:32:24] >> Great. I'll look for a final motion.

[1:32:28] >> Motion to adjurnn.

[1:32:29] >> Thank you so much.

[1:32:31] >> Second.

[1:32:31] >> Non-debatable. We're adjourned.

[1:32:37] » Very nice. Was she your friend?

Transportation Coordinating Committee - April 30, 2026

Transcript