[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?