Governor Brad Little Meeting in Island Park with Concerned Representatives/US 20 Plans and ITD
Notes of Meeting:
Meeting Location Island Park EMS
September 15, 2022; 4 p.m.
In Attendance:
Governor Brad Little
Speaker Scott Bedke
State Senator Van Burtenshaw-meeting facilitator
State Representative Rod Furniss
ITD COO Dan McElhenney
D6 Jason Mitzghor
D6 Karen Hiatt
D6 Director Bob Hoff
For St. Anthony
Mayor Don Powell
City Councilman Rick Hill - meeting facilitator
City Councilman Rod Nichols
City Councilman Russ Rupert
City Councilwoman Wendy Sykes
For Fremont County
Commissioner Scott Kamachi
For Fremont County Law Enforcement and Emergency Services
Officer Bart Quayle _
Officer Don Powell
Fire Chief Chris Hill
For Ashton
Mayor Tom Mattingly
For Island Park
Mayor Mike Bogden
Leanne Yancey US 20 Research for Island Park
Rick Hill Opened the meeting and welcomed everyone. Senator Burtenshaw presented the purpose for the meeting and introduced Governor Little and Speaker Bedke. Senator Burtenshaw expressed that they, as state and regional government representatives, recognize the need for the parties involved to ‘get together in the same room and try to resolve issues and move forward. They were committed to this meeting, so that it might provide that opportunity. “We are here to listen”. We are all here to do that, please be brief-to the point-and mindful that everyone would like an opportunity to be heard, we are planning on a one hour meeting.”
Governor Little thanked both gentlemen for their work in putting the meeting together and thanked everyone for coming. It was his wish that the goal of the meeting might be achieved where future plans for the highway might be found that would make the current situation ‘made right’ with the communities to be able to ‘come along’ with the plans that ITD is developing.
Rick Hill (St. Anthony City Councilman) opened the communication part of the meeting, by explaining how the meeting came to be. The City of St. Antony had approached the governor’s office concerning ITD plans and discussion about the north St. Anthony exit. The meeting opportunity was expanded to include the rest of the Fremont County communities on US 20 (Ashton and Island Park), as they all had concerns of their own. The Governor was scheduled to be in our area already and the meeting was put together to accommodate an opportunity everyone concerned, not just St. Anthony, to meet with the governor and Speaker Bedke, as well as our D31 state representatives.
The Governor gave a little background on the make-up of the ITD Board which had been expanded from 4-5-to 7 in order that all of the smaller regions of the State would be represented on the State board. The main reason for that expansion was to be ‘more sensitive and aware of local needs’ throughout the State beyond the capitol of Boise. The Governor recognized that the Fremont County region is unique, and has few similarities that are the same as other regions. Fremont County has the dynamic of rural living, farming, agriculture, as well as recreation and tourism, and a neighboring status to Yellowstone National Park. Our roads need to accomodate that full range of users.
The meeting opened to speakers.
Remarks followed as persons were seated around the room, key highlights of remarks are noted.
For Island Park
Leanne Yancey
*We all understand that the purpose of the meeting, given the limited time we have, is to present solutions and try to move forward
*4-lane will completely destroy the City of Island Park and is
*A 4-lane divided highway is not welcomed or warranted here, we stated so in the very beginning of the PEL
*There are other alternatives that have not been presented in the US 20 PEL
*There are multiple studies that ITD has not bought to the PEL.
*2008 DKS Associates, 2016 Kittlesen Associates, J-U-B Alternative Solutions and Cost Technical Memo_2019.
*Those studies all present recommended alternatives, good for at least 20 years into the future, which include road improvements, alternating passing lanes, shoulder widening, tree cut back, added lighting and signage where necessary….A Super 2.
*The same recommendations from the 3 studies ITD has not brought to the PEL (a Super 2), are the very same alternatives the Island Park Community has requested from ITD.
*The US 20 PEL was predicated on a preferred 4-lane highway and the alternatives offered to the public in limited and few opportunities was a SINGLE CHOICE OF A 4-LANE HIGHWAY, and the only choices from was where do we want the 4-lanes?
*Please reference the US 20 PEL website, to see what alternatives have been developed
*Leanne Yancey comments were focused on running a proper PEL, elements required (notes of such presented to FC commissioners)but given time constraints, not all were addressed.
For ITD
District 6 Director
Bob Hoff
For ITD Bobb Hoff
*D6 is a big area for the highway department to maintain
*US 20 was of interest to him and he refers to it as ‘his special project’
*When approaching highway projects, there are always ‘needs and wants’
*Fiscally, ITD must be responsible and responsive to planning that is 20 years down the road
*Many aspects must be considered in all projects, they include: Private property rights, economies, people, environmental impacts, and safety
*ITD must plan for the long-haul 10-20-30 years down the road
For Island Park
Mayor Mike Bogden
*His main concerns are the busy intersections of Elk Creek/Yale Kilgore, Macks Inn, and Island Park Village/Sawtelle Turn
*ITD has only given us 2 choices, a 4-lane or partial multi-lane bypasses of the City of Island Park
*He has a history of communicating with Kelly Hoopes of Horrocks and Micah Brown of ITD, he took them a tour
*”Please don’t kill something to save it”.
*Yes Yellowstone is a destination that you have to get through Island Park to get too. That is important to people, but so is Island Park. In island Park we have ‘freedom’ to do all the things you cannot do in Yellowstone. The Park is very restricted, in activities and the speed is lower in the park too. Things are changing and they will always change, Yellowstone may go to vouchers for visitation in the future and the visitors allowed to enter The Park will level out, not continue to grow beyond capacity on the roads needed to get visitors to and from the park.
*Don’t ruin the ‘jewel that is Island Park’ to hurry visitors to Yellowstone faster through our community.
*A bypass will destroy businesses that have to make their living for an entire year in 4-5 months
*Island Park is an environmentally sensitive area
*ITD has ignored our businesses in their planning and has not even talked to ‘the environmentalists’ yet about what they have planned
*What is being talked about is wasting a lot of money on ‘crap’ we do not need and Idaho is supposed to be a ‘conservative’ state
*We need to deal conservatively with actual problems, and when you say 3% growth, I don’t agree with your percentage, our permanent growth has been stable here for years, its not that high
*You have looked at Island Park and projected needs during the pandemic, people came here then because they couldn’t be locked down and they were everywhere else, and yes it was crazy up here then, but thats not normal, and lets hope that was a one time event
*We need more signs up here to correctly direct traffic and tell people how to drive, some people not familiar with driving_ like foreign tourists need that, and we need to look at the speed up here
*What you are considering may resurrect the national monument debate and the wildlife overpasses
*We need to minimize the footprint of the highway through here with any plan you are looking at, not look to increase it
*Island Park wants you to rethink this, ‘we can do better’, what is the best for Island Park and our roadway needs, instead of worrying about how fast we can move cars to Yellowstone.
posted the following on FB after the meeting:
For St. Anthony
Rod Nichols
with Russ Rupert and Wendy Sykes
*St. Anthony has worked with ITD on the city streets and for the most part that has gone well
*I talked to Sheriff Len Humphries about the speeds, especially in Island Park
*We need more signs and a reduced speed of 55 mph.
*When I asked Sheriff Humphries about the county’s ability to enforce a reduced speed limit (quote) Sheriff Humphries said, “I can enforce it with a vengeance”.
*Traffic speed has a direct correlation with highway safety and severity of crashes, if we want to increase safety and reduce the incidence and severity of crashes, then appropriate speed for the area where the highway is located, is where we need to focus
*Gov. Little then asked Jason M. if consideration of the speed had been included in the PEL and Jason answered that it had not. He said they were following the information from a 2020 speed study and that they also followed the FHWA recommended 85% percentile formula to establish speed. Leanne then pointed out that the 85th percentile is not ‘set in stone’ it’s a choice, as obviously we were not married to that w/o exception. On this section of roadway (in Island Park) we already have (5) reduced speed zones through the city centers. The governor asked if there were any other places in the state where the speed was reduced for ‘wildlife’?
The (5) reduction speed zones exist in Island Park for the city centers and are not reduced as speed limit zones for wildlife. It was mentioned that other recreation communities in the State like Ketchum/Sun Valley and McCall have reduced speed zones respecting their recreational environments.
For St. Anthony
Mayor Don Powell
*St. Anthony’s concern is for what we are hearing about closing our north exist to our town
*Yes, we acknowledge there will be a better south exit, that gets people off the highway to south St. Anthony and an arterial road where they can travel to Teton, Driggs and Jackson. That exit needs to be there.
*Name me another town where ITD actually dug ‘under a town;’ to build their highway. When the 4-lane was built ITD took out 6 city blocks of our history and town for that build. The overpass they built is now part of our Bridge Street and if you stay on the 4-lane of US 20 you actually bypass St. Anthony without even seeing it.
*Is there some kind of Idaho law that says you can’t have 3 exits at a town, especially one you built the road to speed past?
*St. Anthony feels that we have given enough, on the side of your cars (is it your motto) “Your Safety, Your Mobility, Your Economic Opportunity”. Please tell me how bypassing a town, you have already built a highway to bypass once, and now are considering closing one of our main exits for people to be able to get to St. Anthony, is going to help our economic opportunity? How is what you are proposing going to help the economic opportunity for Ashton or Island Park either?
*I get along fine with Jason most times, we talk and its a lot better now in my second term as mayor of St. Anthony than it was my first term. I’m going to be honest, during my first term ITD sucked. You didn’t listen, you didn’t want to listen, you just rolled into town and told us what you were going to do, you didn’t ask what we wanted.
*As St. Anthony’s Mayor, I am asking ITD to go back to the drawing board and make a plan that does not destroy the opportunity to keep some kind of an economy for St.Anthony, we are doing better now-getting back on our feet after the 4-lane bypass really hit us hard, we are building back, now you are talking about hitting us again with a highway plan that will hurt us once again.
For Fremont County
Commissioner Scott Kamachi
*the intersections you want to close are not ’standard intersections’ these are access points that are necessary for our county, they connect both sides of our county that are bisected by the highway and these access points are critical to our county law enforcement and emergency services personnel.
*Fremont County is a big county, we cover an area from just north of Sugar City on the south, going out westward to the desert, east toward Teton County and north to the Montana Line.
*discussing the “Mad Moose” intersection which is also the north exit to St. Anthony for people in our county to access the county seat and the city necessities. That is concerning when discussing the topics of convenience and economic health for a large population of our county and our local businesses.
*The Mad Moose or North St. Anthony access intersection is considered by Fremont County to be an emergency access intersection
*Now discussing the topic of law enforcement with our Sheriff, police, and emergency personnel. This intersection is also a vital easy on for emergency vehicles and personnel to access the effected parts of the county or roadway that they need to respond to. Our police headquarters is on the north exit side of St. Anthony. It is no small matter for our emergency services to need to respond in northern Fremont County, in a situation where “seconds not minutes’ save lives.
*closure of the north exit to St. Anthony will drastically cut down the response time critical to our emergency responders
*Our Winters, they are not easy here. We get a lot of snow and poor road conditions are normal on a good day. Our county road crews have to maintain hundreds of miles of roads in the winter, try to keep them open in heavy snowstorms and worse with snow and then blowing conditions. You are considering asking us now to add to the already tremendous burden of roads to maintain, miles of frontage roads to maintain if you close county access points. Where do we put the snow? How do we afford more equipment, man-power? How do we guarantee that we can keep access roads open in winter to get emergency vehicles down them because they have to use an access road to even get to the highway?
I would ask you to remember that as well as man plans, “Mother Nature always wins”.
*Fremont County is asking you to take a step back and consider what you are proposing. Look at the problems you think you are trying to fix and see them differently as problems you might be creating.
*roads are meant to create ‘function’, to facilitate the movement of that function. If you limit ‘function’ you limit potential. What you are proposing will limit our potential. It will most certainly create more problems for Fremont County, it will limit the citizens of this county’s quality of life. 70-80% of our county residents use the north St. Anthony exit.
*Rural counties are continually being challenged with economic hardships. We have One of the Four most famous blue ribbon trout streams in the world here. We brag that, are you proposing that we construct highway frontage roads or a busy 4-lane highway along that pristine river?
*Fremont County feels that what you are proposing will jeopardize the safety and well-being of our citizens.
*Limiting and closing access will effect our agriculture economies and the function of that critical part of our county economy is to use our roads to harvest from our fields and our farms and transport our harvests.
*As ITD looks at US 20 as it bisects our county and the towns and communities of our county, not only are the users of the highway and their safety and mobility your concern, those users include are also local people who live along that highway and need to access it to go where they need to go in order to make a living, they are no less a priority for you than the travelers in the cars who might have a different license plate, who come from a different state, who are using that roadway for a different function. The local people who live by US 20 as it bisects our communities in order to live their lives are your constituents and Idaho tax payers.
For Fremont County
to follow up Commissioner Kamachi, Mayor Powell, and St. Anthony City Council remarks
Bart Quayle
Joe Powell
Fremont County Law Enforcement
*It really does come down to ‘where the rubber hits the road’
*we have 1900 square miles to cover in Fremont County
*what happens on US 20 is not our main priority, law enforcement does not just respond to incidents or accidents on that roadway
*we have rural and city issues, we have agricultural areas, we have recreational areas on both extreme ends of our county
*our main mission is the safety of all of our county citizens and enforcement of the law, keep order, and assist the injured
*we agree with the points made about speed that have been made here
*reduction of our response opportunity, by closing main intersections, would force us to high speed response through residential areas instead of being able to save time and act quickly using the freeway
Chris Hill
Fremont County Fire chief
*minutes matter on a fire or emergency rescue
*any increase of time added to our ability to respond to an emergency will risk lives
For Ashton
Mayor Tom Mattingly
(one hour meeting nearly at an end)
*The City of Ashton has many concerns, work is being done right now
*The City has spoken with Jason many times as ITD has been doing their work on US 20
*Jason is well aware of all of our concerns and I would hope that he would share them with you as I am short on time available in this meeting
*right now we have focused concerns on our sewer issues as they relate to the work being done
Governor Little extended the offer of more time, stating that just because the meeting time was nearing a close, he did not want anyone to feel denied opportunity to speak. He wanted everyone in the room to feel that they had had the time ‘to be heard, I want people to feel that they have been listened to”.
For ITD D6
Jason Minzghor:
*we design roadways according to the FHWA formula basing desired speeds at the 85th percentile
*speed limits were not part of the PEL, instead D6 relied on a State 2020 speed study
*ITD wants to close as many at-grade crossings on the highway as they can
*ITD is just ‘in the beginning phases’ of projects on US 20 in Fremont County
This began a short discussion on planning and land acquisitions being pursued by ITD. So significant an investment takes matters much further down the road than most people are aware of far in advance of any bulldozers coming to move dirt for new highway design. After significant investment in a plan that is not officially ’a plan’ becomes pretty hard to discuss or oppose, does it not? ITD does early land acquisition in preparation for an upcoming project to avoid an opportunity for land speculators to come in ahead of a known project, purchase the land themselves, and then put ITD in a position to have to buy the land from them at a higher price.
Question was asked about ITD and acquisition ahead of a project, therefore, being ‘pre-decisional’, because they are buying up land before any project has had a design approved, the Public has the opportunity to engage, or even before they are informed of an approved plan. If a plan does not move ahead effecting that land the ’State can always sell it back’.
Karen Hiatt *responded during discussion that a Super 2 Alternative had been offered as an alternative in the PEL.
The statement received significant challenge in the discussion. ONE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, a 4-lane highway, predicated the PEL, it was published as such under ‘Project Updates” on the US 20 PEL website (that page can no longer be accessed on that website). The Super 2 was a recommendation sent to ITD resulting from a public meeting Island Park held on their own, well attended by more than 60 people who were offered discussion and their remarks recorded for the record. Well into the process after the second public meeting was held in Island Park. (the second public meeting information is no longer in the PEL website either).
COO McElhenney responded that a PEL can bring multiple alternatives forwarded to NEPA, and then offered that alternatives can still be added to be considered in the process.
Question asked to clarify where we are at in the process now, ITD is scheduled to come back to Ashton and Island park in just a few days?
McElhenney stated that the PEL would not be concluded on that date, perhaps ITD’s messaging on that deadline had not been not correct, the status of the upcoming meeting would now be subject to a ‘regroup’, and ITD was not sure if those meetings would happen on the dates scheduled.
The Governor concluded the meeting by thanking everyone for their engagement, thanking ITD for being there to listen. He hoped that all of the people in the room will remain committed to working together in the future. He felt that the meeting was a very positive step and that we can continue to carry these important conversations forward. He offered Speaker Bedke a final summary opportunity.
Speaker Bedke echoed the Governor’s remarks, he wished to add to them, directing his remarks as he pointed to everyone individually in the room, and he continued that The State would like to recommend and see every single person in the room, with their own level of expertise and point of view, at a table working together toward a solution that works for everyone. Having those critical and important conversations can achieve the best outcome, and arrive at jointly agreed upon goals. This is always the desired process.
Governor Little concluded that every interest at that table and in the room, should have VETO POWER in those discussions, supported by the level of valuable concern and objection offered in this meeting. He concluded the meeting with humor, stating that ‘he thought he had successfully addressed the trouble ‘over here’ when he stopped the ‘wildlife overpasses’. His joke responded to, ‘those wildlife overpasses will come back if ITD brings a 4-lane here’.
Meeting concluded.
Notes of Meeting:
Meeting Location Island Park EMS
September 15, 2022; 4 p.m.
In Attendance:
Governor Brad Little
Speaker Scott Bedke
State Senator Van Burtenshaw-meeting facilitator
State Representative Rod Furniss
ITD COO Dan McElhenney
D6 Jason Mitzghor
D6 Karen Hiatt
D6 Director Bob Hoff
For St. Anthony
Mayor Don Powell
City Councilman Rick Hill - meeting facilitator
City Councilman Rod Nichols
City Councilman Russ Rupert
City Councilwoman Wendy Sykes
For Fremont County
Commissioner Scott Kamachi
For Fremont County Law Enforcement and Emergency Services
Officer Bart Quayle _
Officer Don Powell
Fire Chief Chris Hill
For Ashton
Mayor Tom Mattingly
For Island Park
Mayor Mike Bogden
Leanne Yancey US 20 Research for Island Park
Rick Hill Opened the meeting and welcomed everyone. Senator Burtenshaw presented the purpose for the meeting and introduced Governor Little and Speaker Bedke. Senator Burtenshaw expressed that they, as state and regional government representatives, recognize the need for the parties involved to ‘get together in the same room and try to resolve issues and move forward. They were committed to this meeting, so that it might provide that opportunity. “We are here to listen”. We are all here to do that, please be brief-to the point-and mindful that everyone would like an opportunity to be heard, we are planning on a one hour meeting.”
Governor Little thanked both gentlemen for their work in putting the meeting together and thanked everyone for coming. It was his wish that the goal of the meeting might be achieved where future plans for the highway might be found that would make the current situation ‘made right’ with the communities to be able to ‘come along’ with the plans that ITD is developing.
Rick Hill (St. Anthony City Councilman) opened the communication part of the meeting, by explaining how the meeting came to be. The City of St. Antony had approached the governor’s office concerning ITD plans and discussion about the north St. Anthony exit. The meeting opportunity was expanded to include the rest of the Fremont County communities on US 20 (Ashton and Island Park), as they all had concerns of their own. The Governor was scheduled to be in our area already and the meeting was put together to accommodate an opportunity everyone concerned, not just St. Anthony, to meet with the governor and Speaker Bedke, as well as our D31 state representatives.
The Governor gave a little background on the make-up of the ITD Board which had been expanded from 4-5-to 7 in order that all of the smaller regions of the State would be represented on the State board. The main reason for that expansion was to be ‘more sensitive and aware of local needs’ throughout the State beyond the capitol of Boise. The Governor recognized that the Fremont County region is unique, and has few similarities that are the same as other regions. Fremont County has the dynamic of rural living, farming, agriculture, as well as recreation and tourism, and a neighboring status to Yellowstone National Park. Our roads need to accomodate that full range of users.
The meeting opened to speakers.
Remarks followed as persons were seated around the room, key highlights of remarks are noted.
For Island Park
Leanne Yancey
*We all understand that the purpose of the meeting, given the limited time we have, is to present solutions and try to move forward
*4-lane will completely destroy the City of Island Park and is
*A 4-lane divided highway is not welcomed or warranted here, we stated so in the very beginning of the PEL
*There are other alternatives that have not been presented in the US 20 PEL
*There are multiple studies that ITD has not bought to the PEL.
*2008 DKS Associates, 2016 Kittlesen Associates, J-U-B Alternative Solutions and Cost Technical Memo_2019.
*Those studies all present recommended alternatives, good for at least 20 years into the future, which include road improvements, alternating passing lanes, shoulder widening, tree cut back, added lighting and signage where necessary….A Super 2.
*The same recommendations from the 3 studies ITD has not brought to the PEL (a Super 2), are the very same alternatives the Island Park Community has requested from ITD.
*The US 20 PEL was predicated on a preferred 4-lane highway and the alternatives offered to the public in limited and few opportunities was a SINGLE CHOICE OF A 4-LANE HIGHWAY, and the only choices from was where do we want the 4-lanes?
*Please reference the US 20 PEL website, to see what alternatives have been developed
*Leanne Yancey comments were focused on running a proper PEL, elements required (notes of such presented to FC commissioners)but given time constraints, not all were addressed.
- The 3 studies (mentioned above and NOT included in the PEL) recommend a ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS of required surface maintenance, alternating passing lanes to avoid congestion and assist free flow of traffic at identified locations which in part have already been approved by the ITD Board, enhanced shoulders, tree cutback, potential lighting at specific locations, additional signage. In addition to attention to some speed alternatives in Island Park, ironically these 3 studies support THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ASKED OF ITD BY ISLAND PARK. They also offer the required adequate improvements that ITD has identified as needed for the highway for at least 2 future decades. THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THESE 3 STUDIES WILL FIX THE ROAD AND NOT DESTROY ISLAND PARK, OR ASHTON, OR ST. ANTHONY. THE LACK OF INCLUSION OF THESE STUDIES IN THE PEL, suggests that, as they did not support the advertised PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE OF ITD OF A 4 LANE HIGHWAY, they were not presented to The Public.
For ITD
District 6 Director
Bob Hoff
For ITD Bobb Hoff
*D6 is a big area for the highway department to maintain
*US 20 was of interest to him and he refers to it as ‘his special project’
*When approaching highway projects, there are always ‘needs and wants’
*Fiscally, ITD must be responsible and responsive to planning that is 20 years down the road
*Many aspects must be considered in all projects, they include: Private property rights, economies, people, environmental impacts, and safety
*ITD must plan for the long-haul 10-20-30 years down the road
For Island Park
Mayor Mike Bogden
*His main concerns are the busy intersections of Elk Creek/Yale Kilgore, Macks Inn, and Island Park Village/Sawtelle Turn
*ITD has only given us 2 choices, a 4-lane or partial multi-lane bypasses of the City of Island Park
*He has a history of communicating with Kelly Hoopes of Horrocks and Micah Brown of ITD, he took them a tour
*”Please don’t kill something to save it”.
*Yes Yellowstone is a destination that you have to get through Island Park to get too. That is important to people, but so is Island Park. In island Park we have ‘freedom’ to do all the things you cannot do in Yellowstone. The Park is very restricted, in activities and the speed is lower in the park too. Things are changing and they will always change, Yellowstone may go to vouchers for visitation in the future and the visitors allowed to enter The Park will level out, not continue to grow beyond capacity on the roads needed to get visitors to and from the park.
*Don’t ruin the ‘jewel that is Island Park’ to hurry visitors to Yellowstone faster through our community.
*A bypass will destroy businesses that have to make their living for an entire year in 4-5 months
*Island Park is an environmentally sensitive area
*ITD has ignored our businesses in their planning and has not even talked to ‘the environmentalists’ yet about what they have planned
*What is being talked about is wasting a lot of money on ‘crap’ we do not need and Idaho is supposed to be a ‘conservative’ state
*We need to deal conservatively with actual problems, and when you say 3% growth, I don’t agree with your percentage, our permanent growth has been stable here for years, its not that high
*You have looked at Island Park and projected needs during the pandemic, people came here then because they couldn’t be locked down and they were everywhere else, and yes it was crazy up here then, but thats not normal, and lets hope that was a one time event
*We need more signs up here to correctly direct traffic and tell people how to drive, some people not familiar with driving_ like foreign tourists need that, and we need to look at the speed up here
*What you are considering may resurrect the national monument debate and the wildlife overpasses
*We need to minimize the footprint of the highway through here with any plan you are looking at, not look to increase it
*Island Park wants you to rethink this, ‘we can do better’, what is the best for Island Park and our roadway needs, instead of worrying about how fast we can move cars to Yellowstone.
posted the following on FB after the meeting:
For St. Anthony
Rod Nichols
with Russ Rupert and Wendy Sykes
*St. Anthony has worked with ITD on the city streets and for the most part that has gone well
*I talked to Sheriff Len Humphries about the speeds, especially in Island Park
*We need more signs and a reduced speed of 55 mph.
*When I asked Sheriff Humphries about the county’s ability to enforce a reduced speed limit (quote) Sheriff Humphries said, “I can enforce it with a vengeance”.
*Traffic speed has a direct correlation with highway safety and severity of crashes, if we want to increase safety and reduce the incidence and severity of crashes, then appropriate speed for the area where the highway is located, is where we need to focus
*Gov. Little then asked Jason M. if consideration of the speed had been included in the PEL and Jason answered that it had not. He said they were following the information from a 2020 speed study and that they also followed the FHWA recommended 85% percentile formula to establish speed. Leanne then pointed out that the 85th percentile is not ‘set in stone’ it’s a choice, as obviously we were not married to that w/o exception. On this section of roadway (in Island Park) we already have (5) reduced speed zones through the city centers. The governor asked if there were any other places in the state where the speed was reduced for ‘wildlife’?
The (5) reduction speed zones exist in Island Park for the city centers and are not reduced as speed limit zones for wildlife. It was mentioned that other recreation communities in the State like Ketchum/Sun Valley and McCall have reduced speed zones respecting their recreational environments.
For St. Anthony
Mayor Don Powell
*St. Anthony’s concern is for what we are hearing about closing our north exist to our town
*Yes, we acknowledge there will be a better south exit, that gets people off the highway to south St. Anthony and an arterial road where they can travel to Teton, Driggs and Jackson. That exit needs to be there.
*Name me another town where ITD actually dug ‘under a town;’ to build their highway. When the 4-lane was built ITD took out 6 city blocks of our history and town for that build. The overpass they built is now part of our Bridge Street and if you stay on the 4-lane of US 20 you actually bypass St. Anthony without even seeing it.
*Is there some kind of Idaho law that says you can’t have 3 exits at a town, especially one you built the road to speed past?
*St. Anthony feels that we have given enough, on the side of your cars (is it your motto) “Your Safety, Your Mobility, Your Economic Opportunity”. Please tell me how bypassing a town, you have already built a highway to bypass once, and now are considering closing one of our main exits for people to be able to get to St. Anthony, is going to help our economic opportunity? How is what you are proposing going to help the economic opportunity for Ashton or Island Park either?
*I get along fine with Jason most times, we talk and its a lot better now in my second term as mayor of St. Anthony than it was my first term. I’m going to be honest, during my first term ITD sucked. You didn’t listen, you didn’t want to listen, you just rolled into town and told us what you were going to do, you didn’t ask what we wanted.
*As St. Anthony’s Mayor, I am asking ITD to go back to the drawing board and make a plan that does not destroy the opportunity to keep some kind of an economy for St.Anthony, we are doing better now-getting back on our feet after the 4-lane bypass really hit us hard, we are building back, now you are talking about hitting us again with a highway plan that will hurt us once again.
For Fremont County
Commissioner Scott Kamachi
*the intersections you want to close are not ’standard intersections’ these are access points that are necessary for our county, they connect both sides of our county that are bisected by the highway and these access points are critical to our county law enforcement and emergency services personnel.
*Fremont County is a big county, we cover an area from just north of Sugar City on the south, going out westward to the desert, east toward Teton County and north to the Montana Line.
*discussing the “Mad Moose” intersection which is also the north exit to St. Anthony for people in our county to access the county seat and the city necessities. That is concerning when discussing the topics of convenience and economic health for a large population of our county and our local businesses.
*The Mad Moose or North St. Anthony access intersection is considered by Fremont County to be an emergency access intersection
*Now discussing the topic of law enforcement with our Sheriff, police, and emergency personnel. This intersection is also a vital easy on for emergency vehicles and personnel to access the effected parts of the county or roadway that they need to respond to. Our police headquarters is on the north exit side of St. Anthony. It is no small matter for our emergency services to need to respond in northern Fremont County, in a situation where “seconds not minutes’ save lives.
*closure of the north exit to St. Anthony will drastically cut down the response time critical to our emergency responders
*Our Winters, they are not easy here. We get a lot of snow and poor road conditions are normal on a good day. Our county road crews have to maintain hundreds of miles of roads in the winter, try to keep them open in heavy snowstorms and worse with snow and then blowing conditions. You are considering asking us now to add to the already tremendous burden of roads to maintain, miles of frontage roads to maintain if you close county access points. Where do we put the snow? How do we afford more equipment, man-power? How do we guarantee that we can keep access roads open in winter to get emergency vehicles down them because they have to use an access road to even get to the highway?
I would ask you to remember that as well as man plans, “Mother Nature always wins”.
*Fremont County is asking you to take a step back and consider what you are proposing. Look at the problems you think you are trying to fix and see them differently as problems you might be creating.
*roads are meant to create ‘function’, to facilitate the movement of that function. If you limit ‘function’ you limit potential. What you are proposing will limit our potential. It will most certainly create more problems for Fremont County, it will limit the citizens of this county’s quality of life. 70-80% of our county residents use the north St. Anthony exit.
*Rural counties are continually being challenged with economic hardships. We have One of the Four most famous blue ribbon trout streams in the world here. We brag that, are you proposing that we construct highway frontage roads or a busy 4-lane highway along that pristine river?
*Fremont County feels that what you are proposing will jeopardize the safety and well-being of our citizens.
*Limiting and closing access will effect our agriculture economies and the function of that critical part of our county economy is to use our roads to harvest from our fields and our farms and transport our harvests.
*As ITD looks at US 20 as it bisects our county and the towns and communities of our county, not only are the users of the highway and their safety and mobility your concern, those users include are also local people who live along that highway and need to access it to go where they need to go in order to make a living, they are no less a priority for you than the travelers in the cars who might have a different license plate, who come from a different state, who are using that roadway for a different function. The local people who live by US 20 as it bisects our communities in order to live their lives are your constituents and Idaho tax payers.
For Fremont County
to follow up Commissioner Kamachi, Mayor Powell, and St. Anthony City Council remarks
Bart Quayle
Joe Powell
Fremont County Law Enforcement
*It really does come down to ‘where the rubber hits the road’
*we have 1900 square miles to cover in Fremont County
*what happens on US 20 is not our main priority, law enforcement does not just respond to incidents or accidents on that roadway
*we have rural and city issues, we have agricultural areas, we have recreational areas on both extreme ends of our county
*our main mission is the safety of all of our county citizens and enforcement of the law, keep order, and assist the injured
*we agree with the points made about speed that have been made here
*reduction of our response opportunity, by closing main intersections, would force us to high speed response through residential areas instead of being able to save time and act quickly using the freeway
Chris Hill
Fremont County Fire chief
*minutes matter on a fire or emergency rescue
*any increase of time added to our ability to respond to an emergency will risk lives
For Ashton
Mayor Tom Mattingly
(one hour meeting nearly at an end)
*The City of Ashton has many concerns, work is being done right now
*The City has spoken with Jason many times as ITD has been doing their work on US 20
*Jason is well aware of all of our concerns and I would hope that he would share them with you as I am short on time available in this meeting
*right now we have focused concerns on our sewer issues as they relate to the work being done
Governor Little extended the offer of more time, stating that just because the meeting time was nearing a close, he did not want anyone to feel denied opportunity to speak. He wanted everyone in the room to feel that they had had the time ‘to be heard, I want people to feel that they have been listened to”.
For ITD D6
Jason Minzghor:
*we design roadways according to the FHWA formula basing desired speeds at the 85th percentile
*speed limits were not part of the PEL, instead D6 relied on a State 2020 speed study
*ITD wants to close as many at-grade crossings on the highway as they can
*ITD is just ‘in the beginning phases’ of projects on US 20 in Fremont County
This began a short discussion on planning and land acquisitions being pursued by ITD. So significant an investment takes matters much further down the road than most people are aware of far in advance of any bulldozers coming to move dirt for new highway design. After significant investment in a plan that is not officially ’a plan’ becomes pretty hard to discuss or oppose, does it not? ITD does early land acquisition in preparation for an upcoming project to avoid an opportunity for land speculators to come in ahead of a known project, purchase the land themselves, and then put ITD in a position to have to buy the land from them at a higher price.
Question was asked about ITD and acquisition ahead of a project, therefore, being ‘pre-decisional’, because they are buying up land before any project has had a design approved, the Public has the opportunity to engage, or even before they are informed of an approved plan. If a plan does not move ahead effecting that land the ’State can always sell it back’.
Karen Hiatt *responded during discussion that a Super 2 Alternative had been offered as an alternative in the PEL.
The statement received significant challenge in the discussion. ONE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, a 4-lane highway, predicated the PEL, it was published as such under ‘Project Updates” on the US 20 PEL website (that page can no longer be accessed on that website). The Super 2 was a recommendation sent to ITD resulting from a public meeting Island Park held on their own, well attended by more than 60 people who were offered discussion and their remarks recorded for the record. Well into the process after the second public meeting was held in Island Park. (the second public meeting information is no longer in the PEL website either).
- Karen Hiatt’s Memory of how the community of Island Park remembers it, is not the same as her own.
- Further response to Hiatt, all you have to do is go to the US 20 PEL website to see that there is no development of any alternative referred to as a Super 2 in the PEL process to prove the lack of it and her statement incorrect. She offered that is was not selected in the screening process, and the response to that was that screening process NEVER involved THE PUBLIC, if she was correct on that point then it should be noted that a Super 2 alternative was rejected by ITD engineers and Horrocks Contractors. It was further added that would explain why the 3 studies Idaho has already paid for that recommended a Super 2 for US 20 in Fremont County, were not included in the PEL or offered to the Public for them to consider. It also explains why/how ITD and Horrocks contractors could advance their preferred alternative to the PEL.
COO McElhenney responded that a PEL can bring multiple alternatives forwarded to NEPA, and then offered that alternatives can still be added to be considered in the process.
Question asked to clarify where we are at in the process now, ITD is scheduled to come back to Ashton and Island park in just a few days?
McElhenney stated that the PEL would not be concluded on that date, perhaps ITD’s messaging on that deadline had not been not correct, the status of the upcoming meeting would now be subject to a ‘regroup’, and ITD was not sure if those meetings would happen on the dates scheduled.
The Governor concluded the meeting by thanking everyone for their engagement, thanking ITD for being there to listen. He hoped that all of the people in the room will remain committed to working together in the future. He felt that the meeting was a very positive step and that we can continue to carry these important conversations forward. He offered Speaker Bedke a final summary opportunity.
Speaker Bedke echoed the Governor’s remarks, he wished to add to them, directing his remarks as he pointed to everyone individually in the room, and he continued that The State would like to recommend and see every single person in the room, with their own level of expertise and point of view, at a table working together toward a solution that works for everyone. Having those critical and important conversations can achieve the best outcome, and arrive at jointly agreed upon goals. This is always the desired process.
Governor Little concluded that every interest at that table and in the room, should have VETO POWER in those discussions, supported by the level of valuable concern and objection offered in this meeting. He concluded the meeting with humor, stating that ‘he thought he had successfully addressed the trouble ‘over here’ when he stopped the ‘wildlife overpasses’. His joke responded to, ‘those wildlife overpasses will come back if ITD brings a 4-lane here’.
Meeting concluded.
