No. 28531 (Amendment): R926-8-3. Factors Used to Consider Proposals

DAR File No.: 28531
Filed: 02/24/2006, 02:09
Received by: NL

 

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The rule change is intended to reflect comments made by members of the public and the Transportation Commission.

 

Summary of the rule or change:

The rule change contains a definition of "economic development" and adds text inadvertently left out of the original filing. (DAR NOTE: The original proposed new rule of R926-8 was published in the November 1, 2005, issue of the Bulletin under DAR No. 28274, and was effective 12/07/2005.)

 

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

Section 72-2-123

 

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

This change does not affect any part of the rule that will affect finances, so there should be no cost or savings.

 

local governments:

This change does not affect any part of the rule that will affect finances, so there should be no cost or savings. However, the definition of "economic development" may affect the ability of a local project to be funded. If a proposal does not create "economic development," then it may not be funded under this rule. However, it is impossible to measure this as the rule, in any form, has not been tried.

 

other persons:

There will be no costs to others because no one is required to do anything or take any action as a result of this rule.

 

Compliance costs for affected persons:

There are no affected persons since the rule change does not regulate or license any activity or require any payments.

 

Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:

There will be no fiscal impact on business. John R. Njord, Executive Director

 

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Transportation
Program Development
CALVIN L RAMPTON COMPLEX
4501 S 2700 W
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84119-5998

 

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

James Beadles at the above address, by phone at 801-965-4168, by FAX at 801-965-4796, or by Internet E-mail at [e-mail]

 

Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:

04/14/2006

 

This rule may become effective on:

04/15/2006

 

Authorized by:

John R. Njord, Executive Director

 

 

RULE TEXT

R926. Transportation, Program Development.

R926-8. Public Partnering.

R926-8-3. Factors Used to Consider Proposals.

(1) In deciding whether to approve a county's or municipality's request for partnering, the Transportation Commission shall evaluate the proposal with the following factors in mind:

(a) whether the requested improvement is part of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), or the Long-Range Plan and, if part of the Long-Range Plan, will not delay any of the projects already included in the STIP;

(b) the benefits of the improvement to the State highway system and the county or municipality as well as the costs;

(c) level of local commitment, based on the amount or percentage of funding proposed;

(d) whether the proposed improvement was subject to a local planning initiative;

(e) whether the improvement will alleviate significant existing or future congestion or hazards to the traveling public or provide other substantial improvements to the transportation system;

(f) whether the proposal has the potential to extend department resources to other needs; and

(g) fulfills a need widely recognized by the public, elected officials, and transportation planners.

(2)(a) If a proposed improvement is to a surface street that approaches an interchange or ramp or for a new interchange or ramp and is being undertaken for economic development, the county or municipality shall provide at least a fifty percent (50%) local match. The match can include private contributions that are administered through the local entity. (Economic development may include such things as employment growth, employment retention, retail sales, tourism growth, freight movements, tax base increase, and traveler or user cost savings in relation to construction costs.)

(b) If a proposed improvement is to a surface street that approaches an interchange or ramp or for a new interchange or ramp and is being undertaken to relieve traffic congestion or to improve safety, the local match, if any, may be determined based on the benefit derived by the local entity.

 

KEY: transportation, local governments, partnering, highways

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: [December 7, 2005]2006

Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 72-2-123