· A few downtown businesses will decline due to a bypass, and some would cease to exist.

· Affected businesses will likely change to another type of business within the downtown area, so the town’s utility revenues probably will not decline substantially.

· The bypass could result in approximately a 4% reduction in tax revenues to the town. However, the continued natural growth in Wickenburg has not been addressed. It is likely that continued growth will offset potential revenue reductions caused by a bypass.

· Because the northeast bypass corridor is closer to town than the southwestern bypass, the amount of revenue and jobs lost in Wickenburg due to the northeast bypass would be about 1% less than that for the southwest bypass.

· Interchanges on the bypass provide a new opportunity for businesses to open or for affected businesses to relocate.

· Jim Liggett: Did the study assess the potential reductions relative to different business locations in Wickenburg?

Answer (B. Bertleson): Yes, six business areas were identified in the Wickenburg area.

· Gordon Rodgers: Will the economic study account for the 31% of motorists who said they would not stop in Wickenburg?

Answer (B. Bertleson): The issue was factored into the analysis because the economist used the O/D study data and information from Behavior Research’s business/customer interviews in the economic model. However, Mr. Bertleson stated this issue could be and will be better analyzed.

· Gordon Rodgers: Can the economist re-analyze the potential effects relative to the fact that the O/D study did not occur within the "typical" tourist season when the tourist traffic volumes could be twice the May sample?

Answer (B. Bertleson): Yes, the economist will be asked to address this issue.

· Dick Wertz: Did the economic study address any potential economic effects upon the Wickenburg School District, e.g., lost property tax revenues due to private land acquisitions?

Answer (B. Bertleson): That issue was not included in the scope of the work.

· Dick Price: How will the bypass improve the economy of the area?

Answer (B. Bertleson): The economic study was not intended to be a long range planning effort; rather, it is intended to determine the bypass’s effect upon Wickenburg’s businesses that rely upon through-traffic. At this point, it appears that through traffic has only a marginal impact because the destination traffic headed to Wickenburg (e.g., ranches/resorts) is the major influence.

· Gordon Rodgers: Will the economist suggest other development options?

Answer (B. Bertleson): The economist has included mitigation suggestions to offset the identified impacts such as tax incentives from the Town of Wickenburg to attract and/or relocate businesses. However, it is the town’s responsibility to manage development. At this point, it appears the overall impact of a bypass is marginal and not a major determining factor (by itself) in selecting a bypass corridor.

· Mayor Gant/Fred Carpenter: Why isn’t the turnback issue included?

Answer (B. Bertleson): The turnback is a negotiable item between ADOT and Wickenburg. However, it can either be addressed under "Cost" or "Economic Considerations". Mike Sabatini suggested it is a project cost item.

· Will these criteria be used in evaluating the bypass corridors and specific highway alignments?

Answer (B. Bertleson): They will only be used in the corridor evaluation. More detailed criteria will be used to evaluate design concept alternatives.

· Will an evaluation matrix be developed and made available to the committee to review?

Answer (B. Bertleson): The bypass recommendation will be based upon the comparison of the alternatives in a matrix that will incorporate qualitative and quantitative factors. The matrix will be submitted to the committee for review and comment before the public information meeting that will occur in the fall.

· Mike Sabatini: Will a benefit/cost analysis be conducted as part of the evaluation to see if the project’s benefits outweigh the cost?

Answer (B. Bertleson): A benefit/cost analysis will not be done regarding the bypass because the intent of the bypass is to address traffic issues. Any differences in the project cost due to the length of a bypass route will not be significant relative to highway user costs. Based upon preliminary cost estimates, the construction costs for the bypass alternatives are virtually the same, i.e., $150 million. The social and environmental factors will be greater determining elements than benefit/cost.

· Wickenburg will be on the NAFTA corridor regardless of the outcome of the current location/design concept study. Thus, the NAFTA/CanaMex corridor issues will not change this study’s focus.

· Other bypass routes to the far western side of Wickenburg (e.g., I-8 to SR 85 to I-10 to Tonopah north to US 93) will not be evaluated relative to the NAFTA corridor or this study because NAFTA has already been established.

· The criteria for identifying interim solution alternatives were low cost, the ability to implement the project within 5 years of selection, provide an adequate level of service, would not compete with the ultimate bypass, and the improvement would be compatible with Wickenburg’s street network.

· Alternative 4, which was "selected" by the Town Council, will cost nearly $20 million due to the new river bridge, elevated construction and right-of-way/relocation costs. It will be designed to meet current design criteria for accommodating the free flow of traffic.

· Alternative 7 will cost approximately $12 million. The concept for this alternative was modified to include a new westbound, 3-lane bridge across the Hassayampa River to provide an adequate level of service and replace a functionally obsolete structure.

· Sverdrup is currently conducting a traffic analysis (including turning movement counts) of the streets in downtown Wickenburg to better assess the effectiveness of Alternatives 4, 7 and 10 to handle projected traffic volumes over the next 5 to 10 years.

· The bypass will cost approximately $150 million to construct, regardless of which corridor is selected. If ADOT agrees to spend $20 million for "an interim solution" that will accommodate traffic for 15+ years, the need for the ultimate bypass to handle traffic for the typical 20-year design life becomes less clear. Thus, if ADOT built Alternative 4, Mr. Bertleson surmised it could "compete" with the ultimate bypass and in fact become the bypass for 15 to 20 years.

· To accelerate the ultimate improvement, Mr. Bertleson indicated a design/build project could result in a bypass route that would be open to traffic in 6 to 7 years if funding was in place. This type of project would be contingent upon:

Based upon these considerations, Mr. Bertleson indicated he believed ADOT would fund either the interim solution (at $20 million for Alternative 4) or the bypass, but not both projects within the next ten years. He rhetorically asked Mayor Gant (and the Town Council) if he (they) would consider and support a design/build bypass out of town with Interim Solution Alternative 10 if they knew it could be done in 6 to 7 years.

· Dick Wertz: Can funding be re-prioritized from other projects in ADOT’s 5-year program to address Wickenburg’s needs?

Mr. Bertleson reiterated that MAG’s priorities are in the Phoenix area and not Wickenburg, even though it is a MAG member. Rich DeBoer stated ADOT has already programmed $150 million for the portion of the US 93 corridor between the Santa Maria and Big Sandy Rivers as its first priority, with the Hoover Dam bypass a close second. It’s not likely that funds will be re-prioritized, but current priorities could be politically challenged.

· Fred Carpenter indicated ADOT and MAG had recently agreed to a new and higher percentage of ADOT funds being spent within the MAG system.

· Gordon Rodgers asked if ADOT would consider funding "streetscape" improvements in Wickenburg. Mr. DeBoer stated programs were available for such improvements only if Wickenburg would share the cost.