Hampshire County Minutes

Minutes

September 19^th, 2007

Recorded Attendees: Gary Howell – Mineral County, Wayne Spiggle-Mineral County Commission, Mona Ridder-Cumberland Times-News, Bob Fisher MDSHA, Brian Carr – WVDOH Charleston, Dave Moe – GC Development Corp, Tom Conlon – Cumberland, MD, Larry Lemon – Sen. Rockefeller Office, Robert Hott – Hampshire County Commission, Steve Sloanaker – Hampshire County Commission, Michael OO’Brian – Hampshire Review, Charlie Baker – Hampshire County Planner, Ken Musgrave – Mineral County, Les Shoemaker – Hampshire County Dev. Auth., Bill Woods – WVDOH Charleston, Cate Johnson – Congressman Mollohan Office.

Introductions: Steve Sloanaker welcomed the group to Taggart Hall where the meeting was held.

Old Business: Wayne Spiggle presented the group with a letter from Senator Byrd thanking the association for visiting his office in Washington asking for funding for upgrades to US 50 and US 220. In the letter Sen. Byrd stated, “The failure of the 109^th Congress to pass the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 appropriations legislation in a timely manor has resulted in the suspension of earmarks for the duration of FY 2007.”

David Moe and Charlie Baker both gave reports on the meeting with Sen. Byrd. They stated the group would like to see a 4-lane US 50 from Virginia state line to Clarksburg as a long term goal, but had additional request.

Baker stated that West Virginia has 4 projects DOH is funneling the bulk of highway construction money into, those are; The Mon-Fayette Expressway (Morgantown Bypass), Corridor H, US Route 35, and WV State Route 9. To move US 50 to a priority, it has to have the support of Governor Manchin.

Moe requested funding for the West Virginia portion of the US 220 Tier 2 study, explaining that Maryland has its funding source secured. This would enable the study to move forward quickly upon completion of the Tier 1 study currently underway.

He also requested that a bill making the North-South US 220 Corridor part of the Appalachian Development Highway System be introduced. This would secure funding for US 220 from the same source as Corridor H, and make US 220 Corridor O.

Gary Howell explained that the US 220 Corridor is becoming more important as a new traffic pattern is emerging on the east coast. Heavy Truck traffic traveling between the Port of Norfolk and the Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit area is shifting from the I-64, I-95, DC Beltway, I-270, I70, PA/OH Turnpike route to a route that uses I-64, I-95, US 17, I-66, Corridor H, US 220, I-68, I-79, PA/OH Turnpike. A route that is less than 30 miles longer, but is saving more than 2 hours off of travel time by missing the heavy Washington DC traffic.

Howell also requested that Rep. Mollohan also introduce a bill on house side similar to the Senate bill requested of Byrd. He stated this would give the bill a better chance of passing.

New Business: Les Shoemaker, Hampshire County Economic Development Director, requested that the group push for the new 4-lane US 220 to follow the route of the existing US 220 from Moorefield to Cumberland. This would provide the greatest economic impact the area and help facilitate the new traffic pattern better.

Wayne Spiggle said the group should wait to check with the different county commission before making such a decision, but was reminded that at the March 2006 meeting the Association had already made that request.

Shoemaker also asked why a 3-lane project on US 50 through Romney was dropped from the WVDOH’s 6-year plan. Brain Carr of WVDOH explained that there has been some opposition to the project, and that the project was not 15 years old. Being 15 years had elapsed, that a new study would need to be done because of the changes that have occurred over that time.

Charlie Baker stated that Hampshire County was willing to fund some projects that were needed on US 50; but that WVDOH could not guarantee that the money would be used on that specific project. Bill Woods of WVDOH said the must have been some miscommunication and he would check into why Hampshire County was told that.

He went on to state that a new law allows counties to raise user taxes to fund road projects. It would be mostly used by larger counties for large projects, but smaller counties could use it for small projects that may include improving intersections.

The meeting adjourned at 2:07, with the next meeting to be held in Mineral County on November 21^st.

November Meeting:

Mineral County is next on the schedule to host the November 21^th meeting.

Meeting Adjourned at 2:07.

US 50 Association

March 15, 2006

Meeting Agenda

I. 12:00 – 1:00 Lunch

II. Welcome Virginia delegation

III. Introductions

IV. Minutes of Previous Meeting

V. Old Business

a. Present US 50 needs assessment document to Frederick County

b. Discuss each counties priority projects

c. Discuss approaching ARC’s ADHS on “Super 2” proposal

VI. New Business

VII. Citizens Concerns

Garrett County Meeting Minutes

Route 50 Association

Minutes

January 18, 2006

Attendees: Garrett County – Commissioner Dave Beard, Commissioner Fred Holliday, Peggy Jamison, Chamber of Commerce and Town of Oakland representative Cherie Ross, Garrett County Development Corporation Dave Moe; Allegany County – Rosemary Firlie; Preston County – Commissioner L. Darwin Wolfe, Commissioner Dave Price, Dave Sypolt, Arvin Harsh; Mineral County – Commissioner Wayne Spiggle, Planning Commission member Gary Howell; Hampshire County – Robert Hott, Alan “Mitch” Davis, Grady B.; WVDOT Mark White, Brian Carr; Cumberland Times-News Mona Ridder, Congressman Bartlett’s Office Brenda Frantz

Garrett County Commissioner Beard welcomed everyone and introduced the other Garrett County participants.

Chairman Spiggle opened the meeting with a discussion on the “US Rt. 50 Needs Assessment” document which had been drafted by the WVDOT and provided to each county in attendance at the last meeting in November. Brian Carr noted that the document included the projects which had been brought up at previous Rt. 50 meetings. Dr. Spiggle requested that a copy of the Rt. 50 document be mailed to each County Commission that did not receive it. Participants from Hampshire, Preston and Mineral Counties all noted that they had looked at the document.

There was discussion on including other items in the document such as: the 4-lane option for Rt. 50; a 4-lane right-of-way with a 2-lane construction (“Super 2”); and, prioritizing the 4-lane improvements at either end of Rt. 50.

Mr. Carr also noted that the Commissioner for the WV Dept. of Transportation has been touring the state and talking with various groups about the Department’s Six Year Plan. The Plan can be viewed on the WVDOT’s website at www.wvdot.com/6-year-plan/index.htm . Current projects for the department include the completion of Corridor H and improvements to Rt. 220. The next priorities for the Department are: Rt. 9, the Mon-Fayette Expressway and US 35.

It is important for our organization to get our Rt. 50 projects on the State’s priority list for road construction. There is currently $17 billion worth of unfunded road projects.

Gary Howell suggested that we “get creative” in our look for funding sources for these projects. For example, request the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) to look at adding the concept of a “Super 2” to the Appalachian Highway Development System (AHDS) criteria for roads and to look at adding additional corridors to the system such as Rt. 50. Since both of these items will require changes approved at the Congressional level, it was noted that including Frederick County, VA would be important as that will bring on board two more Senators and additional Representatives for additional political clout.

The other potential source of “creative” funding may come from the Homeland Security programs as improvements to Rt. 50 could be crucial to developing a more efficient and quick way to evacuate Washington, DC, if necessary.

Mr. Howell also suggested that each county choose a Rt. 50 project that could be easily accomplished and take that list to the State DOT. Then when one of those projects is completed we could publicize our efforts and perhaps attract more public participation and input.

Regional issues that were discussed included the Rt. 220 project. Tier 1 of that project has just started. It is expected to be completed in 18 months to 2 years. The other project is suggested ascetics improvements to the Keyser bridge which serves as the gateway into West Virginia/Maryland. Commissioner Holliday expressed the frustration of the Garrett County Commissioners on the replacement of the Wilson-Corona bridge. Garrett County has the federal bridge funds in hand, but has been waiting for West Virginia to move forward with their portion. Garrett County’s roads engineer has been in contact with West Virginia, but it has been over five years and nothing has moved forward. The Association requested that Brian Carr look into the status of that project.

Administrative issues: Dr. Spiggle reported that he had sent a letter to the Taylor County Commissioners encouraging their continued participation and support. He announced that they submitted their $500 contribution. Dr. Spiggle asked that we continue to encourage the participation of Taylor County. Jennifer Bonner, staff to the Preston County Commissioners will send letters to other Commissioners as her time allows, encouraging participation in the meetings. Dr. Spiggle thanked Brenda Frantz for her attendance and expressed the group’s appreciation for the support of Congressman Bartlett.

The minutes from the November meeting were approved as submitted.

The next meeting will be Wednesday, March 15, 2006. If contact can be made with the Frederick County, VA Commissioners it will be here there. If not, it will be held in Keyser.

ACTION ITEMS – for next meeting

1. Each county should review the Rt. 50 Needs Assessment document and be prepared to report any suggestions or concerns to Brian Carr of the WV DOT, no later than the next meeting. If your county does not have copy, please contact Brian, ASAP, at 304-558-9580.
2. Contact the Frederick County, VA Commissioners and encourage their active participation.
3. Each WV County should pick a project that would be included in one “package” to be sent to the WV DOT with the endorsement of the Rt. 50 Association. The idea is that these would be projects that are easily funded and accomplished as a way to garner additional public support for the organization.
4. Prepare a list of the Rt. 50 priority projects from each County to be forwarded to Chairman Spiggle to be included in a “package” of projects to take to the WV Legislature.
5. Begin to work on proposing changes to ARC’s Appalachian Highway Development System, (adding the “Super2” concept and adding new Corridors).

Grafton Meeting

U.S. Route 50 Association
Minutes for November 16, 2005
Senior Center
Grafton, West Virginia

Present:

David C. Beard Garrett Commissioner - Jennifer Bonnette, Preston
Crady Hampshire, Brian WVDOH – Charleston, Vicki Preston
Commissioner, Larry Cooper Grafton, WV, Dick Feigley Grantsville, MD, Arvin Harsh
Preston/Eglon, Gary Mineral, Jon Blair Hunter WV Senate, Peggy Jamison Garrett, Dave Preston
Commissioner, James Smith –Taylor, Wayne Spiggle Facilitator/Mineral Com., David Preston,
L. Darwin Wolfe Preston Commissioner

Meeting was called to order by Dr. Wayne Spiggle at 1:00 p.m. and
self introductions were made around the room.

Minutes:

Minutes from the September 21, 2005 meeting were reviewed.

Regional Review:

Brian Carr presented a draft of the U.S. 50 Needs Study. He stated
that it is now in a user friendly format for the purpose of
leveraging funds from state and federal sources. He reported that
Maryland has not presented any items for the wish list. The group
still has time to review and make changes.

Wayne Spiggle recommended that Center Line Reflectors be installed
along Rt. 50 to help with visibility in foggy areas. Brian Carr
cautioned against reflectors because snow plows tend to destroy
them. He reported that the state instead favors repainting the road
lines. The group asked if the painting schedule could be more
frequent. Brian Carr reported that the painting schedule is based on
a statewide contract and that he would check the current schedule for
the group. He also recommended calling the district level with these
types of problems. Senator Hunter asked that local leaders write to
the state and request that the center lines be painted twice a year.
Arvin Harsh stated that painting the road lines would not be enough.
He asked that the group investigate further the idea of installing
Center Line Reflectors. Brian Carr stated that he would research the
reflectors.

Senator Hunter reported that for safety reasons and to help with
drainage, he is investigating paving roads to the birm.

Senator Hunter reported that he reviewed the Governor’s six year plan
and noticed that no new funding was allocated to address the group’s
projects. Brian Carr reported that at this point the only way one of
the group’s projects could be included is if one of the projects
listed in the plan would drop-off. He stated that the majority of
the funding will be going for long-term projects like King Coal
Highway and the Appalachian Highway System. The group recommended
investigating other avenues of funding. The group discussed past
trips to Washington, DC for the purposes of receiving federal funding.

Old Business:

No response from Taylor County officials regarding the group’s
efforts to receive input. The group felt that perhaps Taylor County
officials were not properly notified of the meeting. L. Darwin Wolfe
recommended that his office send a written invitation to the Taylor
County Commission informing them about the next U.S. Rt. 50 Meeting.
The group agreed with this request.

Adjourn:

The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. The next meeting is
tentatively scheduled for the third Wednesday of January in Garrett
County, Maryland at the Cornish Manor.

Mineral County Meeting

ROUTE 50 ASSOCIATION MEETING

MAY 19, 2004

POLISH PINES RESTAURANT, KEYSER, WV

County Commissioner Cindy Pyles opened the meeting by welcoming attendees to Mineral County. She noted that the group’s efforts to improve U.S. Route 50 is extremely important to supporting economic growth IN THE REGION.

Dr. Wayne Spiggle reviewed the minutes of the March 17, 2004 meeting noting some of the comments received from the counties regarding needed improvements within their respective jurisdictions. The following items from the prior meeting were also discussed.

• Communication from Bill Wood, WVDOH, indicating that DOH would begin collecting information on road and bridge conditions, traffic counts and accident information in an effort to prepare a study of needs on Route 50 from I-79 east to the Virginia state line. Comments and concerns generated through this Association would be incorporated into the study. The report is expected to take up to one year to complete.

• Memorandum of Understanding ­ A draft memorandum of understanding was given to each county commission. The memorandum sets forth the purpose of the Association and establishes the mechanism for each commission to officially recognize and participate in its activities. Any changes to wording should be provided to Michael Bland, Mineral County Coordinator.

• Naming of U.S. Route 50 ­ Discussion indicated the most likely name would either be the George Washington Highway or Northwestern Turnpike. No final consensus was obtained.

Dr. Spiggle welcomed Richard Hartman and Mike White, WVDOH, who would participate later in the meeting.

David Sypolt, Preston County Surveyor, History of U.S. Route 50 ­ Mr. Sypolt gave an excellent presentation on the history of the Northwestern Turnpike which later became the basic route for U.S. Route 50. An outline of the presentation is attached.

Richard Hartman, WVDOH, reviewed the major points of the Federal By-Way Program.

• Application is first made to the State. State must approve by-way designation before it can be considered for Federal designation.

• Designation is requested by the local group based on the intrinsic qualities of the route being promoted (i.e. historic, cultural, scenic, recreational, etc.). The naming of the by-way would normally be tied to the identified qualities.

• Once approved, DOH would sign route.

Local group requesting designation is responsible to manage.

• WV received approximately $500,000 annually for the by-way program.

Funds may be used for signage, scenic easements, scenic pull-offs and management. Funds are not used for general road improvements or maintenance.

• Designation does not help or hurt monies available for maintenance.

• Designation prevents any additional roadside signage for commercial advertisement and business. Businesses along the route would be restricted to a sign at their place of business.

• By-way projects approved last year have not yet been funded.

• Designated by-way name does not impact 911 or local addressing.

• Advised that the Route 50 Association needed to develop a unified strategy and speak as a single group.

Frank O’Hara, Mineral County, made a brief presentation on existing accident data and safety concerns on Route 50. Statistics included factors related to the accident including driver age, weather conditions, time of day and location. Mineral County has the highest mortality rate in the State based on percentage of accidents and Hampshire County is 5th.

David Moe, Garrett County, Update on North-South Corridor Study ­ In fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated $2 million to study the U.S. Route 220 corridor. The purpose of the study was to develop a recommended north/south connection between I-68 in Maryland and Corridor H in West Virginia. Initial funding provided $1.5 million to West Virginia and $0.5 million to Maryland. Congress appropriated an additional $1 million for Maryland in fiscal year 2004, however those funds have not fully authorized.

A memorandum of understanding outlining the conditions and parameters for the study has been prepared and approved by West Virginia.

Maryland has not approved the memorandum to date. A meeting between West Virginia and Maryland to include discussion of the memo is scheduled for May 26, 2004.

Once a route is determined, an additional factor will be the construction standards for the highway. The four-lane would either be built to Appalachian Highway Standards or Interstate Standards. The Interstate Designation would be important to economic development for its significance to industry looking for new sites.

Dr Spiggle concluded the meeting with discussion on the following:

• Route 50 Association ­ Is intended to be a partnership with DOH in promoting improvements to the route.

• Route 50 Yard Sale ­ May 21 ­ 23, 2004 ­ Additional information available on internet at www.highway50.com/yardsale.

• Deb Clatterbuck will chair a committee on whether by-way designation should be pursued for U.S. Route 50. Persons interested in participating in those discussions should contact her.

The next meeting is scheduled for July 21`, 2004 at the Penn Alps Restaurant, Grantsville, Maryland. Lunch at 12:00 noon, followed by the business meeting at 1:00 PM.