Utah Transportation Commission
February 11, 1994
Salt Lake City, Utah

Commission Vice-Chairman Todd G. Weston welcomed everyone and called the regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission to order at 9:40 a.m.

Introduction of newly-appointed Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown
Commissioner Larkin introduced Commissioner Glen E. Brown from Hoytsville who was appointed by Governor Leavitt to fill the vacancy on the Utah Transportation Commission left by former Commission Chairman Samuel J. Taylor. Commissioner Brown will also assume the chairmanship of the Commission. He is a former legislator who served in the House of Representatives for a number of years, and most recently as the Speaker of the House. A warm welcome was extended to Commissioner Brown by the other Commissioner members and staff.

Commissioner Brown said he was honored to be appointed to the Commission and he appreciated the confidence the Governor has shown in him in the assignment. He said he would work hard to do the job expected of him and do his best to keep the Commission an important element in the transportation issue.

Commissioner Weston was asked to Chair the remainder of the meeting.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Larkin made a motion to approve the minutes of the Commission Meeting held January 7, 1994 in Salt Lake City. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and it passed unanimously.

Service Awards
David L. Forsgren, District 1 Construction, 30 Years - David Forsgren was introduced to the Commission for his 30 year service award by Art Chidester, who also acknowledged and welcomed David's wife Yvonne. Dave started his career with UDOT February 24, 1964. He has worked most of his career in District 1 Construction, and has served with a number of different project engineers; his current position is with Larry Durrant. He began work as a rodman, within a year he was promoted to instrumentman and, to his credit, within four years he was party chief which was quite an accomplishment in those days when there were so many employees and very few openings.

Dave spent four years in our Highway Engineers Technology Program (HET). In addition, he took classes at Weber State University in drafting and surveying. In 1975 he was promoted to Transportation Engineering Assistant, which is now known as Construction Engineer Assistant, and he works directly under the project engineer.

Dave continually strives for more knowledge and self-improvement and involves himself in seminars and workshops which can enhance his skills in the construction industry. He is a very conscientious and dedicated worker, well organized, accomplishes all his assignments in a very professional manner, and has a sound decision-making process. He is a good motivator and utilizes his past experiences and knowledge to pass on to others. He has excellent leadership abilities and good relationships with his co-workers.

Dave has five children and five grandchildren. He has always found time to be civic minded, and has been very dedicated to the Boy Scouts. He is a past-mayor of Honeyville, and presently serves on the City Council there.

Commissioner Weston presented Dave with a certificate of appreciation for his 30 years of service and devotion to the Department, and told him he was very glad he worked in the District 1 area.

Jae E. Toone, District 2 Maintenance, 25 Years - Jae Toone was presented to the Commission by Dana Meier for his 25 year service award. Jae originally hails from Vineyard, an unknown place to most of us, but formerly in the vicinity of Geneva Steel in Utah County. Jae grew up working on a farm and has been associated with heavy equipment his entire life.

He began his career with UDOT in June, 1968 in the Midvale Maintenance Station. He has worked his way up in positions, and is currently assigned as the Assistant Supervisor in Station 234 in Parleys Canyon; however, the Supervisor there has been off with health problems, and Jae has taken over as Acting Station Supervisor. He has been a great asset to the Department. Dana thanked Jae for his hard work.

Commissioner Lewis presented Jae his certificate of appreciation and expressed the Commission's thanks for his 25 years of service to the Department.

Charles K. White, District 2, 30 Years - Charlie White was introduced to the Commission for his 30 year service award by District 2 Director Gene Sturzenegger. Charlie began work for UDOT on a project crew as an axman at $293 a month. He worked for several different project engineers and progressed through the positions on the survey crew and two levels of inspector. Charlie has taken advantage of all the schooling available, and when he took the test the Department offered to advance employees to other positions, he scored second in the state in the second level of inspection.

In September, 1975 Charlie was selected as the District 2 Permits Officer, and in March, 1980 the Beautification Program was added to the duties of the Permits Officer, which involved additional work permitting junkyards, signs and billboards, etc. In August, 1981 he was promoted to the position of District 2 Safety Coordinator, which he currently holds. That is a big assignment with the tremendous amount of traffic District 2 has, and the significant number of accidents to which he must respond.

Charlie has become the instructor in many different training courses for the Department, including the Radiological Course, First Aid, Flagging, Defensive Driving, and several others. The Department has recently embarked on a Quality Improvement program and Charlie was selected as one of the twenty facilitators and trainers in this important endeavor, and has done an outstanding job.

Charlie is married and has seven children. He has been very active, and has devoted a lot of time to the Boy Scouts. His hobbies include music, photography, hunting, sports, and reading, and Gene noted the photography has been a great help to him in his job because he does have to take many photographs in his current position.

Commissioner Lewis commented that it sounded like Charlie's career had a great deal of variety. He expressed the Commission's appreciation for his devotion and service to the Department and presented his certificate of appreciation.

Phillip Pronk, District 2 Construction, 30 Years - Phillip Pronk was presented to the Commission for his 30 year service award by Resident Engineer Betty Purdie. Phil started work for UDOT February 17, 1964 on a survey crew in District 2, and has worked for several different project engineers. Betty noted that Phil has worked on a survey crew with one of his co-workers his entire 30 years, and with another one for 24 years, and said it's a real pleasure to have an experienced survey crew that works together so well. Betty also noted that Phil is an avid Jazz fan.

Commissioner Lewis congratulated Phil and said it's a real credit to him and his co-workers to be able to work together so well for so long. He expressed the Commission's appreciation and presented his certificate of appreciation. Commissioner Clyde also congratulated and thanked Phil and said he was acquainted with him from the contractor's side.

Retirement Awards
Darus Middleton, Construction, 30 Years - Darus Middleton was presented to the Commission for his retirement award, and also for his 30 year service award by Construction Engineer Kim Schvaneveldt. Kim said he was presenting Darus, who planned to retire March 31, with mixed emotions because he is a very organized, competent, dedicated worked who will leave a big hole in the Construction Division and UDOT.

Darus' journey through the Department indicates the many changes which have taken place over the years. He began working for UDOT in 1964 as a draftsman at $292 per month. He was promoted to a computer in Roadway Design in October, 1965 where he hand calculated thousands and thousands of cross sections and end areas with a pencil and hand-crank Monroe calculator. In March, 1966 he was promoted to clerk in Contracts and Specifications.

He attended and graduated from the Highway Engineering Technology Program (HET) after four years. In March, 1968 he went to District 2 in their offices at 13th South 500 West as a roadway designer, then moved to the new District 2 building when it was completed at 2100 South and 2400 West.

Darus worked in the field on a survey crew, and as an inspector. In July, 1970 he was promoted to Estimates and Agreements Reviewer, then located in the Accounting Office, but which was reassigned to the Construction Division in February, 1972. He learned how to move projects through the payment process and helped contractors follow payments due.

In 1979 he was promoted to Programming Coordinator in Planning and Programming where he learned funding and obligation requirements of the state and federal government. He coordinated federal projects with FHWA and worked with Preconstruction and Construction in getting projects advertised and finaled.

In March, 1986 he returned to the Construction Division as a Contracts, Estimates and Agreements Supervisor which is the position he currently holds. Darus says construction is where things happen; where the work gets done, where concepts and plans come to life. Construction employees willingly put in the time needed to do the job right.

One major accomplishment as Estimates and Agreements Supervisor was the computerization of the Construction Division. It wasn't easy to retrain old hands, but with the many cuts in the Construction staff over the years, and the early retirement window, computers have provided much of the help needed to continue to do the job required: To build roads and to pay the contractors for the work they performed. Kim expressed his thanks and appreciation to Darus, and presented him to the Commission.

Commissioner Lewis congratulated Darus and thanked him for his dedicated service to the Department and the many contributions he has made. He presented his certificate of appreciation.

Darus said we've come a long way in the Department, and many things have changed; we are not doing business like we did 30 years ago, and it will continue to change. He said he started out as a draftsman with a pen he filled with ink with an eye dropper, and now we use a CAD system for highway design, and we use computers now to do estimates which the secretaries used to have to type on mimeograph paper so they could be run off on the machine.

He said the Department has been good to him, but he had set a goal to retire after 30 years and he has worked towards that goal. He is looking forward to new adventures and he expressed appreciation for the support of his wife.

Commissioner Weston expressed his personal thanks to each of the employees for their many years of service and dedication to the Department. He said it is gratifying to congratulate employees for their years of service, but it is difficult to see them retire, taking their knowledge and experience with them.

Right-of-Way Settlements Over $25,000
Bob Fox reported he had one right-of-way settlement, which was a hardship/advance acquisition in District 2 on Redwood Road from 6500 South to 7800 South. He noted the project isn't even on the schedule until September, but the Department likes to take advantage of these early acquisitions when it is practical. Commissioner Weston asked Bob if he was sure it was legal, and Bob assured him it was.

The acquisition is for a home which has been appraised at $77,650, and he recommended the Commission's approval.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the settlement as presented. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and passed unanimously that:

Option approved to purchase Parcel 18:T, Project SP-0068(4)48, Redwood Road, 6500 South to 7800 South, located at 6621 South Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, from owner Carol L. Shomaker, in the amount of $77,650.

Planning and Programming
Airport Improvement Projects
Phil Ashbaker reported there were two airport projects for the Commission's consideration. The first is a joint federal/state/local project at the Cedar City Municipal Airport. It involves extending their primary runway 1,000 feet to the south, construction of the corresponding 1,000 feet of parallel taxiway, rehabilitation of 2,200 feet of taxiway and construction of 2,500 feet more taxiway, installing the corresponding lights and signs, plus some drainage and painting.

He explained all the taxiway construction will give Cedar City a complete parallel taxiway without running it on an angle into the commercial aircraft parking area. The total project cost is $1,577,980, with $71,482 being state funds.

The second project is at the Green River Municipal Airport and is also a joint federal/state/local job. It includes expanding the tiedown apron by 9,000 square yards, acquiring 5.5 acres for Runway 31 protection zone, and updating their airport layout plan.

Phil explained the ramp expansion is badly needed; the airport ramp is completely crammed with airplanes to the point it is impossible to get on the airport with a large twin. This project will expand the tiedown apron and run a stub taxiway back to the runway from the south end of the ramp. The total project cost is $250,000, with $11,325 of state funds. The Aeronautical Committee has reviewed both projects and recommends them to the Commission for approval.

Commissioner Clyde asked how active the Green River Airport is since it was relocated. Phil replied it is very active. Red Tail Aviation runs a significant number of river trips and scenics out of that airport. Commissioner Clyde asked if Phil had any inventory of the activity. Phil replied that information was available and he would get it to the Commissioner.

Commissioner Clyde moved for approval of the two airport projects. Commissioner Larkin seconded the motion and it passed unanimously that:

The Cedar City Municipal Airport project approved for extending Runway 02/20 1,000 feet to the south, construction of 1,000 feet of corresponding partial parallel taxiway, rehabilitation of 2,200 feet of 1975 taxiway, construction of 2,550 feet of parallel taxiway, installation of lights and signs, and drainage and painting items, for a total project cost of $1,577,980 - Federal $1,435,015, State $71,482, and Local $71,483; and

The Green River Municipal Airport project approved for expanding the tiedown apron by 9,000 square yards, acquiring 5.5 acres for runway 31 protection zone, and updating the airport layout plan, for a total project cost of $250,000 - Federal $227,350, State and Local $11,325 each.

Planning and Programming
Enhancements Committee Appointments
John Quick explained some background of the Enhancements Committee for the benefit of the new Commissioners. The Enhancements Program is a new program under the ISTEA Bill, which designates that 10% of the STP funds be set aside for transportation enhancement projects. There are ten activities identified for which these funds may be allocated. The program is funded through 1997, the life of the ISTEA Bill, and it amounts to approximately $3 million each year. The Department chose to establish an Enhancements Advisory Committee to screen those projects and make a recommendation to the Transportation Commission for adoption into the program each year.

The Enhancements Advisory Committee consists of members of the Department of Transportation and citizens:

• Transportation Commissioner (Commissioner Lewis)
  
• UDOT Statewide Planner (John Quick)
  
• UDOT Bicycle Coordinator (Kim Morris)
  
• UDOT Landscape Architect (Walt Gilmore)
  
• UDOT Archaeologist (Susan Miller)
  
• Two members with Pedestrian and Bicycle interests (Appointed by Commission)
  
• Two members with Historic or Archaeological interests (Appointed by Commission)
  
• Two members with Scenic and Environmental interests (Appointed by Commission)
  
• One representative from the MPO (rotates annually)
  
• One representative from the Joint Highway Committee (assigned by JHC)

This Committee was established a little over a year ago, and the six members appointed by the Transportation Commission are to serve for a two year term, except for three of the initial appointees who were to serve for only one year, so there would be three appointees rotating off the Committee each year. The time has come to appoint three members to replace those who will be leaving.

John continued that we had anticipated that initially they would serve for one year, as it turns out this first year we have gone through one series of Enhancements funding and we are starting the second year right now, so the existing Committee will actually serve through this second selection period. The new appointees will serve a transition period so they may become familiar with how the system works, then will serve through the next two years.

John distributed a copy of the list of the original nominees for the appointed positions, from which the current six appointees were selected. He said we have not gone through the process again of soliciting new names but, because of the time schedule, he is recommending three names for the Commission's consideration, two of which were taken from the original list, and the third person was not on the list but was recommended by our Bicycle Coordinator.

The recommended people were: Ann King for Scenic and Environmental interests; Mike Leventhal for Historic and Archaeological; and Joel Bingham for Bicycle/Pedestrian interests. John explained the person currently serving for the Bicycle/Pedestrian interests, Dan Mayhew, is on the Salt Lake City Mayor's Bicycle Committee, and the other candidates on the original list are strongly tied to Salt Lake City, so it was felt we should pick someone other than those other two. Joel Bingham was recommended because of his bicycling connections, and he operates Bingham Cyclery. He has been contacted and he would be willing to serve.

We are in the process of reviewing project applications right now for this year's funds. The deadline for submittal of project applications was February 4, and the projects are now ready to go out to the Committee for review. We had 40 applications sent in this year, and they come to a total request of over $8 million; however, only 34 of them passed the initial screening. We had 38 projects submitted last year for about that same amount of money.

Commissioner Weston strongly stressed that it was the Commission's desire that any Enhancements projects be very closely tied to transportation, because that is where the money is coming from; many of the applications are not really transportation related. That word needs to go out to the public.

Commissioner Clyde said he didn't like the idea of the new appointees just sitting in on the Committee for a year before they become a voting member. If a person is capable of serving on the Committee he should be able to make decisions and vote on the projects. John explained the intent was that the new members would begin to serve immediately, but the existing members would continue to serve for only one more month through the selection process this year, so there would be somewhat of an overlap. There was a discussion of what date the appointments expired, and John said there was no specific date; the appointments were just to be one year from the time they were actually appointed. Commissioner Larkin suggested the appointments should have a specific expiration date, such as January 1 each year, or possibly March or April, just so it wasn't in the middle of the selection process. The other Commissioners agreed that would be a good solution.

Commissioner Lewis said when they approved the list of projects last year, he expressed his opinion to the Commission that he was concerned that even though ISTEA gave a great deal of latitude, he wasn't certain there was enough direct transportation linkage on some of the projects. There were a couple of projects which they reviewed that he was uncomfortable with, but didn't want to unduly influence the rest of the Commission. Considering all the needs there are, he personally has a bias towards trying to make sure the projects are not only legal projects, but that they are worthy and are closely related to the transportation needs we have.

He noted we did not allocate all the funding last year which was available, partly to wait and see if some other worthy projects would be submitted which would better suit some of the real needs we have. Just because the money was available to do some things which would be nice to be done didn't convince him that we should range as widely as possible, but rather we should hang onto a tighter linkage as a matter of policy. Commissioner Lewis said he expressed that to the Committee, and there were some other members who did want to range more widely than he did because it was permitted under the law.

He said possibly the Commission needs to have more discussion on that matter, and if the rest of the Commission feels we should move a little cautiously in that regard, that kind of direction is best given at the beginning of the process as opposed to letting the sponsors go through the application process and the Committee go through the review process, then the Commission only selecting the closely-transportation-related projects. He didn't want the Committee to go to all the hard work and make a recommendation to the Commission only to find out that the Commission was a little more conservative. John agreed they appreciated that kind of guidance. He said they did receive that after last year's selection procedure, and if the Commission does feel strongly about that, it will help reinforce that idea with the Committee.

Commissioner Clyde pointed out that the funds do not have to be totally allocated each year. He agreed the projects should be strictly transportation oriented. Commissioner Weston restated that he totally agreed, and the Committee needs guidance right up front, so they don't waste their time and become frustrated that their possible recommendations are not approved. If they know the Commission's desires they can better direct their efforts.

Director Zwick acknowledged John Quick's contribution to the program, who has influenced it to be broken into multiple projects and not allowed it to be a concentrated use of money on any single project. Where the funds are relatively small, to broaden the base statewide has been a significant part. This program gives recognition statewide. He said he would only caution the group to look very closely at projects that are not really ready and have land acquisition attached.

There was some discussion about the cost of the projects and that the sponsor has to provide a 20% match. John said that can be a problem, some sponsors find it may cost them more to do the federal procedures required than the project may be worth to them. It is the same procedure as a federal-aid highway project. We have no say over that process. Commissioner Lewis said the paperwork problem is not on our end; we have a very straight-forward application.

John said the majority of the projects received this year, like last year, are bicycle/pedestrian type projects. That is similar to what is happening nationwide. Commissioner Weston stated that John had heard the feelings of the Commission on the types of projects in which they were interested.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the three appointments as recommended, and that staff be directed to amend the policy and procedure to consider a January 1 date for end of terms of appointment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and passed unanimously that:

Approval of appointments to Enhancements Advisory Committee for a two year term: Ann King for Scenic and Environment, Michael S. Leventhal for Historic and Archaeological Preservation, and Joel Bingham for Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities; further, that staff amend the policy and procedure to include a January 1 date, or some other specific date, for end of term for the appointments.

John said he would continue to solicit the applications for the Committee on a continuing basis so he would have a backlog of resumes from which to select in the future.

Commissioner Lewis complimented John who does a very good job of keeping many varied interests focused on the work. He has been a real diplomat on occasion when there was not a consensus on an issue or project.

Request for Continued Funding and Construction of Bangerter Highway
Commissioner Weston introduced Dix McMullin who requested to address the Commission on the Bangerter Highway funding.

Mr. McMullin said a meeting was recently held with UDOT staff and the mayors and councilmen from all the cities on the west side of the Valley. Those local officials asked him to come to the Commission to reemphasize their position and desire that the Commission continue to consider the ongoing project of the Bangerter Highway. They know the Governor has not placed funding for that project in his budget this year, but before the legislative session ends they hope to get some funding to move that project along.

Continuation of that highway on the west side is badly needed. There is tremendous growth in the southwest portion of the valley, with new homes going in by the hundreds. They know the Commission took a position to see that project through to completion, but he also understands the funding problems associated with accomplishing that.

All the mayors wanted to come to the Commission Meeting, but decided to have Mr. McMullin represent them and their desires. Commissioner Weston asked him if he was a paid lobbyist. Mr. McMullin replied he was, but not for all of the cities; West Jordan and South Jordan hire him during the legislative session.

They want to see if they can get some additional money into the bond to continue the Bangerter Highway project, or possibly from somewhere else. They understand the first priority for money coming out of the bond will go for the match.

Commissioner Clyde asked if Bluffdale and Riverton had decided where they want the alignment to run south of 12600 South. Mr. McMullin replied they had not reached a consensus, but at the meeting the mayors of Bluffdale and Riverton committed to get together and make a compromise so they could get that portion done.

Commissioner Clyde suggested that he tell the mayors that no action can be taken until they do make a decision. Mr. McMullin said he hoped to have a decision from them shortly, but work can proceed between 9000 and 12600 South even without that decision.

Mr. McMullin said another meeting is scheduled with UDOT staff and the local officials on Thursday, February 17, and he will plan to attend and will help as much as he can. There is also a meeting scheduled that same day with the Governor and all the mayors and the people involved on the west side.

Commissioner Lewis reiterated it would be appropriate for Mr. McMullin to let the local officials know of the Commission's concern about them reaching some sort of decision, and our hands are somewhat tied until they do. Mr. McMullin committed to take that message back to Bluffdale and Riverton and said he would make sure they come to a decision.

Commissioner Weston assured Mr. McMullin the Bangerter Highway is also on the minds of the Commission. It has been suggested, although he was not sure we would be able to do it, that the remainder of that project be done with an environmental assessment rather than a full environmental impact statement.

Director Zwick said it is a timing issue. If the Bluffdale people would select 14000 South as their preferred alternative right now we could probably proceed with only an environmental assessment. However, they only have two weeks to make that decision or we will be forced to advance it as a formal EIS. Mr. McMullin said they are aware of that and he hopes they reach a decision by that time. Commissioner Weston said he didn't think we could guarantee we can proceed with an EA rather than an EIS even if they do reach an agreement. Tom Smith said if we get a timely decision from them, and if we don't get a great deal of opposition he thinks we will be able to do it with an environmental assessment rather than an EIS

Mr. McMullin thanked the Commission for their time and interest.

Bangerter Highway as Congestion Mitigation during I-15 Corridor Reconstruction
Commissioner Lewis asked, if we are successful in getting some things moving on the I-15 Corridor, won't it be almost necessary to have the Bangerter Highway completed in order to route traffic there. Director Zwick answered that it is a worthy piece for congestion mitigation through construction. However, it's not completed to I-15 on the south end of the valley yet. It appears that with the incremental staging of that at $10 million to $12 million a year for approximately two-mile increments, we are looking at a time line that is greater than when we would hope to be underway with some of the interchange work on I-15.

The one possibility remains that if the federal commitment were there, and if a different form of mass transit were incorporated which would result in us not needing some of the match money that we'd received and our own monies to go to light rail, part of that money might be talked about in program for the Bangerter Highway. That is a long shot and it hasn't been discussed through Programming yet, but that would probably be the only way to bring it around in a timely way where it would be an effective congestion mitigation procedure during the I-15 construction.

Planning and Programming
Addition of Transit Projects to Cache MPO 1994 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Clint Topham reported the Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization has submitted their 1994 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). He explained their highway projects were already included in our 1994 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This is the addition of some transit projects to their TIP and it needs the Commission's concurrence.

Commissioner Clyde made a motion to accept the Cache MPO TIP, including the addition of the transit program. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and it passed unanimously that:

Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization (CMPO) 1994 Transportation Improvement Program, including addition of transit improvement projects, approved.

Planning and Programming
Vanpool Program Progress Report-1993
Clint Topham reviewed that several years ago the Commission set aside $500,000 in a revolving fund which could be loaned to people interest-free to purchase vans and form vanpools to promote ride sharing. We later reduced the amount in the program to $350,000. It has been a very successful program.

The program was taken over by Utah Transit Authority, or incorporated into their Ride Share Program, several years ago. Up until that time the Commission approved each individual van purchase, but staff asked the Commission at that time if they wanted to continue that, or if they wanted to delegate that and have a report of the program from time to time. The Commission opted for the report, and this is the report of the activity of the Vanpool Program for calendar year 1993.

At the current time we have $190,000 out in loans, and we have $159,000 in the balance. There was an audit report which recommended that we not have that much money set aside. However, staff feels that with the prospects of increased vanpooling because of the advertising program which was just undertaken the last several months that we should leave that same amount in the program, at least for the time being. If, at the end of this calendar year, or possibly sooner, our balance has not reduced then staff woul d come back to the Commission for further discussion about the possibility of reducing the amount in the program. Staff recommended leaving the same amount of funding in the program.

Commissioner Clyde asked why the accumulated interest in this account was being deposited to the General Fund; why doesn't it stay in Transportation. Max Ditlevsen said that is something the Department is reviewing with the Treasurer's Office; the interest should be going to the Department. Clint clarified it should be going into the Transportation Fund, not the Vanpool account. Director Zwick added that in our closeout with the audit we requested that. They are looking at it now, but we haven't heard back from the Auditor.

No action was taken to lower the amount of money in the Vanpool account.

Policies for Commission Action
No. (new Policy) - Use of State Equipment
Neal Christensen reported that we have had requirements for appropriate use of state equipment scattered through regulations and other policies, and it was felt it was important to bring those scattered guidelines together in one policy. While this is a new policy, it is not a new statement about appropriate use of state equipment.

Neal summarized the policy. Item 1 refers to appropriate use of state issued credit and gas cards. Item 2 is for appropriate official use of motor vehicles, and requires that they either have a valid operator's license or commercial drivers license (CDL) where appropriate.

Commissioner Brown asked about home storage of vehicles. Neal replied the Department has a stated Procedure, a very sophisticated statement, about authorized home storage. Howard Richardson explained there are some criteria we use to judge it, and each person authorized for home storage has to have a personal authorization, which is reviewed annually to make sure the use of that vehicle has not changed from what was stated. The request is processed through, and signed by, the Executive Director, then goes to Administrative Services where it is reviewed and approved, then an authorization number is assigned to it. Every month that operator has to file a report on the number of commutes he makes in that vehicle.

Neal continued that Item 3 refers to use of copy and FAX machines. The hope is that our employees will not use those for personal use, but when that does occur it makes provision for them to pay for the use of the machine and the copies.

Item 4 refers to data processing equipment in two perspectives: appropriate use of the equipment governing our use of providing the appropriate information under the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA), which means providing information to the public as appropriate. The second part assures that we use the programs, or software, appropriately within the department.

Item 5 refers to telephone use for state use only, and with provision for limited personal use, and personal long distance calls to be paid by the employee.

Item 6 is a statement about not taping or recording communications between state employees except as authorized by the Recording Policy Review Board, which is a State board consisting of the Attorney General, or designee and the Governor's General Counsel with the Commissioner of Public Safety as an advisor to the Board.

Item 7 indicates the responsibility of state employees to guard against and to promptly report instances of theft, loss, vandalism or misuse of state property.

Item 8 refers to personal use and care of safety equipment provided by the Department and that it shall be worn on the job only. Item 9 refers to disciplinary action of employees misusing or abusing state equipment.

Commissioner Clyde moved for approval of the policy as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and it passed unanimously that:

Policy No. (new Policy), Use of State Equipment, approved as presented.

Commissioner Clyde and Commissioner Brown requested, just for their information, that at some future date staff give a brief report on how use of equipment is monitored, specifically copy/FAX machines, data processing equipment, and telephones, including the number and use of cellular phones.

No. 11-119 - Traffic Engineering Panel
Sheldon McConkie replied there were just two housekeeping changes in the policy on the Traffic Engineering Panel. There is a position name change in one of the representatives on the Panel, and a change in how the chairman of the panel is selected.

Commissioner Brown asked if the Safety/Risk Management Specialist position on the Panel represented the State Risk Management Office. Sheldon replied it did not; it represented the Department's Risk Management Unit. Neal Christensen added that, by delegation, we have a functioning Risk Management Unit in our Department that is very formally tied with the State Risk Management Office. The reason for that is the very large volume of potential risk and liabilities we carry as a department. It is felt with a unit here we can better manage our risk and safety, but carefully tied to the State office.

Commissioner Clyde asked who interfaces with the State Risk Management Office; is it the Commission or the Department? Neal replied it is administratively through the Department. Sheldon added the Risk Management Section is under Administrative Services under the direction of Neal.

No. 11-124 - Installation of Traffic Signal Interconnect Conduit on State Highway Projects
Sheldon explained there are two reasons for this policy. First, on our old projects when we are doing signal projects we are under mandate of the Legislature and through our own policy to proceed with upgrading signal coordination. A key element in doing that is the interconnecting of the signals. The way this is done is actually by a wire connection and it is usually done through conduit. For our own projects we need to have our designers aware that that is a project requirement. We want it as a matter of policy that we will do this, even though we may look to the future when the interconnect is required, we want it done as signals are installed under the criteria listed in the policy.

We also need to have the policy in place for our coordinating effort with other local entities. When they are doing work that adjoins, abuts, or ties into our system, we want to put the same burden on them.

Commissioner Clyde asked for some examples of this situation. Does University Avenue in Provo have this sort of an installation now and who is responsible for coordination of the signals? Mack Christensen replied it does, and even though University Avenue is a State highway, Provo City has coordination of the signals in conjunction with our District 6 office.

Sheldon McConkie explained we have a cooperative agreement between Provo City and District 6, which essentially delegates responsibility for maintaining the system to Provo. But as to how the signals are coordinated and phased, we work that out with them jointly, and we have veto power over that. We have the same type of agreement with Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. Mack explained the reason for that is anytime you have a grid system where you have different roads with different functions and different jurisdictions crossing, there is a coordination problem. Unless you tie those together and make them supervised by one controller you will have systems with barriers in them. The effort is to make it one system to eliminate those barrier problems.

No. 11-125 - Curb and Pavement Marking for Parking Control
Sheldon explained that we have State highways going through, and are often the main street, in many of our cities and towns. Sometimes the local authorities do things on those highway which we don't consider appropriate; they use different sorts of markings and colors on curbs and for traffic control which don't conform to our Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). In order to clarify that and to make sure we have in our own department a statement of how we are going to operate in these situations, the policy specifically lists how painting of curbs should be done, and the posting of "No Parking" restrictions.

Mack Christensen pointed out that Item 3 deals with how the Department will allow local authorities to post parking time restrictions on State Highways. We felt curbs in those areas should not be painted, but should be posted only by signs.

Item 4 deals with "No Parking Anytime" zones which are legal requirements based on State stature, and they don't have to be signed because State statute covers that, but it does make provision for supplemental red painted curbs to emphasize that parking restriction.

Commissioner Brown asked why we couldn't establish a standard rather than require a permit; trusting the local authorities to do these markings within our standard. He felt a permitting process was restrictive and tended to bog things down. Sheldon replied that in the application of this, it ordinarily is not going to be a problem; there is usually good coordination between the locals and the State. But we do have occasions where people move ahead without asking and they do it wrong because they don't know how to do it. Then there is quite a problem to be undone. Sheldon agreed with Commissioner Brown's comment that giving notice of what our standard is to the local authorities would be beneficial, but he would hate to give them authority to do these markings and signing without touching base with us because there are too many problems.

The advantage to the permitting process lets us help them by giving them some specific direction on their particular project and to make sure that they are following the standard and understand exactly how it should be done.

Commissioner Clyde agreed that the permitting process can sometimes be very restrictive, but he feels a permit is very important because there are too many people who don't do things correctly. He is specifically concerned about the lack of coordination and the apparent lack of enforcement of the permit regulations in temporary egress and in construction signing on the highways. He feels the permits are needed because it makes for accountability and responsibility when someone signs their name that they will abide by our standards. It also provides us with the opportunity to convey to them our standard and to provide them with direction and help with their specific situation. Sheldon pointed out there is also the matter of liability and if something is done wrong, or if it's allowed to be done wrong, there could be serious problems.

Howard Richardson added that we conduct a massive effort every year statewide to train local government employees on flagging and safety. Typically there are only two or three communities other than UDOT who have the staff and technical experience to have someone available to give counsel and advice. As we train our own people every year we bring in the employees of any city or county who would like to receive that very same training. It has helped.

Commissioner Brown said the policy doesn't mention any penalty. Sheldon replied there is no penalty, but we do have the power to revoke the permit or to require that they correct the situation.

No. 11-126 - Overhead Sign Lighting on Freeways
Sheldon said with this policy we are trying to be consistent and give direction to ourselves and also use it as a means of communicating to others how we intend to do the lighting of signs on the freeways.

Mack Christensen explained that years ago our policy used to be to light all of the overhead signs on the freeways. We went through a process where we went to the high-intensity sheeting on our signs and we didn't feel it was necessary to continue to expend the funds to install lighting and maintain the power. There is a great deal of maintenance involved in lighting the signs and maintaining the fixtures, as well as the energy cost.

Mack didn't know exactly how long it had been, but for several years now we have not put lighting in. He noted, however, there are a very few locations where old lighting is still in place.

He said we had a request about two years ago from FHWA to relook at our policy with the direction that FHWA felt there was some benefit to lighting, even with the high-intensity sheeting. We did some night evaluations and looked at some signs which were lighted, and some which were not. Based on our evaluations we felt our policy was appropriate and that our decision to eliminate the lighting was valid.

Federal Highway Administration continued to be insistent that we do something in regard to lighting the signs. This policy is a compromise to their mandate to light the signs. We intend to provide lighting on signs at the biggest conflict points on the freeways, such as overhead signs at interchange-to-interchange connections and exit directional signs. He noted we followed this guide on the last couple of lighting projects we did, even though it was not actually a policy at that time.

Mack said we feel there is some benefit to lighting these signs. There has been emphasis from FHWA pertaining to the older driver--the average age of the driver is getting older--and it is harder to see those signs at a distance and this is to help that situation.

Sheldon noted that if one sign on the overhead bridge is eligible for lighting, then all of the signs will be lighted. It also leaves the Department the leeway to assess any individual situation and issue a decision that it ought to be lighted. Signs which are not lighted are constructed of the highly reflective sheeting and they are easily visible.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to approve the four policies as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and it passed unanimously that:

Policy No. 11-119, Traffic Engineering Panel, approved as presented; and

Policy No. 11-124, Installation of Traffic Signal Interconnect Conduit on State Highway projects, approved as presented; and

Policy No. 11-125, Curb and Pavement Marking for Parking Control, approved as presented; and

Policy No. 11-126, Overhead Sign Lighting on Freeway, approved as presented.

Five-State Commission Meeting Agenda
Commissioner Weston explained we are the host state for a Five-State Commission Meeting in Moab on May 19-20, 1994. The meeting originally was the Four Corners Commission Meeting, consisting of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado, but Wyoming has asked to join with their Commission representation. The first meeting of this group was held last year with the Four Corners states in Durango, Colorado.

We need to do some planning and make sure it is a meaningful meeting. He asked for suggestions from staff and Commission on items of importance which should be included on the agenda. We need to get information out to the other states, and to allow time to prepare presentations and to ask people from other states to make presentations.

The Commission Secretary stated the location for the meeting and the rooming accommodations were reserved at the conference center at the Moab Valley Inn. No letters or information had been sent to the other states as yet, although there had been telephone conversations with some of them, so some were aware of the date.

Commissioner Weston indicated the meeting last year was a good session, and they learned who their colleagues were across the border. He said we found there was a lot more agreement with each other than there was disagreement. He also stated this meeting was not to usurp what WASHTO has done for us, but there are some common things, being connecting states, from which we could benefit. We could also take things from this meeting to WASHTO.

Suggested topics for the agenda included:

1. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Clint commented a subcommittee of WASHTO had been formed, headed by Harvey Atkison and Carlo Perez in Colorado, and one of them could possibly present a progress report.
   
2. Ports of Entry
   
3. I-17 effort and what Arizona has done as far as choosing the US-93 route.
   
4. The I-66 Study which affects Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. That study will have been completed by that time and a final report issued.
   
5. The National Highway System as it interacts with the states.
   
6. The Native American relationship with DOTs
   
7. Clean Air Act Amendments
   
8. Transportation of solid hazardous municipal waste. [There was some discussion of the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) at last year's meeting.]

Director Zwick asked if the Commission would like to assign staff to put together a tentative agenda of topics to be covered along with a possible outline of who should address those topics or make the presentations from the various states. The Commission could endorse that list or modify it at the next Commission Meeting. Commissioner Weston agreed with that.

As the host state we will be responsible for sending out all invitations and information, and creating all the publicity. The Commission Secretary suggested a registration fee needed to be determined for each of the delegates to cover the cost of meals, etc., and information needed to go out to the other states very soon. Commissioner Lewis suggested we should explore getting some brochures and information about Moab to include in the information we send to the other states.

1994 WASHTO Conference
Director Zwick announced the 1994 WASHTO Conference would be held in Vail, Colorado, July 16-20, at the Westin Hotel. We should have confirmation of the attendees so we can make room reservations as soon as possible, because that hotel is not going to be able to accommodate everyone.

UDOT Audit Report
Construction of New District 2 Facility
Relocation of Data Processing, Ports of Entry, and Motor Carriers
Commissioner Clyde said the Commission had received a copy of the Audit Report and he wanted to know if it should be discussed. Director Zwick said the Department has had the final closing interview on that audit and feel very good about it. We have reached consensus on areas of their recommendations, they've agreed with us and we've reached concurrence on action to be taken.

Commissioner Clyde asked if the Commission had any responsibility or need for response in this or other matters brought up in the audit. The Director responded that he thought they did; certainly on an informative basis, and staff would solicit Commission input as well.

Proposed New District 2 Facility - Commissioner Clyde asked for some information about the new District 2 facility being planned. Director Zwick replied the Department is advancing the design at this time. We believe, with proper intent language in the legislative session now, we'll have the ability to use surplus properties currently owned by the Department to trade up.

He explained our existing District 2 facility is inadequate, not only in its layout, but its space and function is deficient. We are looking at various site alternatives with the idea it would not be anything which would require the Division of Construction and Facilities Management (DFCM) normal process, but it would, in fact, be a delegated project from them to us and only have oversight from DFCM. We would fund it internally by District 2 current assets. We would surplus out various properties by sale, generating sufficient funds to construct a new District 2 facility.

Director Zwick said the use of surplus properties is a piece that ought to be discussed among the Commission, because the Department may need Commission approval for authorization to do that. He again stated at this point it is very preliminary; it is in concept stage and we have received gratis from DFCM some design input.

Commissioner Brown asked if the proposal for the new District 2 facility has been through the Building Board. Director Zwick replied we moved through a number of steps with DFCM. Sheldon replied this information did go to both the Capitol Facilities Committee and the Transportation and Public Safety Committee who both endorsed the intent language. We are presuming that it will be favorably presented. We began through Gene Sturzenegger's efforts primarily to think about it; it's a new way to do it to put to use some surplus properties. He said it has gone through DFCM and his recollection is that the Building Board themselves also went through it.

Howard Richardson added that we appeared before the Capitol Facilities Interim Committee around last September and discussed the objective we had in mind to see how they felt about it and whether that would be a reasonable approach. We felt we received a resounding confirmation from them at that meeting, and they complimented us for trying to take some of our assets that are not really working directly for transportation and converting them over, through trade or sale, and using that to accomplish some of the goals and objectives we have in the Department.

Recognizing that that really didn't give us official approval, we went back to the Capitol Facilities Committee this past week and presented to them the same information and again received the same indication. That was where they asked their legislative analyst to please include intent language to allow this to happen, so UDOT could pursue it with the cooperation and help of DFCM.

Commissioner Brown asked if there was a cost estimate yet. Howard replied we have a preliminary report which the District has put together stating mostly what their needs are, and that will be made available to the Commissioner.

Howard continued that during the session this week, Senator Rees, Chairman of the Committee, asked for a listing of the properties which we intended to use as our collateral to accomplish this, which we are in the process of putting together now. Howard said we have a piece of property in mind which we think might be a suitable site for the new complex, and he wasn't sure if it has been appraised yet. He didn't think our cost estimates are mature enough yet that we will know what the costs will actually be. We have several properties we think, in the aggregate, will be more than enough to accomplish our goal. The intent language will authorize us to acquire the property and construct the facility.

Director Zwick said the language says something to the effect that we would convert surplus properties into a new facility. Originally it was understood in District 2 that the only way they could do that was to utilize their existing District 2 facility to collateralize a new piece of construction. Since that time we have thought through some other, better uses for that District 2 facility--that's where the Ports of Entry comes in as one possibility, and it's moved into a more broad-based approval for other surplus property to pay for the new facility.

Commissioner Brown asked if we have enough surplus properties to cover this cost. Director Zwick replied we believe we do, and that is the intent at this point. He restated this is just in concept stage, and we haven't firmed everything up, but the indication from Right of Way, from our design, and from the costs on the new facility that all that is true.

Relocation of Data Processing, Ports of Entry and Motor Carriers - Commissioner Clyde said apparently our data processing facilities, located in the basement of the Rampton Complex, are being considered to be relocated in the new District 2 complex. The Director replied what brought that up is those facilities are located in the basement--a poor location--where a fire would activate the sprinklers and we would be inundated and would lose critical data in that situation.

We also recognize that Ports of Entry and Motor Carrier would likely be better served somewhere else. Those are suggestions which the Audit contains. If we are looking at a new facility we certainly would have a chance either to relocate our data base to a more appropriate location in this facility, or relocate it to District 2.

Next Commission Meeting
The next Commission Meeting was set for Thursday, February 24, 1994 at 1:00 p.m. in order to get a Legislative update, including a budget summary, before the session ends (Wednesday, March 2). Commissioner Clyde will be unable to attend that Meeting, but the other Commissioners will be in attendance.

It was noted a Department Managers Meeting was scheduled for that same day at 10:00 a.m.

Federal and State Funding Changes Relating to Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Modification to STIP
Clint explained there were some programming items they wanted to discuss with the Commission, and they felt it should start out with a more particular discussion about the Provo Canyon Project. It was included on the Commission agenda so that any modifications which might be made to the STIP could be acted on by the Commission.

Commissioner Weston called a short break.

Following the break Clint continued that we found a few weeks ago that there were several issues around programming funds which needed to come to the Department's and the Commission's attention. A meeting was held with the Comptroller's Office and the Programming and Preconstruction staff about six weeks ago and outlined some things where projects coming forward in the program exceeded the amount of money which was programmed for them, and some of them have not been getting ready on time. We've also had a continuing imbalance between the state program and the federal program. Based on that, that information went to the executive staff of the Department and they felt it was important to bring it to the Commission.

Provo Canyon Funding
The one project causing the biggest problem in the program is the two-mile Provo Canyon project from Upper Falls to Wildwood which was scheduled for $23 million, then we got an estimate of $40 million. We met with the consultant and told them they had to cut that back some, but it's still extremely costly. Clint said they felt the discussion on Provo Canyon ought to drive the meeting and after that they could discuss other scenarios as far as the rest of the program.

Director Zwick said the question is simply: Do we advance Provo Canyon with the three tunnel design, and is the estimate to do that accurate; or do we go all the way back and revisit a bridge and two tunnels. Did we effectively exhaust that in the last go-round as we advanced the three tunnel approach, recognizing that the environmental community right now has expressed that they would effectively do all they could to put a stop to the project if we move ahead with the bridge/two tunnel concept, and recognizing also that their motive is not whether it's two tunnels versus three tunnels, but it is four lanes versus three lanes.

Costs for this project come right to the surface and there is the question are we better served as a state to put that $30 million to $40 million somewhere else, or do we continue with exactly what we've put forward with the three tunnel project.

There was a very lengthy discussion and presentations concerning the Provo Canyon project.

Howard Richardson rehearsed some of the key facts as we adopted, then changed our plans for Provo Canyon. At one time we were considering a three-lane facility, which was reviewed and carefully examined by the Provo Canyon Committee who determined that was not the kind of facility we should have. We also felt we should have a four-lane facility.

This section of canyon from Upper Falls to Wildwood is a very delicate stretch of the canyon, it is narrow and confined, and there was no way we could put four lanes divided through there without making serious encroachments into the river, so the tunnel concept was born. During this process one of the options considered was the westbound lanes (north side of the canyon) would have to be in the tunnels, but the eastbound lanes could run up the canyon without serious encroachment into the river, but employing a long bridge that would cross the Provo River in two locations, and would require some columns to be constructed into an area considered to be wetlands along the river.

Our consultant advised us that the cost of another tunnel versus the bridge was about the same. So, in face of the pressure we were receiving from the environmental community about damage to the wetlands, the river, fisheries and quality of the water, we determined if the costs were the same we would select the three tunnel concept as our preferred alternative, instead of two tunnels and a bridge.

Now it turns out those costs are not the same; there is a marked difference in the cost. Ed Keane interjected the reason for the big difference in cost is because the Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) mandated that we stay out of the riparian zone along the river, so essentially we moved the alignment of the highway twenty feet away from the river. Doing that increased our costs approximately $10 million because we doubled the excavation and increased the number of tie-back walls because of the steepness. It made very high rock cuts, and necessitated the construction of long tunnel portals to lessen the rock cut impact. It also impacted the Salt Lake aqueduct, so 1,000 feet of that would have to be relocated.

Howard continued that a month ago we had a meeting with our consultant and gave them instructions to do some value engineering; relook at the project very closely and do everything possible to cut costs, eliminating anything which might not be essential in the design.

Ed Keane read from the environmental document that: ". . . tieback walls and the tunnel portals will be textured using native rock materials to make them more attractive and natural appearing. . ." Ed indicated we were not going to use natural rock, we were going to use form liners to create a natural rock appearance, then stain them so they looked like rock.

Ed distributed a handout detailing different construction options and cost estimates, which includes right-of-way and construction engineering, ranging from $43.2 million for three tunnels with rock textured portals, to $37.8 million for three tunnels with shortened portals and no rock texturing, to $33.7 million for three tunnels without portal structures. The cost estimates for a bridge and two tunnels, which would move the alignment back closer to the river and would lessen the excavation, would cost $35.5 million with rock textured portals on the tunnels, and down to $31.1 million for a bridge and two tunnels without portal structures.

Howard said there is great concern about the cost of this project because it will be our entire program whichever year we go with it, and all our other projects will have to wait for funding. We only receive $31 million in NHS funds each year.

Clint suggested that in many ways what the Commission decides to do with this project may affect projects on the rest of the canyon. We're having a hard time swallowing this project which will cost between $30 million and $35 million. We understand the next section is estimated at $50 million. Director Zwick added that as we go beyond Wildwood to the dam we will have to build bridges on that section. If we're hung up now saying we won't do bridges at any cost, but in fact we have to build bridges on the next section anyway, is very significant.

Commissioner Clyde said one of the overriding issues is how we are going to be allowed to impact the river. The SEIS indicates there will be five bridges over the river on the next section. If we back down at this point because of one bridge impacting the river, it will be a closed issue on the next section. He also mentioned that this section of river which the environmentalists are so concerned about impacting, was man-made anyway. Morrison-Knudson constructed the channel when that section of road was last relocated.

Howard indicated the three tunnel concept is the most pleasing to the environmental/conservation side of the community because they've had a great deal of input. If we change from the three tunnel design we will face a new round with all the people who are protecting the river and the environment, and the project might not be able to be done. Time is another factor, because redesign, environmental hearings, etc. will add a minimum of a 1-1/2 years to this project.

There was additional discussion about the bridges. Ed Keane said Brooks Carter from the Corps of Engineers had stated he would not pass on a 404 permit for the bridge concept.

Commissioner Clyde referred to the EIS which stated, ". . . the preferred alternative will not cross the river below Wildwood." That is a major block to the bridge concept. He said at the public hearing he attended on this project he heard two distinct types of comments: 1) Don't touch the river, 2) Don't touch the hillsides. He didn't think the people who were against the bridge concept realized the impact of the three tunnels and the high cuts in the hillside.

Commissioner Clyde referred to the three tunnel concept and the fact that we could reduce the cost significantly by eliminating the portals. However, he absolutely would not support taking those false tunnels out. That would expose the traveling public to 160 feet of almost-vertical rock slopes on each end of each of the westbound lane tunnels. There is a real safety impact to consider as well as the visual impact. That is totally unacceptable to him.

He said DWR and the Corps of Engineers has turned the bridge concept down on a verbal basis only. He feels these issues have to be revisited and the issues of crossing the river and encroachment have to be addressed or we will live to regret it for future projects.

Howard concluded from Commissioner Clyde's comments that if we go back to the bridge idea we could bring the two tunnels closer to the river and could get away from the excessively high rock cuts, and we may still have to have the portals extended but not so dramatically.

Commissioner Larkin didn't see how we could afford to spend that much money on one project, when that is all the money we get in a year. And we can see we will have to do this for three years just to get past the dam, and probably a couple more expenditures like that to get to Heber City. He didn't think we could let the rest of the state go with nothing for five years just to construct this one highway.

Commissioner Clyde asked for some discussion on the design of the bridge and methods of construction to see what the impact would be. Dave Christensen displayed a rendering of the bridge which is approximately 950 feet long and 42 feet wide and crosses the river at an angle. It is about 15 feet from the soil line to the bottom of the girders, which is fairly low. The big concern is that during construction we will create an undesirable situation in the river and he discussed ways to minimize that. There were comments that the bridge would ice up, and that is always a problem. At one point there was talk that the bridge would help the fishery because it would provide a shaded area which the fish liked, but later on that changed and they said they didn't want the bridge. Another objection was vegetation growing underneath the structure. The willows will grow very adequately; dogwoods and other species will grow in a shaded area, but it will take longer for them to establish. The bridge was designed high enough at both ends so fishermen could walk underneath it.

Ed suggested that no matter which concept is selected, we should try to get our alignment back closer to the river, and that will cut down the cost a great deal. Commissioner Clyde said to do that would involve DWR, who we ought to be able to work out a compromise with. Director Zwick said there are about eight fisheries in that canyon, plus DWR headquarters, so it's not a matter of sitting down with just one person and reaching a compromise with Natural Resources.

Ed pointed out another problem with the environmentalists is there are approximately eight eagles nests there and this project is primarily blasting. The EIS states that we cannot blast during their mating season so we have about three to five months where we may not be allowed to blast. We've had delays like this on other projects.

Ed asked if it would be possible to put about $30,000 in a research grant with the Division of Wildlife Resources or the U. S. Fish and Game to see what the effects of blasting are. That way we may be able to go on with our blasting throughout the life of our project.

Howard summarized that we have identified there may be $6.5 million difference between the three tunnel option and the two tunnel/bridge option; offsetting that we have the additional time it will take to go back through the process and the redesign which could cost about $1 million, plus the inflation factor of the construction cost, as well as the ripple effect this will have cost-wise as we move up through the canyon with different projects.

Dave Berg said if we don't go with the three tunnel concept we will have to reopen the EIS. Commissioner Clyde said he was not suggesting we had to go with the bridge. If we can move the three tunnels back closer to river to make the rock cuts more reasonable and thereby reduce the excavation costs that would be acceptable to him. Ed said the cost for that concept would probably be around $35 million. Dyke said we probably will not have to go back through the EIS with that concept.

The Commission asked what process we would have to go through to move the three tunnels back closer to the river. Ed replied we would have to get approval from Wildlife Resources. The EIS actually shows walls close to the river, in the riparian or vegetated zone, with one wall barely in the river.

Dave Berg asked what statutory authority the Division of Wildlife Resources had to control what would usually fall to the Corps of Engineers' or the State Engineer's Office. What authority did they have to require us to move our alignment out of the riparian zone. Ed replied it was public opinion and the support of the environmental community. Dave pointed out that the Corps of Engineers signed off on the EIS and what the impacts would be for that environmental document. Ed commented that the EIS does state that there may be, or will be, walls in the river.

Commissioner Clyde said it appears it was a verbal refusal from Wildlife Resources. There is nothing that they have put in writing. He also said the 404 permit was supposed to be put in place to facilitate construction, and on this project it is being used to prevent construction. Dave suggested we should go back and talk with the agencies and try to get the alignment moved back closer to the river.

Ahmad Jaber said if we do make a change in this project, which will delay this phase for 18 months, it will drastically impact the next phase where we already have a consultant on-board. It was suggested that contract be canceled.

Clint restated that we get $31 million a year in National Highway System funds. Besides the Provo Canyon project, also included in that program we have projects scheduled to finish Sardine Canyon, work in Logan Canyon, plus much of our interstate work such as interchanges, rest areas or a port of entry.

Clint didn't feel we could construct any of the alternatives presented by Ed with 1994 funds because they would either have to be revisited in the environmental process so they wouldn't be ready on time, or they are more money than what we have available, and we would have to construct it out of this year's and next year's funds with advance construction. Advance construction means we spend our own money and obligate the project, then in a year when we get our next appropriation we collect it back. He said we've done that on projects, but we need to do it in a timely fashion so we don't spend so much of our own money that we go in the red in the Transportation Fund.

John Monson said if we move this project into 1995 for funding purposes and readjust our other projects, that will allow us to make sure we use our obligation authority and to use our apportionments this year. It would not necessarily delay the advertising of the project, because it most likely won't be ready until fall anyway, which would be a good time for us to go ahead with advance construction procedures.

Commissioner Clyde made a motion to instruct the partment to relook at the river encroachment issue, and to discuss the matter with Department of Wildlife Resources to move the alignment back twenty feet closer to the river in order to cut the cost of the project. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brown and it passed unanimously that:

Staff directed to review the river encroachment issue on the Provo Canyon project and take whatever steps necessary to get concurrence from other agencies to move the alignment back twenty feet closer to the river for the three tunnel concept in order to cut costs and to minimize rock cuts. Further, that the Provo Canyon project be moved into the 1995 funding year.

Clint said that action does have implications on the program. There will be no Provo Canyon project in the 1994 funding year, but there are other implications which will take some time to go over. There will be some '95 projects which will need to be advanced to '94. He proposed that information be discussed at the next Commission Meeting, and the Commission agreed.

Bob Fox pointed out that this change also has implications for Right of Way. They've been anticipating the work in Provo Canyon and they are doing appraisals right now, even though we don't have a project, and feel they could move very quickly on it. However, if some other projects are advanced, such as Casa Negra, which has 150 commercial ownerships, for them to acquire the right-of-way in a timely manner is going to be incredibly difficult. He wanted them to be aware of those possible problems.

Director Zwick commented that we needed to instruct the consultant to stop any value engineering on the alignment as it currently is. Ed Keane said he would convey that to the consultant.

The meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.

The following Commissioners, staff members and others were in attendance:

Glen E. Brown, Chairman
Todd G. Weston, Vice-Chairman
James G. Larkin, Commissioner
Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary
W. Craig Zwick, Executive Director
Howard H. Richardson, Assistant Director
Kathy Davis, Administrative Assistant
Clinton D. Topham, Director of Planning
George Thompson, Engineer for Programming
Dyke M. LeFevre, Engineer for Preconstruction
L. Robert Fox, Chief, Right of Way Division
Sheldon W. McConkie, Engineer for Operations
Neal F. Christensen, Director, Administrative Services
Glenn B. Goodrich, Administrator, Ports of Entry
Kevin Beckstrom, Community Relations
Phillip N. Ashbaker, Director of Aeronautics
Max J. Ditlevsen, Comptroller
Stephen C. Reitz, Internal Auditor
Gene Sturzenegger, District 2 Director
Tom Smith, District 2 Preconstruction Engineer
Duane Christensen, District 2 Construction Engineer
Dana Meier, District 2 Maintenance Engineer
Charles White, District 2 Safety Coordinator
Phillip Pronk, District 2 Construction
Jae E. Toone, District 2 Construction
Betty Purdie, District 2 Resident Engineer
David L. Forsgren, District 1 Construction
Alan W. Mecham, District 6 Director
Ahmad Jaber, District 6 Preconstruction Engineer
Art Chidester, Construction
Darus Middleton, Construction
Bob Hulick, Planning & Programming
John Monson, Planning & Programming
John Quick, Planning & Programming
Mack Christensen, Traffic & Safety
Larry Simer, FHWA