Utah Transportation Commission
January 15, 1993
Salt Lake City, Utah

Commission Chairman Samuel J. Taylor welcomed everyone to the official January meeting of the Utah Transportation Commissionn and noted the entire Commission was in attendance. He called the meeting or order at 9:05 a.m.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Winters made a motion to approve the minutes of the Commission Meeting held December 18, 1992 in Salt Lake City. Commissioners Lewis and Larkin seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Service Awards
Boyd Zollinger was introduced to the Commission by Pete Petrulakis for his 30 Year Service Award. Boyd passed the Engineering exam from the University of Utah in 1970, and that same year was promoted to his current position of Materials Engineer. In the 1960s and '70s we checked beams for structures with X-ray. By the mid-'70s Boyd was very instrumental in introducing ultrasonic testing, which has greatly enhanced the program of making sure our structures are solid.

Pete said he and Boyd have become very good friends through the years. Boyd has a unique, innate ability to make people in his unit happy and productive on a very professional and accommodating level, and that is very good for the Department as well as the employees concerned. He has very good rapport with the staff he supervises. He is always able to cut through the red tape and get right to a problem so he can accommodate contractors. Pete said he has learned a great deal by just watching Boyd through the years.

Boyd's leisure interests are golf and fishing. He has a nice cabin in Idaho near West Yellowstone. Pete congratulated Boyd for his 30 years of service and said he has been a very good friend, and an excellent employee for the Department.

Commissioner Winters congratulated Boyd and expressed the Commission's appreciation, then presented him with a belt buckle for his 30 years of service.

Financial Statements - November 1992
Max Ditlevsen said he would make this a brief report, because this information is six weeks old. His intent is to cover the December statements at the next Commission Meeting, and that will be more timely information.

Referring to Free Revenues, by comparison to last year we show a 2.2 percent increase. In motor fuels we are up 3.2 percent. As we watch the trend in Special Fuels, we are about even with last year; we are not seeing an increase in those funds at this time.

In Federal Reimbursement, just based on the activity this year, we are approximately $10 million ahead of where we were last year, but that is just because of the timing of the projects and the amount of work we have had during the construction season. Max indicated he had provided notes on the other revenue items in the financial statements which were in the agenda packets.

On the Expenditure side, Max stated that all the notes are repeats; the situations continue from the previous month. Focusing on the Maintenance area, their note indicates the favorable situation is primarily because we have $2 million budgeted for our underground storage tank mitigation and we have not received a request for transfer of funds from the Division of Administrative Services on work done, so there are still those costs to be incurred.

On our snow removal budget, through January 8th we had expended approximately 82 percent of the entire year's budget-- about $7 million of an $8.5 million budget--and we will most likely be looking at a supplemental request for snow removal.

In the Construction line item, Max indicated a supplemental schedule was included in the financial statement which gave a detailed breakdown of Federal and State work. He said he hoped it was beneficial in understanding the amounts shown.

Max said they remain concerned about the Adjusted Unreserved Fund Balance of $25 million. He said he has been told there is at least one very large project and several other projects nearing advertisement that will help bring that balance down in the future, but we need to continue to advance our State projects.

Commissioner Winters referred to the Special Fuels Tax and said he knows they have discussed it several times, but he asked if the Tax Commission is looking into it to see why it remains as low as it is. He indicated we have lost a little bit there, and that occurred right after we changed the point of collection. Max agreed and said in the October statements they were hopeful that the quarterly remittance on those who file IFTA reports quarterly would make a difference. It brought us up just slightly above last year's levels through October; this November statement is just slightly below last year's level. Unless something changes dramatically on the next quarter's submittal, the trend seems to continue. He said he didn't know if the Tax Commission was currently involved in a review of it or not.

Commissioner Winters said the reason he continued to be interested in it was because when we first made that change he had someone who sold diesel fuels predict this is exactly what would happen; trucks can fuel up in states before they get here, then go right through and never stop. He predicted we would lose money on it, and it looks like he may be correct.

Director Findlay said last night he saw the report of State Highway User Receipts through the month of December that Van Sutherland publishes from data from the Tax Commission. Evidently quite a bit of money came in as a result of the IFTA distributions in December, and it appeared that we are ahead on our collections from where we were a year ago. It showed the deficit has evidently been made up now. The Director said he would have to analyze it further before he could say we are out of the woods. Max indicated the information from that report will be reflected in his next financial statement report.

Chairman Taylor asked Max what accounted for the 26 percent drop in Safety Inspection Fees. Max replied that it had been a while since he had reviewed the information he gets from Van, and he relies on Van to make that analysis. Glenn Goodrich interjected that a note on Van's report suggested there may be a discrepancy which would account for it. Max explained there was an adjustment of approximately $100,000 that was to be made by the Tax Commission. We thought it would appear in these statements, but that adjustment has not been made to date. We would still be falling behind, but it would make up part of that difference.

Commissioner Winters stated he appreciated receiving the reports and the notations that accompany them. He made a motion to approve the financial statements as presented. Commissioner Lewis seconded the motion and it passed unanimously that:

The financial statements for the period ended November 30, 1992, and included as part of these minutes, be approved.

Right-of-Way Settlements Over $25,000
Dean Holbrook stated there were two settlements for the Commission's consideration. The first one was for a small residence on the 700/900 East, 9400 South to Casa Negra Avenue project. It is the second advance acquisition we have had to make on that project to accommodate people who needed to sell. It is a total acquisition for $48,000; $21,000 for the property and $27,000 for the small residence which is on it.

The second settlement is the compilation of everything we need to acquire from Salt Lake County for the West Valley Highway. Dean explained that another settlement had previously been brought before the Commission for Salt Lake County and there was a question then whether or not we needed to pay for the property the County had previously acquired and was holding to preserve the corridor for the West Valley Highway. He said a meeting was held with the County which he, Director Findlay and Dyke LeFevre attended, and he asked Director Findlay to explain what transpired at the meeting.

Director Findlay said he approached the County Commission--and the accounts were in the news on the result of that meeting--on the fact we felt there was a commitment that they would donate that right-of-way to the State. The County repudiated that and indicated they would not be willing to do that. He said he suggested that if they would not be willing to donate the right-of-way, would they be willing to entertain the idea of selling us the right-of-way at the acquisition cost, and not the current appraised value. They kind of repudiated that also. The final outcome was that the County agreed to let us proceed with the construction, they gave us right of entry.

The Director said he had decided not to let the matter drop there; he was bringing it to the Commission's attention and he also intended to carry it to the Legislature. He said County Commissioner Randy Horiuchi's comments were that he remembered specifically when he lobbied for the West Valley Highway, that he was surprised at that time that the State would agree to pay for the right-of-way. The Director said he just did not recall it that way. He indicated he was not in attendance at all of the meetings; there were many meetings that took place which we were not privy to.

Commissioner Winters interjected he was in the meeting with Governor Bangerter when all of the entities that were involved with the West Valley Highway at that time came in and made the pitch; all the cities were involved. He said he couldn't remember whether there was a County representative there; he couldn't imagine there wasn't, but he couldn't remember specifically. That group was asked if they would provide the right-of-way, and they all said yes they would. We made no commitment on it. Chairman Taylor stated that we had the same group in here, all the mayors, and they made that same commitment.

Director Findlay said that was the way he recalled it. He indicated that the main thing was that we do have right of entry, so the projects are not being held up, but it is going to be a fight to get this issue resolved.

Commissioner Winters asked Director Findlay if he felt they should hold off on this settlement until he has had a chance to go to the Legislature. Dean Holbrook interjected that he wanted to bring up one other point. He said one of the County's contentions was all the property we bought on behalf of the local authorities, property for which the local authorities have never had to pay. Dean said he went back and made a compilation of that. For West Valley City the State purchased $358,000 worth of property; West Jordan City was $483,000, South Jordan City was $85,000. That was when we were in the advance acquisition process. We got two allocations of money from the Federal Government to preserve that corridor. The money was paid out of the revolving fund and when the State took it over, the State then had to pay that money back. But there has never been any compensation demanded back from any of the cities. This is one of the County's arguments.

Commissioner Winters commented that when we first started some of the advance acquisition, the property was mostly in the County; that was before West Valley City was incorporated. We actually moved out into some of those areas many years ago. Dean indicated these are the ones we did with the Federal money, and if there were some before that . . . . Commissioner Winters interjected we used some Federal money many years ago.

Director Findlay addressed Dean and said he didn't recall if Dean had mentioned the $168,000 of advance right-of-way we had acquired for Salt Lake County also. Dean confirmed that was correct; we did that for the County, but corrected that the amount was $147,500. The Director said that once the advance acquisition went into effect we did it for everybody. The property we are talking about on this settlement today is the property the County acquired before we went into advance acquisition, and before most of these areas were incorporated. He thinks the argument is strong on our side to hold the County to it, but it is going to take some power other than his own.

Clint Topham commented that was paid back out of Federal-aid Urban Funds. When we converted back it was paid back out of the local share of the Federal-aid Urban Funds; it wasn't monies that UDOT had at our disposal per se. Director Findlay stated what the County is arguing then is we should be paying for their property out of the Federal-aid Urban Funds. Commissioner Winters commented that maybe we should handle this settlement today out of the Federal-aid Urban Funds.

Director Findlay explained that his argument has been that the County committed to provide the right-of-way, and they committed the $4 million of the Federal-aid Urban Funds, but now the right-of-way acquisitions are exceeding $10 million. Therefore, since this property had been acquired years before when the County still had control and jurisdiction over the West Valley Highway, that property ought to come with the highway, just like the property did on the highway from the airport out to 2100 South.

Clint stressed that even if we do it that way, we shouldn't pay them one penny more than they paid for it out of the Federal-aid Urban Funds. Director Findlay agreed.

Howard Richardson addressed Dean and asked if this settlement was for property acquired when the West Valley Highway was not going to be a State highway. Does this go back to that period of time when we were buying right-of-way in those various jurisdictions for them, using their money in effect, out of Urban Funds? Dean and Director Findlay affirmed that was correct. Howard concluded that means when we went out to acquire right-of-way as a State highway, those other parcels were already in public ownership. Director Findlay affirmed that was correct.

Commissioner Winters commented the section from the airport down to 2100 South was built with Urban Funds, as he recalled. Clint commented that actually it was Secondary Funds.

Dean Holbrook said, for instance, West Valley City just gave us the deeds to this property because we had already paid for it. We had paid for it previously, but it was in their name.

Commissioner Lewis asked what the difference was between the market value and what they paid for it? Dean replied that has been a little hard to get because some of it is pretty old. The County paid a fairly high price for some of it because they bought it back in the early '80s when we were buying some of this property for more than it is selling today. That was during an inflationary time. He said he knows of some property in the area that we are buying for $18,000 today, but in 1985 we paid $20,000 on the advance acquisition because it was selling for so much more then.

Commissioner Winters asked what monies the County used to buy this property; did they use Urban Funds? Clint replied they would have just used their own funds. Commissioner Winters jokingly commented that it might cost us more to take the original value. Dean replied that if they wanted him to guess, the original value might come up approximately 33 to 40 percent less than the appraised values. Dean said one other thing to note was that our appraisal on all of these parcels was $727,600, and the County's appraisal was $743,600, but the approved appraisal was $711,100, which is even lower than our appraisal. The reason for that is with all the appraisals on these parcels we had differences, and when we resolved all the differences between the two appraisals, we ended up with $711,100.

Commissioner Winters asked Director Findlay how strong a case we have. He restated that he had attended that initial meeting when many people attended and made the commitment that they would provide the right-of-way, but he could not remember specifically if the County was there or not. Do we have anything in writing which would indicate the commitments made, or all these years have we just been saying they were going to give it to us? Director Findlay replied it was the latter; we have nothing in writing. The only thing we've got is what the Committee at the Legislature would be willing to do. We've had quite a turnover though; many of the legislators that were involved have now gone. He said he has talked to those who were here at the time, and they all remember the commitment the same way he does, and in the last Committee hearing they were all quite adamant that we hold firm on this. However, some of those legislators have now been replaced, so it is going to depend on what the Committee is willing to do.

Director Findlay said his advice is that the Commission defer approving this settlement until after we've had a chance to formally present it in our Appropriations Subcommittee. If the Committee decides they are not going to take it on, we don't have any other choice; but if they decide to take it on, then we might be able to get some relief.

Commissioner Winters concluded that neither party is losing anything; we have right of entry, and if we decide to pay then the County will have their money, and if we don't pay then they can fight us on it. Commissioner Lewis asked if we can condemn County property. Dean Holbrook replied we could, but he thinks if we condemn it, the law would say we condemned it as of today, at market value, which may be different than some of these appraisals. Commissioner Winters said that since there probably will be some legislators who have a recollection of what has gone on, maybe it would be appropriate to at least defer it long enough to let them be briefed on it, because it is a large settlement of $711,100. Director Findlay reiterated that his advice would be to wait, and when the Legislature gets into the question over bonding there will be some pressures and maybe at that time there could be a meeting between the County Commission, the Legislature, the Governor and the Transportation Commission to resolve the issue.

Commissioner Lewis said he recognizes the County has its fiscal problems, like everyone else, but at some point you have to be able to work cooperatively and keep faith with the commitments that are made. Maybe we just need to make sure what commitment was made, and if the Legislature wants to change that then it is up to them; they have to come up with some of the money.

Commissioner Winters stated initially when the County bought this right-of-way the West Valley Highway was their road, and since then it has changed and become the State's road. Salt Lake City worked on the part down to 21st South, but from there on down for a long time it was County responsibility. Director Findlay stated that all the acquisitions involved in this settlement occurred prior to the time the Commission took it on the State System. At the time Governor Bangerter announced that he would place it as his first priority, the West Valley Highway was a County road, and these properties had been acquired before that. It did not become a State highway until the Transportation Commission took official action on it after the Governor's announcement. Commissioner Winters commented that Salt Lake City completed the highway down to 2100 South long before we took it over. Commissioner Larkin commented that what they are saying is this property is part of a County road; it was the County's road at the time the property was acquired and we shouldn't have to pay for it again. Director Findlay affirmed that was exactly correct.

Commissioner Winters made a motion to approve the $48,000 settlement on the 700/900 East, 9400 South to Casa Negra Avenue project, and further that action be deferred on the settlement to Salt Lake County on the West Valley Highway project until they have had time to counsel with the Legislature. The motion was seconded by Commissioners Lewis and Larkin and it passed unanimously that:

The option be approved to purchase Parcel 1:T, Project M-1043(6), 700/900 East, 9400 South to Casa Negra Avenue, located at 7501 South 700 East, Midvale, from owners Raymond L. Maughan & Elnora L. Maughan, 1/2 Interest, and Lynn S. Bailey and Clara Jean Bailey, 1/2 Interest, in the amount of $48,000, and

Action deferred on the option to purchase Parcels 52:T, 55:A, 55:E, 60:T, 1:T, 4:A, and 4:ST, Project NM-1005(3) and NM-1005(4), West Valley Highway 4100 South to 9000 South, located at 4955 South, 5085 South, 5400 South, and 6200 South, West Valley Highway, from owner Salt Lake County.

Chairman Taylor asked Dean to tell Randy Horiuchi that the Commission remembers that meeting differently than he did. Dean said he appreciates that, but they felt it was important to get it before the Commission.

Commissioner Winters pointed out the present County Commission came in many years after much of the activity on this road was undertaken, so they really don't have much of a historical perspective unless some of their employees remember. Director Findlay stated that County Commissioner Stewart was the only one, and he left the meeting before they got to the intense discussion. Dean Holbrook noted that even the City acquisitions all took place before the State took it over, so this million dollars we spent there was prior also.

Howard Richardson asked Dean if we have a signed right of entry in our hands on all the property down to 90th South. Dean replied all the County did was give us a verbal right of entry at the meeting. Director Findlay confirmed that the County said they would not hold up construction. Howard asked if that was regardless of what action took place today, because this goes to 90th South and we have two more contracts coming out to get us to 90th South. We need to have a right of entry, signed, in our hand. Commissioner Lewis stated that was a good idea; it helps memories.

Dean said another thing to note is that property that was donated to the County, that which they didn't have to purchase, is not included as appraised value. That information is included on the information sheet in the agenda packets, where 2.966 acres of residential property was given to them by the L.D.S. Church at no cost, so they are just donating that to us. Then there are two other pieces of about 1.25 acres which the County received just for taxes; those are not included in this because they agreed at the meeting they wouldn't charge us the market value for those because they got it for just the back taxes. That is the complete story.

Planning and Programming
Airport Improvement Projects
Phil Ashbaker stated there were two aviation projects for the Commission's consideration. The first one is for the Kanab Airport. It is a Federal/State/local project for an Airport Layout Plan update, and improvement of the lighting, signing and markings that we have been doing at almost all the airports. It has a total project cost of $225,000 with $10,192 of State money.

The second project is the Fiscal Year 1993-94 portion of the Utah State Aviation System Plan that's accomplished in our Planning Office. It is a Federal and State project, the total cost of which is $100,443, with $9,100 of State money. The Aeronautical Committee has reviewed these projects and recommends them to the Commission for approval.

Commissioner Larkin made a motion to approve both aeronautical projects as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and it passed unanimously that:

The Kanab City Airport project approved for Airport Layout Plan update, and lighting, signing and marking improvements, for a total project cost of $225,000 - Federal $204,615, State $10,192, and local $10,193, and

The Fiscal Year 1993-94 Utah Aviation System Plan (FAA:SB) approved, for a total project cost of $100,443 - Federal $91,343 and State $9,100.

Additional Federal Funding for Airport Improvement Projects
Chairman Taylor addressed Mr. Ashbaker and said that from what he has been reading, it appears we might be in line for considerable new Federal funding from the new administration for airport improvements. If that happens do we have projects we can throw into that program; are we prepared to go to the Legislature for more matching money? Phil replied we have plenty of projects to handle that. It is anybody's guess how much money might be available. The FAA brought this issue up just this week at a meeting with Ron Theobald of Aeronautics. In the event that a jobs program should develop with the new administration, and money is thrown at us in the Aviation side, we would be in great shape as far as having projects. We could be presented with a problem as far as matching funds out of existing Aeronautics appropriations. It would just depend on how much money they actually make available to us. Commissioner Weston asked Phil when he would know; it's too late for this year unless we get the Federal appropriation while our Legislative session is on. Phil replied there is just no way of knowing whether anything will happen, or what it might be, but it probably wouldn't even affect us this year; it would probably be in a future year.

Planning and Programming - Increase in Funding
SR-34, St. George Boulevard
SR-9, I-15 to Flora-Tec Road
Green River Bridge at Jensen
Clark Lane, Davis County
Clint Topham reported that the SR-34, St. George Boulevard micro-surfacing project was ready to be advertised. The final engineer's estimate is $455,711 compared to the $300,000 which was programmed. He requested that the Commission approve an additional $155,711 of STP funds for that project.

Commissioner Winters asked what micro-surface means. Dyke LeFevre explained it is a slurry seal. Commissioner Winters asked if it is the type of material they have been placing in Parleys Canyon and Dyke replied that it was. Howard Richardson explained that it is not open-graded like a plant mix seal, it is a tight seal. It fills the small ruts and levels the surface and makes it more waterproof.

An increase in funding was requested on the SR-9 project, from I-15 to Flora-Tec Road. Clint stated the project has been held up for some time, but is now ready to be advertised. The increased costs on that have resulted in a new estimate of $1.152 million above the Commission-approved amount.

An increase in cost on the Green River Bridge at Jensen of $281,520 was requested. The existing Commission-approved amount is $4.5 million.

Clint stated he would like to make a different recommendation regarding the request for increased funding on the Clark Lane project in Davis County. He said he wanted to go over the project history a little to refresh the Commission's memory. Commissioner Weston said that was a good idea, because he also had a suggestion when Clint was finished.

Clint explained that back in the years when we had Federal-aid Secondary credits, Davis County used to receive an amount of credit, although they didn't have any Federal-aid Secondary roads. That seemed to bother them quite a bit. We tried to get that changed so it wouldn't show any credits, but we weren't successful in doing that through the Joint Highway Committee. When Davis County decided to build the new jail west of I-15 they got that road upgraded to a Major Collector and put it on the Federal-aid Secondary System and began a project on it. They did most of the road work with their own funds and they came to the Joint Highway Committee and recommended that a pedestrian overpass structure be built over the freeway at a cost of about $300,000. Since that time they have been working on the engineering on it, and it has now grown to a million dollar project for a pedestrian overpass.

Commissioner Weston interjected that on that first estimate, the pedestrian overpass was going to be attached to another structure. Sheldon McConkie pointed out that was what Davis County wanted to do, but it proved unfeasible.

Clint continued that this request for the increase in funding comes to the Commission from the Joint Highway Committee. However, at their last meeting the Committee directed our Local Government Projects staff to bring these projects to the Commission without the full Joint Highway Committee review. He wondered if it was prudent for the Commission to approve this increase and do a million dollar pedestrian overpass project without it going back to the Joint Highway Committee for their review. He said he was personally uncomfortable with that size of a project on that facility.

Commissioner Winters asked what kind of funding would be used and Clint replied it is STP funding and it's that which is designated to the local governments. But with the pavement management program we have going on now on the local governments roads, and that prioritization system, he wondered if this ought to be sent back to the Joint Highway Committee and at least have them take one more look at it before the Commission acts on it.

Commissioner Winters asked if these are funds which don't have to go through Wasatch Front Regional Council review. Clint replied he thought that was true because they were outside of the study area when the project was conceived and was brought to this point. Commissioner Winters noted that this project is not on the WFRC long-range plan. Clint stated that was correct, because it has been outside of the urbanized area until just recently. Commissioner Weston asked Clint if he was sure of that and Clint replied he was. Commissioner Weston asked if Clint remembered the date this project was first conceived. Clint replied it was on the old Federal-aid Secondary System when it was first conceived, which has been at least four years ago; in fact this was first programmed when Ron Delis was still here.

Commissioner Winters asked how far along they are with the design on this project. Dyke replied it is ready to be advertised. Commissioner Weston asked if Davis County wasn't participating in some way or other on this project besides their Secondary Fund money. Dyke and Clint replied the County put their own money into the rest of the road work. Commissioner Weston said he was referring only to the pedestrian overpass. Dyke said they actually saved some of their Federal money out of the first project for this one. Commissioner Weston asked if they furnished some right-of-way, or is it already within the confines of our right-of-way. Clint replied he thinks it is already there. Howard Richardson asked if the County paid for the preliminary engineering. Sheldon stated that they hired a consultant. Commissioner Weston said maybe that was what he was thinking about.

Clint stated that originally this was all going to be one project. The County did the road work in conjunction with the jail construction west of the interchange, and they said they would use the Federal money to build the overpass over the freeway. Commissioner Weston asked Clint if he recalled the conversations regarding the amount of foot traffic that was expected to use the overpass when it was finished, and Clint said he did. Commissioner Weston asked if he thought the useage would be high enough to justify the expenditure and Clint replied he did not. There was some discussion on who would possibly use the overpass and it was decided it would have very minimal use. Clint stated that is the reason he is personally so concerned about it. Commissioner Weston agreed and said he was also concerned, but he doesn't want to knock a project out that has been previously approved, even though it is costing more money. But he does think when the cost increases that much on something like this you need to take another look at the necessity. If we ever improve Burke's Lane, which we surely will do, it is going to be another access over to that jail facility. He said he didn't know how much the overpass is really needed.

Commissioner Weston said he would support Clint taking this project back to the Joint Highway Committee and getting their feeling on it. Commissioner Lewis asked if it was correct that the project had gone from an original estimated cost of $300,000 to $700,000 and now to $1 million. Commissioner Weston responded that was not really a fair understanding, because the $300,000 was when we thought we could attach the pedestrian overpass to the side of the existing bridge, and that did not prove to be feasible. Commissioner Lewis asked if a free-standing overpass runs in the range of $.75 million to $1 million to construct? Dyke replied that we are bidding those kinds of structures on the West Valley Highway at $450,000 to $500,000. Sheldon pointed out that the Davis County structure is a longer span; it goes over the freeway plus the frontage road, a ramp and a railroad track. Commissioner Lewis commented that's a pretty big cost.

Dyke pointed out that the problem with the existing structure is that it is too narrow for foot traffic and vehicles too, and there are some pedestrians. Commissioner Weston asked Dyke what he recommended. Dyke replied there is going to have to be some sort of pedestrian facility there, even if it is just for the few people who would use it. Commissioner Weston asked what Dyke thought about Clint's suggestion and Dyke replied he thought Clint was right, that it ought to come from the recommendation of the Joint Highway Committee.

Howard Richardson commented that this is part of the STP funds committed by the Highway Bill to the local governments. The Commission programs it, but the local governments determine the priority. What we are saying is that we would like to be assured that this is their priority, is that correct? Commissioner Weston responded that it was their priority at that time, but now we are talking about much more money. Howard noted that the full Joint Highway Committee has not fully reviewed it, according to what Clint has reported, is that correct? Clint affirmed that was correct. Howard asked where the overpass was actually going to be constructed. It isn't going to be attached to our structure, but it needs to be far enough away so that if it ever becomes necessary to modify the parapets on our structure we will not be hindered by the proximity of the pedestrian overpass. Dyke commented, if he remembered correctly, they were going to build it on the south side of the existing structure, and it was going to have about a 20-foot gap between them. Commissioner Weston said he thought that was correct.

Commissioner Weston asked Clint how long it would take to get the project back through this review process with the Joint Highway Committee. Clint replied the Joint Highway Committee isn't scheduled to meet until the end of March, but he thought they could get something done on it before then.

Commissioner Larkin made a motion to approve the requests for increased funding on the three projects: St. George Boulevard, SR-9 from I-15 to Flora-Tec Road, and the Green River Bridge at Jensen. Commissioner Lewis seconded the motion and it passed unanimously that:

Approval granted for increase in funding on Project STP-0034(3)0 SR-34, St. George Boulevard, in Surface Transportation Program Funds in the amount of $155,711, added to the $300,000 already programmed for a total cost of $455,711, and

Approval granted for increase in funding on Project SP-0009(2)0 SR-9, I-15 to Flora-Tec Road, in State Construction Funds in the amount of $1,152,284, added to the $6,174,893 already programmed for a total cost of $7,327,177, and

Approval granted for increase in funding on Project SP-0040(18)159 Green River Bridge at Jensen, in Bonding Funds in the amount of $281,520, added to the $4,500,000 already programmed for a total cost of $4,781,520.

Commissioner Weston made a motion to have Clint take the Clark Lane pedestrian overpass project back to the Joint Highway Committee for review. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion and it passed unanimously that:

Action deferred on request for increase in funding on Project STP-L722(1)2 Clark Lane in Davis County, until it is referred back to the Joint Highway Committee for their review and recommendation.

Policy for Commission Action
No. 16-62 - Incident Reporting - Chairman Taylor jokingly said he wondered about the advisability of writing any State Policy or Rule in only one sentence and four lines. He asked Glenn Goodrich if he was the culprit responsible and Glenn admitted he was.

Glenn explained the Policy was the request of Loss Control. State and Department level have reviewed potential liability and feel we ought to formalize the procedure for reporting any incident. There are three categories: (1) Accidents which involve fatalities, injuries or property damage; (2) Hazardous spills or releases; and (3) Any serious threat to life or property. Glenn noted we already do incident reporting, but formalizing it rather than just doing it voluntarily reduces potential liability.

Chairman Taylor instructed Glenn to include the Commission on the distribution list for the reports so they are made aware of any serious incidents. Glenn pointed out there's is a sizable amount of them. The Chairman told him to use some discretion, but the Commission should be made aware of the more significant ones.

Glenn continued and said the Procedure for the Policy, which the Executive Committee acted on last week, spells out exactly on which categories we should report. He restated that we are doing this already, we always have ever since we inherited the Ports, and we do it with our Motor Carrier administration. This Policy makes it mandatory rather than voluntary.

Commissioner Weston asked Glenn if somewhere else we define what a "significant incident," as mentioned in the Policy, actually is. Glenn replied it was defined in the Procedure. Howard Richardson noted the Procedure is more informative. Commissioner Weston wondered if we should not say it specifically in the Policy. Glenn gave a copy of the two-page Procedure to Commissioner Weston, which spells out exactly what to report. Glenn emphasized that we already report incidents of this type, but Loss Control feels that to minimize potential liability we should formalize it.

Commissioner Lewis wondered if we have significant incidents at the Ports of Entry themselves. Glenn replied that a number of the incidents that are written up are where the Ports are witnesses to accidents. Of course we do have some accidents in the Port properties themselves, particularly in bad weather. Once in a while someone will misjudge his lane and take out a sign post; these are generally the type of accidents we have at the Ports. The potential, of course, is substantial because there is so much traffic, mixed types of traffic in all kinds of weather. Regarding the third category, of the threat to life or property, occasionally we will get a person in the Port who will brandish a weapon, and those, of course, should be reported. Glenn pointed out that those types we would normally turn over to the Highway Patrol. Commissioner Lewis noted the way the Policy is worded is ". . . significant incidents occurring at the Ports of Entry . . . ." Is that language broad enough to include incidents that are witnessed? Glenn replied he thinks it is because our authority is limited to the property. Commissioner Weston pointed out the Procedure states ". . . at or near . . . ." Glenn affirmed that was true and thought we should say "at or near" in the Policy.

Commissioner Larkin made a motion to change the wording in the Policy to say "at or near the Ports of Entry" and to adopt the Policy on Incident Reporting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Winters and it passed unanimously that:

Policy No. 16-62, Incident Reporting, be revised to read ". . . occurring at or near the Ports of Entry . . ." and that it be adopted as revised.

Chairman Taylor called a short break.

Resolutions
Designation of State Constructed Frontage and Cross Roads in Summit County
Clint reported there are several frontage roads in Summit County that had never been officially designated as to their jurisdiction. Gene Sturzenegger has worked out agreements with Summit County that they would accept them, and this resolution just officially designates them as County highways. Staff recommends approval of the resolution.

Commissioner Winters made a motion to adopt the resolution, it was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and it passed unanimously that:

R E S O L U T I O N
Designation of State Constructed Frontage and
Cross Roads Project No. I-80-4(30)135
Summit County

WHEREAS, Section 27-12-27, 27-12-28, 27-12-29 and 27-12-102 of the Utah Code 1992 provide for the addition or deletion of highways from the State System, along with Deletion of Highway from State Highway System - return to County, City or Town or Abandonment, also Disposition of portion of highways realigned and Abandonment of easement or vacation of highway, and

WHEREAS, it has been determined that state constructed frontage road ("S" line), along with a cross road ("E" line), Summit Interchange and a cross road ("H" line), Jeremy Ranch Interchange, connected with Project I-80-4(30)135, were not designated as county roads when state construction project was completed, and

WHEREAS, these roads serve as public roads though not justified as part of the State System of Highways, and

WHEREAS, the Utah Department of Transportation will enter into an agreement with duly appointed officials of Summit County regarding designation of stated frontage and cross roads depicted within Project No. I-80-4(30)135, and

WHEREAS, the appropriate staff of the Transportation Planning Division has reviewed the frontage and cross road situation in and around the Summit Park and Jeremy Ranch Interchanges, and having consulted with the appropriate officials in District 2, concur with the necessity to designate stated frontage and cross roads to the jurisdiction of Summit County.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows:

1. Roadway known as "S" Line (frontage road), Summit Interchange, from Engineer Station 9+98.00 to Engineer Station 35+63.15 a distance of 0.49+ miles, along with roadway known as "E" Line (cross road), Summit Interchange, from Engineer Station 10+25.65 to Engineer Station 19+99.00 a distance of 0.18+ miles, and roadway known as "H" Line (cross road), Jeremy Interchange from Engineer Station 10+17.00 to Engineer Station 23+68.00 a distance of 0.26+ miles, a total distance of 0.93+, constructed as parts of Project No. I-80-4(30)135, be designated as Summit County roads.

2. These roadways will be functionally classified as "Local Road."

3. The stated designations will be actuated upon approval of the Transportation Commission, and signing of stated agreement between the Utah Department of Transportation and Summit County officials.

4. The accompanying memo, letter, copy of agreement, and map will be made part of this resolution.

Dated on this 15th day of January, 1993.

UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/s/ Samuel J. Taylor, Chairman
/s/ Wayne S. Winters, Vice-Chairman
ATTEST:
/s/ Todd G. Weston, Commissioner
/s/ James G. Larkin, Commissioner
/s/ Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
/s/ Shirly J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Nominees for the Enhancements Advisory Committee
Clint explained that the Commissioner's agendas included a green book containing information on the Enhancements Program. He noted the program has been in Administrative Rulemaking, and as of today, as far as we know, we've received no requests for a hearing, so the Policy on Enhancements which the Commission adopted on October 16, 1992 has now become Rule.

The next item of business is to appoint the Enhancements Advisory Committee that we set up. Some of the Committee members are designated from UDOT, but seven of them need to be appointed by the Transportation Commission. Clint noted there was a page in the report titled Nominees to the Enhancements Advisory Committee, which lists all of the people we've received resumes from who would like to serve on the Committee. The Commission needs to appoint two members out of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities group, two members from the Scenic and Environment group, two from the Historic and Archaeological Preservation group, and one from the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) group. Resumes are included in the appendix of the book. Clint said he would be happy to put together a task group to make recommendation to the Commission if they desired, or they could make the appointments today; whichever they preferred.

Clint did point out that from the Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Jon Nepstad was involved in Kansas' Enhancement Program before he came to the Wasatch Front Regional Council. Our staff would feel good about the WFRC being represented, at least the first year, by Mr. Nepstad. It was noted that the appointee from the MPO group would serve for one year on rotation, so after three years each of the MPO groups will have been represented on the Committee. The appointments from the other groups will be for a two-year term, however, for this first term one of the two appointees from each group will be appointed for only one year and the other will be appointed for two years so their appointments will be staggered. It was decided a coin flip would determine which of the appointees would have the one-year or two-year term.

The Commission and staff had an extensive discussion on the qualifications of the individuals listed and the following appointments were made:

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities group:
John A. Knudson, Jr. - State Trails Coordinator
Dan Mayhew - Salt Lake County Bicycle Advisory Council

Scenic and Environmental group:
Jennifer Wood Harrington - Landscape Architect
Alexander C. Morris - Utah Community Forest Council

Historic and Archaeological Preservation group:
Shelleice S. Stokes - Utah Historical Society
Betsy Tipps - Utah Professional Archaeological Council

Metropolitan Planning Organizations group:
Jon Nepstad - Wasatch Front Regional Council

Commissioner Lewis made a motion that the appointments be made as discussed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and it passed unanimously.

UTA Request - Resolution for Rail Line Corridor Preservation
Chairman Taylor stated he had removed the item of the Utah Transit Authority request from the agenda. Advance notice will be given when it is put back on the agenda.

Administrative Rule Request - Pilot/Escort Driver Certification
Glenn Goodrich stated we have a great deal of exposure moving oversize loads in the state, and we have been working on a program for well over a year to make companies and drivers who escort these oversize loads as safe as possible.

An advisory committee composed of UDOT, Utah Highway Patrol and industry worked for a number of months and came up with a recommended program. We submitted that through the Motor Carrier Advisory Committee and they approved it. The program is in force now. We have had five courses conducted at Utah Valley Community College and have trained about seventy escort people. It has worked very well. Glen said they would now like to recommend that, through Administrative Rulemaking, we now require people to attend this course to become certified before they can provide an escort service. This way we will be able to prevent any fly-by-night companies from using anyone who happened to be handy from being an escort, which they can presently do.

Commissioner Winters commented he sat through the discussion of this issue with the Motor Carrier Advisory Committee and they were all very positive on it; he didn't recall any negative comments on the program.

It is an eight-hour course which is taught at the Community College. Commissioner Larkin asked the cost of the course and was informed it was $125.

Glenn explained the only negative comment we've had was from Senator Rex Black who asked why the course cost $125; his brother had wondered why it was so expensive. We explained we don't set the fee; it is set by the College. The Senator wondered if it was something that should have gone to the Legislature, but Glenn said it is well handled by the industry and the Community College itself, and by Administrative Rulemaking we can require a little higher proficiency in that service.

Commissioner Winters made a motion to approve the request for the Pilot/Escort Driver Certification requirement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weston and it passed unanimously that:

Approval granted to promulgate an Administrative Rule implementing a Pilot/Escort Driver Certification Requirement.

Commissioner Weston asked how a determination is made on what does or does not require an escort vehicle. Glenn replied it is in the law; anything over a certain dimension requires an escort. The Commissioner asked if we just leave it up to the Highway Patrol to pick up anyone who is not in compliance; is the only recourse we have to enforce the law through the Highway Patrol? Glenn affirmed that was correct, and through the Ports of Entry. He noted that was the main place we catch them, at the Ports when they cross the border. The Commissioner stated that just the previous day he passed three transport trucks hauling very oversized loads on I-15 and they had no escort vehicles and were not even signed as oversized. He said if they do watch for those things at the Ports, the Perry Port evidently missed that one.

Governor's Announcement of new Executive Director of UDOT
Chairman Taylor informed the Commission that Governor Leavitt planned to come out and meet with them briefly at 1:00 p.m., after which he would announce the new Executive Director for UDOT. [Note: Governor Leavitt appointed W. Craig Zwick as the new Executive Director of the Utah Department of Transportation, replacing Eugene H. Findlay.]

Right-of-Way Fence on SR-31, Fish Creek to Huntington
This item had been placed on the agenda as a result of a phone request from Emery County Commissioner Mark Justice. Because no one from Emery County was in attendance at Commission Meeting to present their request, Chairman Taylor directed the Commission Secretary to write a letter to Commissioner Justice stating that action on the item has been deferred until he requests that it be placed back on the agenda and can be in attendance.

Howard Richardson questioned if Commissioner Justice had been informed this item was definitely on the agenda and the Transportation Commission Secretary replied she had called his office twice, but the Commissioner had not been available either time, but she had left the information with the Commissioner's secretary who seemed very aware of the request.

1993-94 Budget Recommendations
Max Ditlevsen provided the Commission with a copy of UDOT's Fiscal Year 1993-94 Budget Analysis, Office of Planning and Budget Recommendations. He indicated he had highlighted a few things for them to notice. On pages one and two, the Request column is just our base request and does not include our building blocks or some continuation costs from a supplemental request. The report presents the dollar amounts in three different ways: by program, by funding and by expenditure. The facing page shows supplementals and building blocks as we requested them and as they were recommended by the Office of Planning and Budget. The summary on page two shows the difference between what the Governor recommended and what we requested in our base, and it's an analysis of how much of that is supplementals, how much is building blocks and whether or not we were over- or under-funded.

On pages three and four, Max highlighted that our request for a tramway inspector is recommended and to be funded by General Fund. On page six in Maintenance Management, the most significant item is the New Funding Analysis which shows that in Transportation dollars, if this is approved by the Legislature, there should be about $3.9 million additional in that line item. He also highlighted that the underground storage tank transfers noted on page five will be $2.5 million as compared to $2 million in this current year for mitigation of spills and clean up.

On page nine on Equipment Management we were able to maintain the additional $1 million in our equipment purchases which we got as a building block last year to bring us to a $6 million level. Aeronautics is basically as it was requested on pages 11 and 12. Page 13 in the funding section of Construction Management shows we had asked for $6.5 million of General Fund money to be used on the West Valley Highway. That has not been recommended; but two lines down under Dedicated Credits it indicates $13 million. That is the recommendation on bonding, and it will come with the stipulation that it should be used primarily on the West Valley Highway. Page 14 is a summary of all those major line items.

Max indicated he will update the report as we learn more. This report was Governor Bangerter's version. There will be a version from Governor Leavitt, but we don't think it will change much from this one. Max said one possible change, as indicated in a phone discussion with our analyst this morning, was that three additional positions in our building block request might be recommended by them.

Chairman Taylor referred to Aeronautics and asked Max if any adjustment we would request in answer to that program for subsequent projects would come in the Aeronautics construction item. Max affirmed that was correct, and they fluctuate on anticipated Federal revenues.

Chairman Taylor thanked Max for the information and said they would appreciate updates on it.

Rulemaking Hearing on Single Tires on Permitted Vehicles
Chairman Taylor noted we have a Rulemaking Hearing on the issue of Single Tires on Permitted Vehicles scheduled for Wednesday, January 27th at the State Office Building Auditorium at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Lewis has agreed to Chair that hearing. The Chairman suggested that, because of the number of requests we received from the industry on the issue, as many of the Commissioners who are able to attend that hearing should do so.

Commissioner Larkin stated he will be in Phoenix and will be unable to attend.

Motorist Survey on Logo Signing
Dave Miles reported that last summer Utah Logos, Inc., the company running our logo program, conducted a study and provided us with a copy of the results. The survey is primarily a tool for marketing, but Dave thought there were some questions and responses which might interest the Commission.

They did the study in August, 1992 at four of our rest areas on the Interstate System. They talked to 200 total people at the various locations. Commissioner Weston indicated that, in his opinion, only 200 people was not a very good sample. Dave conceded it was not a huge number, but for marketing purposes if you interview 200 people at random and the difference in their response is 20 percent to 80 percent, that's pretty significant; if it was 49 percent to 51 percent, then 200 people is probably not enough to be very useful.

Dave went through some of the survey questions and results. Question one indicated out of the people interviewed, 81 percent were non-residents. Question two showed that the majority of these people traveled in excess of 250 miles on this trip in the state. Most of the respondents were in the age group from 26 to 60, and most were men.

Question six asked, "What best helps you locate a needed service along the interstate?". The three answer choices were: billboard signs, highrise signs, and logo signs. Seventy-one percent answered logo signs were the most helpful to them and 24 named logo signs as the second most helpful.

Question seven asked, "When you see a billboard advertisement of a service you wish to use, how do you find that service?" Almost half of the respondents still said they follow the freeway logo signs. On question eight, 56 percent said they were more likely to go to a particular service if they saw it on any kind of sign.

Question nine asked how far they would drive from the exit for their preferred service. For gas the majority would not travel more than one mile; for food most would still only go up to one mile, but a higher percentage would go up to three miles; for lodging the majority of the people would go three miles or more; but for camping the majority were willing to go 15 miles. Commissioner Weston said that's because they know they have to. He thinks the lodging is a significant issue. He said they have discussed how far off the freeway the signs would have an impact or be useful, and three miles is not an unrealistic distance, because people looking for lodging expect to travel further.

Question 11 asked if they usually decide what gas brand they will use before exiting the interstate, and most said no. Question 12 asked what is most important to them when selecting a gas station. Brand was one of the more important responses, but price was the most important.

Commissioner Weston said he thinks the survey doesn't address that most of the people on this survey are not typical of the people on the highway. These are mostly tourists; they are generally the only ones who stop at the rest stops. If you surveyed businessmen and the average person traveling the highway, the answers would be different. Dave conceded that was correct; tourists were the people the company wanted to talk to.

Question 16 asked about lodging preference, and the vast majority preferred franchised businesses rather than locally-owned/non-franchised businesses.

Commissioner Weston asked Dave about renewing the sign permits and availability of logo advertising to other properties, and he thought Dave had told him previously that those who were currently on the sign had first priority to renew their permit, rather than allowing another company to take their place. Dave replied that was correct, if an existing advertiser provides all of the required services they would have preference. Commissioner Weston said he has a real problem with that. He said there may be some properties that are more interesting, or better or newer than some we are directing people to who happen to have their logo on the sign; those other properties ought to have a chance to get on the system. He thinks we need to change that priority. Dave said he agreed that we at least need to look at it and give the Commission a chance to evaluate some alternatives. He said they have concluded the time to do that was before we get into the second five-year series of contracts. Commissioner Weston asked when that would happen. Dave replied that we are just going into the third year now, so probably a year from now we ought to review the Policy so that we do it well in advance of the second round of five-year contracts.

Commissioner Weston stated logo signing is very important to the hotel/lodging industry. He said he admits his association with it, but there are many new properties which are built off the freeway which are unable to advertise on the logo system because of the current policy.

Howard Richardson indicated the initial selection of advertisers was done by proximity. Dave concurred and said they had to be within three miles. Howard continued and said the closest ones that wanted to market were the ones that got on the signs. But now, there may be new establishments within that three-mile limit which are perhaps better, but they are prohibited from advertising because they were not there for the initial permits. Dave indicated that was correct. Commissioner Weston stated that goes contrary to the basic concept of why we initiated the program, which was for convenience to the public. He restated that we need to take another look at the policy.

Howard said we need to give some consideration to what obligation we have to a person who has advertised and is within the three-mile limit, but now might be forced out because others have developed closer and he now won't have space on the sign, even though he was there initially. Commissioner Weston said it is a two-edged sword.

Chairman Taylor concluded that sometime during the next year they need to seriously discuss the agreement, before we get into the renewal process. Dave said staff can prepare various options on how to rotate advertising opportunity. Commissioner Weston indicated we should also take a look at the cost.

Commissioner Lewis asked how long we currently leave someone's logo on a sign; are they there indefinitely? Several people responded that apparently they are. Commissioner Lewis asked about rotating them once a year, based on some sort of criteria and let people pay the cost to change the sign. Commissioner Weston said that is his point, and St. George is a good example of it. There are several new properties which have been built closer to the interstate than some of those which are currently advertising, but they cannot get on the logo sign because it is full; there are only six spaces allowed on the sign.

Commissioner Winters said it would be interesting to know how many people are loyal to the name on the logo. For example if a hotel is a mile beyond the interchange, yet there are three or four new properties before they reach the one that was advertised. The sign will get them off the freeway, but there is nothing to say the person who got off because of that logo is going to go that extra mile; he may stop at one of the businesses closer to the interchange. Chairman Taylor said that was one of the arguments for logo signing originally, that even though Mom-and-Pop operations can't afford it, the fact that the recognized name pulled a motorists off the freeway was going to be advantageous to the Mom-and-Pop businesses.

Commissioner Larkin asked if Logo Signs, Inc., the company running our logo program, was happy with the present arrangement. Dave said he was sure they were; they are doing very well. Commissioner Weston commented the company charges about three times what it costs in Idaho, but the company has to put the signs up and Idaho furnishes the signs. Howard indicated that Idaho is unhappy with their program.

Chairman Taylor instructed Dave that in preparation for the review of this, he might get a synopsis of what other states around us are doing.

Concessionaire for John Atlantic Burr Ferry
Chairman Taylor stated another issue the Commission needs to take a close look at before it is up for renewal is the concession permit for the John Atlantic Burr ferry.

Updated Information in Rest Areas
Commissioner Larkin pointed out that at the Lunt Rest Area on I-15 near Paragonah there is a road map that still has Clem Church's name on it. It is not up-to-date. It shows much of the interstate incomplete. He said he doesn't know how many other rest areas in the state are that way, but we should make sure the information and signs in those areas are updated and current. He said he will bring this one to District Director J. R. Chamberlain's attention, but we should make sure this is done statewide.

Designation of Thistle as a National Historic Site
Chairman Taylor said he understands that application is being made for the designation of Thistle as a National Historic Site. It will involve quite a bit of interpretive material, scenic turnouts, etc., and UDOT is going to be asked to participate in that program. He jokingly said that even though we have participated quite a bit in Thistle already, we should view this very positively. It was a natural phenomenon of incredible impact.

Next Commission Meeting
Chairman Taylor indicated the Commission Meetings for the next two months will be in Salt Lake City on February 5th and 19th, and on March 5th and 19th. He indicated to the other Commissioners that during both of those months Legislature will be in session, and it will probably be a good idea to be here a day or two early to touch base with the legislators.

We will have Scheduling Meetings on Thursday, February 4th and March 4th at 3:00 p.m., mainly for legislative updates. The C hairman indicated it would not be necessary to have staff from the districts present.

Provo Canyon Bridge/Tunnel Concept Meeting
Commissioner Winters indicated he has asked UDOT staff and the consultants who are doing the work on Provo Canyon to be prepared at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 18th in this Main Conference Room to present their findings on either a bridge concept or a tunnel concept. Hopefully before then we will have received the written record on the hearing held on Tuesday, January 12th, and the meeting will be in response to that hearing. On February 19th, if the data they have prepared is sufficient, he hopes the Commission could take final action on the alignment.

I-15 Corridor EIS
Chairman Taylor stated that, somewhere in that same time frame, they should set a specific date to take action on the EIS for the I-15 Corridor. Commissioner Winters agreed they definitely needed to do that. He indicated he and Dyke had been discussing that and Dyke will make some contacts with Salt Lake City to see if they can set up a meeting sometime around the 15th of February.

Annual UDOT/Forest Highways Joint Meeting
Walt Running has received a request from Denver that we schedule our annual Forest Highway Joint Meeting. It is set for Thursday, March 18th at 3:00 p.m.

Correspondence from Governor Leavitt to Department Directors
Commissioner Lewis said he thought it was helpful and he appreciated receiving the copy of the memorandum from Governor Leavitt to the Department Directors on States' Rights. It looks like much meaningful work can and will take place. He requested that the Commission receive copies of all these types of materials, or that they be briefed.

The meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.

The following Commission and staff were present:

Samuel J. Taylor, Chairman
Wayne S. Winters, Vice-Chairman
Todd G. Weston, Commissioner
James G. Larkin, Commissioner
Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary
Eugene H. Findlay, Executive Director
Howard H. Richardson, Assistant Director
Kathy Davis, Administrative Assistant
Clinton D. Topham, Director of Planning
Doug Anderson, Engineer for Planning
Dyke M. LeFevre, Engineer for Preconstruction
Dean Holbrook, Chief, Right of Way Division
Sheldon W. McConkie, Engineer for Operations
Glenn B. Goodrich, Administrator, Ports of Entry
Kim N. Morris, Director, Community Relations
Phillip N. Ashbaker, Director of Aeronautics
Max J. Ditlevsen, Comptroller
Stephen C. Reitz, Internal Auditor
Boyd Zollinger, Materials
Pete Petrulakis, Materials
Walt Running, Asst. Division Administrator, FHWA
Alan Mecham, District 6 Director
Loyd Warnick, Utah Motor Transport Association
Jim Greener, Utah Railroad Association