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

Transportation Commission Chairman Samuel J. Taylor welcomed everyone and called the regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission to order at 9:10 a.m. He noted this would be the only Commission Meeting in October.

Commissioner Wayne S. Winters Released from Transportation Commission
Chairman Taylor pointed out that Vice-Chairman Wayne S. Winters, after a distinguished 24 years and six months as a member of the Transportation Commission, was not at the meeting and had fulfilled his final duty as a Transportation Commissioner. He said Commissioner Winters met privately with the other Commission members yesterday, and as they attempted to divide his responsibilities among themselves Commissioner Weston told him he was not indispensable, but he damn near was.

Chairman Taylor said they will miss his counsel, his friendship, and his history of UDOT which extends back over many, many projects, and many cubic yards of concrete and asphalt. He has given very dedicated service to the Commission and the state of Utah.

The Chairman said they will be looking forward to receiving a replacement for Commissioner Winters. The replacement process is ongoing in the Governor's Office, and they hope to have a full Commission again very soon.

Presentation to Bicycle Coordinator
Chairman Taylor had a special presentation for Community Relations Director/Bicycle Coordinator Kim Morris. He explained the Commission and the Department have been grappling for some time with the issue of bicycles on the highway system. In many of our newer projects, particularly those in environmentally sensitive areas we have been providing attached and detached bicycle/pedestrian pathways. He said fairly steady progress has been made, but quipped that some of the commissioners continue to remind him that bicycles don't pay motor fuel tax.

The Chairman said some other states have been way out front on this issue. Colorado, for example, is really taking care of the bicyclists. He displayed a photograph which was sent to him by an official of the Colorado Department of Transportation and jokingly said that was the way the Denver metropolitan area was dealing with the bicycle situation. The picture showed hundreds of bicyclists spread across the interstate with downtown Denver in the background. He presented the photograph to Kim and told him to keep working at it.

Service Awards
Danny Washburn, 25 Years - Danny Washburn from the Southern Region was presented to the Commission by Ken Adair for his 25 year service award. Danny started as a seasonal employee with UDOT in 1965-66 in the District 3 Design Section. He was attending school at that time and in 1967 was placed in our engineer rotation training program, working summers and attending school in winters; he completed two years of the rotation program. He graduated from USU with a B.S. in civil engineering in 1970 and began full-time employment with the Department. In 1972 he went into Construction in District 3 as a field engineer. In 1976 he was licensed as a professional engineer and promoted to the position of resident engineer which he held for 14 years in District 3.

In 1990 he became Design Engineer in District 3 and held that position until 1992 when the Southern Region was formed. He then accepted his current position as Regional Traffic Engineer and has done an excellent job. He has brought all our roads up to standard as far as school crossings, which has been a major undertaking. He has made the transition in the Region work very well. Mr. Adair commended Danny for his fine work and said he has been a great help.

Commissioner Larkin expressed the congratulations of the Commission to Danny and said it was a pleasure to present his 25 year service award. He said they appreciated valuable employees like Danny in the Department and they hoped he would stay for many more years. Danny said he appreciated working for the Department.

Ed Kennedy, 30 Years - Bob Fox said it was an honor for him to present Ed Kennedy to the Commission for his 30 year service award. Bob said the first time he met Ed after he took over direction of the Right of Way Division, Ed told him he was not bashful and proceeded to tell Bob a few things he should be doing. On the other hand, when Bob had issues with Ed he was able to talk with him candidly. Bob said he appreciated that give and take.

Ed spent twenty years in Roadway Design as a designer and reviewer before moving to Right of Way. In Right of Way he works with the Attorney General's Office getting condemnations ready for cases, and his skills are greatly appreciated. Bob expressed his congratulations to Ed.

Commissioner Lewis thanked Ed for his years of service to the Department and presented his 30 year service award.

Dan Julio, 30 Years - Dan Julio of Planning was presented by George Thompson for his 30 year service award. Dan began his career with the Department in 1963 in the Right of Way Design Section where he worked for seven years. In 1970 he was promoted to District 2 Traffic Engineer, supervising a staff of 11 and dealing with all the traffic problems for the District. During that time he received his degree from the University of Utah in civil engineering in 1971, and also subsequently received his professional engineer's license. He was then promoted to District 2 Maintenance Engineer where he supervised a staff of 111 people. In that position he brought in many new programs and was a great help to the District.

Dan was then promoted to Traffic and Safety Studies Engineer at headquarters, supervising a staff of 22. In 1991 he accepted the position of Local Government Projects Engineer in Planning and Programming. That was about the same time the new ISTEA legislation was being initiated, and he has since been working with the Joint Highway Committee and others to reform the local programs to conform to the ISTEA rules and regulations. He is in charge of about 100 different projects right now in the Small Urban, STP, and Bridge Replacement programs and he is doing a terrific job.

Over the years Dan has received many degrees and honors. He achieved the rank of Major in the Infantry in the Utah Army National Guard over a career which spanned from 1960 to 1983. He did parachute jumps, secret clearance assignments, and civil affairs.

Dan has been going back to school and taking classes toward his Masters degree. George said they are very pleased to have him in Planning.

Commissioner Lewis presented Dan with a certificate. He expressed the Commission's appreciation and told him that one certificate didn't say nearly enough for all his years of service. Dan replied he has been very fortunate for all the opportunities the Department has given him and it has been a very pleasant place to work.

Chairman Taylor commented that he enjoyed the service awards a great deal because they oftentimes brought back memories. He said he had vivid memories of a trip he took with the District Director and Dan Julio when he was Maintenance Engineer in District 2. Dan was going to show the Commissioners the rugged southwestern part of District 2 and they succeeded in getting thoroughly lost in the Deep Creek Mountains. He said he didn't think he would ever get to the point where he would be glad to see Wendover, but it certainly looked good that night when they finally found it.

Don "Sarge" Sargent, 25 Years - Don "Sarge" Sargent was presented to the Commission for his 25 year service award by Les Jester. Les commented that everyone in the Department knows him only by Sarge. He began working for the Department in the service station, then worked as the lead mechanic in the Shops for about 16 years. He has some health problems which have been a difficulty for him, but Sarge is a dedicated employee and he has continued to work with us.

Sarge went back to the service station as the supervisor for a number of years. Most recently, and his current position, has been as our trouble shooter in the Shops, working with parts suppliers and with specifications on our equipment; checking equipment when it comes in to make sure we get what our specifications call for. He is a good, dedicated, all-around employee and can do anything in the Shop area. Les joked that, in spite of the tag Sarge has worn on his shirt for his entire career which says "Problem Child," he is anything but a problem, and has done an excellent job for us and he is appreciated very much.

Commissioner Lewis quipped that he had been wondering about the "Problem Child" pin and was glad to hear that Sarge was a trouble shooter instead of a trouble maker. He presented Sarge with his service award certificate and expressed the appreciation of the Commission for his years of service. Sarge replied he had enjoyed his 25 years with the Department and hoped to be able to continue doing a good job for many more years.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Larkin made a motion to approve the minutes of the Commission Meeting held in Salt Lake City on September 24, 1993. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and it passed unanimously.

Right-of-Way Settlements Over $25,000
Bob Fox reported there were two right-of-way settlements for the Commission's consideration. The first settlement was on the Bangerter Highway from 5400 South to 9000 South. He explained a settlement was approved on that parcel by the Commission previously as a Right of Entry for $105,536. Bob said the Department gave the property owners some choices in the matter of the settlement, and they concluded they would like us to buy them out, then we will resell the property after the Bangerter Highway project is completed. This request was for an additional settlement of $124,464, added to the $105,536 already paid for the Right of Entry, for a total appraised value of $230,000 for the five acres and the home.

The second settlement was on the Nibley to Logan project. Bob explained it is a supplemental settlement of $46,116 for the payment of loss of crops due to the irrigation failure which happened on that project over a year ago.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to approve the right-of-way settlements as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and it passed unanimously that:

The option approved to purchase Parcels 102 and 102:ST, Project NM-1005(94), West Valley Highway (Bangerter Highway), 5400 South to 9000 South, located at 3324 West 9000 South, West Jordan, from owners George Brackenbury, Jr. and Esther L. Brackenbury, in the amount of $124,464, added to the $105,536 already paid for Right of Entry, for a total purchase price of $230,000; and

Approval of supplemental settlement for crop loss due to irrigation failure on Parcels 46 and 46:E, Project RS-0540(1), Nibley to Logan, located at 3541 South Main, Nibley, to owners M. LaMar Jenson and Mildred S. Jenson, in the amount of $46,116.

Planning and Programming - Increase in Funding
STP-1660(1)4, Johns Valley in Garfield County
STP-L035(1), South Kanosh, I-15 to Kanosh, Millard County
STP-L009(2)3, Santa Clara Drive, Washington County
STP-L324(1)9, I-84 Peterson Interchange Northwesterly, Morgan County
Clint Topham reported that the Joint Highway Committee of the League of Cities and Towns and the Association of Counties, who the Commission has asked to program funds in the Surface Transportation Program in the rural and small urban areas, met last month. They recommended that the Commission increase funding amounts to the four projects. Staff also recommended the Commission approve the increases based on the approval of the Joint Highway Committee.

Commissioner Weston asked what was being done on the Johns Valley project to necessitate doubling the size of the appropriation. Dan Julio replied the length of the project was increased from approximately five miles to 9.5 miles last year at the request of Garfield County.

Commissioner Weston also asked about the Santa Clara Drive project which indicated an increase of almost 100%. Dan replied that project was going to be made to match Sunset Boulevard which is adjacent to that particular part of Santa Clara Drive. It will call for widening the roadway beyond the original concept. Also, they originally thought the existing drainage systems would carry the runoff from the highway, but it will not, so a storm drain will also have to be constructed for about 500 feet.

Commissioner Larkin commented Santa Clara Drive ties into Sunset Boulevard at Halfway Wash, which is the city boundary between St. George and Santa Clara. This project will provide a four-lane highway with curb, gutter and sidewalk into Santa Clara.

Clint commented Santa Clara Drive will soon become a State highway, so we are concerned that the job be done right. Commissioner Larkin asked Clint if we would accept jurisdiction of that highway only when it is completed all the way to Snow Canyon; or do we take ownership a piece at a time? Clint replied the resolution calls for us to take ownership when it is complete to Snow Canyon, not a piece at a time.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the increase on the four projects as requested. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weston and it passed unanimously that:

Increase in Surface Transportation Program funds approved on Project STP-1660(1)4, Johns Valley, Garfield County, in the amount of $1,100,000, added to the $1,152,000 already approved for a total project cost of $2,252,000; and

Increase in Surface Transportation Program funds approved on Project STP-L035(1), South Kanosh, I-15 to Kanosh, Millard County, in the amount of $500,000, added to the $872,000 already approved for a total project cost of $1,372,000; and

Increase in Surface Transportation Program funds approved on Project STP-L009(2)3, Santa Clara Drive, Washington County, in the amount of $500,000, added to the $578,000 already approved for a total project cost of $1,078,000; and

Increase in Surface Transportation Program funds approved on Project STP-L324(1)9, I-84, Peterson Interchange northwesterly, Morgan County, in the amount of $120,000, added to the $238,000 already approved for a total project cost of $358,000.

Planning and Programming
Supplement to 1994 WFRC TIP - Bangerter Highway, 9000 South to 12600 South, R/W Acquisition
Clint continued that staff recommended making a supplement to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program by concurring with the Wasatch Front Regional Council in amending their TIP to include the Bangerter Highway from 9000 South to 12600 South for right-of-way acquisition.

Clint explained that UDOT, of course, has that project on our program; but WFRC did not put it on their TIP because they did not see funding on that highway beyond the projects we currently have. When we were in the process of completing the Bangerter Highway north of 9000 South there was a certain amount of Federal-aid Urban Funds which were set aside to buy right-of-way. We chose not to buy right-of-way with those funds, but to put it toward a project, which we did with the last project. However, when we bid the project the bids came in about $1 million less than the engineer's estimate. As a consequence there were some unprogrammed STP Funds (formerly Federal-aid Urban Funds) which we thought should still be available to purchase right-of-way south of 9000 South. In order to move ahead, that project needs to be added to WFRC's TIP.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to concur in the change of the Wasatch Front Regional Council's 1994 TIP. The motion was seconded by Commission Larkin and it passed unanimously that:

Commission concurred in the change the Wasatch Front Regional Council approved as a Supplement to their 1994 Transportation Improvement Program by the addition of the Bangerter Highway, right-of-way acquisition from 9000 South to 12600 South.

Commissioner Weston asked Clint if the $18,300,000 indicated for the project cost was entirely for right-of-way purchases. Clint replied it was not; that was the total cost of the highway project from 9000 South to 12600 South.

Policy for Commission Action
No. 08-113 - Metric Conversion - Dyke LeFevre explained that laws which were passed in 1988 require federal agencies to convert to the metric system in their engineering and all other business related activities. The Federal Highway Administration, in turn, has come to us and said as of October, 1996 we will have to have all our engineering done in the metric system also. This policy gears UDOT up to do that.

Commissioner Weston asked if we didn't already have some kind of metric policy in effect. Dyke replied that staff had brought the issue before the Commission previously only as an information item about the direction the Department would be going. This was a brand new policy which would make use of the metric system mandatory.

Commissioner Larkin commented this system was a long time in coming and it should be done. He made a motion to accept the Metric Conversion Policy as presented and encourage staff to move ahead with it. It was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and it passed unanimously that:

Policy No. 08-113, Metric Conversion, approved.

Resolutions
Transfer Portion of SR-122, Carbon County
Redesignate SR-69 to SR-38, Box Elder County
Redesignate SR-170 to SR-260, Sevier County
Clint reported there were three resolutions for the Commission's consideration. He explained the Department had received a request from Carbon County and United States Fuel Company for us to relinquish a short section of SR-122 at the end of the route to the ownership of the mine company.

The second resolution concerns a request from District 1 to redesignate State Route 69 to State Route 38 in Box Elder County. The final resolution resulted from a request from District 3 to redesignate State Route 170 to State Route 260 in Sevier County. The reason for the change is that the highway is near I-70 and there has been some confusion with those similar highway numbers.

Clint said staff recommended approval of all the resolutions which would result in changes to the State Highway System.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to adopt the resolutions as presented. It was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and it passed unanimously that:

R E S O L U T I O N
Transfer Portion of SR-122
Carbon County

WHEREAS, Sections 27-12-27, 27-12-18, 27-12-102 of the Utah Code 1993, provides for additions to or deletions from state highway system; deletion of highway from state highway system; abandonment of easement or vacation of highway, and

WHEREAS, the United States Fuel Company requests a portion of SR-122 beginning at the Utah Railway crossing entering Hiawatha and ending at the state maintenance limit sign located in Hiawatha be returned to the United States Fuel company, whom acknowledges full assumption of maintenance responsibilities, and

WHEREAS, the District 4 Director, having reviewed said request, concurs that said portion of SR-122 should be returned to the ownership of the United States Fuel Company, and

WHEREAS, the Carbon County Commission concurs with said transfer, and

WHEREAS, the appropriate staff of the Transportation Planning Division, having reviewed the said request concurs with the District 4 Director.

NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows:

1. The Utah Transportation Commission hereby, upon passage of this resolution, abandons all interest in said portion of SR-122 a distance of 0.48+ miles, and transfers ownership to the United States Fuel Company.

2. The accompanying letter, memorandum, and map be made part of this resolution.

Dated on this 15th day of October, 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/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

R E S O L U T I O N
Redesignate Route SR-69 to Route SR-38
Box Elder County

WHEREAS, Section 27-12-27 of the Utah Code 1993, provides for additions to or deletions from state highway system, and

WHEREAS, replacement of route numbering signing is becoming increasingly expensive, due to the problems of theft involving SR-69, and

WHEREAS, the District 1 Director having reviewed the problem of theft, stipulates the need for changing the route number associated with stated roadway, and

WHEREAS, the appropriate staff of the Transportation Planning Division, having reviewed the problems associated with the theft of signing along SR-69, concurs with the District 1 Director for the need to redesignate the route number.

NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows:

1. The Utah Transportation Commission hereby redesignates and assigns said roadway in its entirety to reside as SR-38 becoming effective upon passage of this resolution.

2. The accompanying map be made part of this resolution.

Dated on this 15th day of October, 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/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

R E S O L U T I O N
Redesignate Route SR-170 to SR-260
Sevier County

WHEREAS, Section 27-12-27 of the Utah Code 1993, provides for additions to or deletions from state highway system, and

WHEREAS, assigning the proposed SR-170 to a roadway in close proximity to the alignment of I-70 creates confusion and misunderstanding to the general public, and

WHEREAS, the District 3 Director, perceiving the related problems associated with assignment of proposed SR-170 in its present location, requests reassignment of stated route, and

WHEREAS, the appropriate staff of the Transportation Planning Division, having reviewed the problems associated with assigning proposed SR-170 at its present location, concurs with the District 3 Director for the need to redesignate the route.

NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows:

1. The Utah Transportation Commission hereby redesignates and assigns said roadway in its entirety to reside as SR-260 becoming effective upon passage of this resolution.

2. The accompanying map be made part of this resolution.

Dated on this 15th day of October, 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/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Clint said the Master Highway Bill, where the Legislature ratifies the actions of the Commission, has been prepared. He said staff will now add the three changes resulting from these resolutions to that bill, and it will be presented at the Interim Committee Meeting of the Legislature on October 20. The bill includes the changes to the State Highway System for a two-year period, and it is a net change of about four miles.

Addition of Aneth to Ismay to State System/Deletion of SR-262 from SR-191 to Montezuma Creek
Chairman Taylor referred to the action by the Commission at the meeting on September 10, 1993 where they approved adding the section of San Juan County Highway from Aneth to Ismay to the State System. He said he had discussed the Commission's deliberations with members of the San Juan County Commission about accepting back portions of SR-262 from south of Blanding to Montezuma Creek, and they were open to negotiating on that; they have no real problem with it. He said they felt very good about the Commission's action on the Aneth to Ismay road.

Clint asked Chairman Taylor for direction on that issue. The Chairman replied that staff should prepare some documentation for San Juan County and negotiations could continue from that point. Howard asked for clarification on the specific highway section they were considering removing from the State System and Chairman Taylor replied it was the section of SR-262 from Hatch Trading Post and down through Montezuma Creek. Howard asked if it was the entire length of SR-262 from SR-191 past Hatch Trading Post and down to Montezuma Creek and Chairman Taylor affirmed that was correct; that would actually be a net gain for us. Howard commented that would keep us from having a dead end road by just removing the section from Montezuma Creek up to the Hatch Trading Post. Clint affirmed staff would prepare the documents. Howard commented that would mean our resources will be committed to Aneth to Ismay and other roads in that area, and not to SR-262, and Chairman Taylor agreed.

The Chairman said we are also going to be faced with the access situation to Hovenweep National Monument when that is completed, because Utah will be way ahead of Colorado in paving the entrance road to that National Monument. It had about a 32% increase in visitation this year; it's really catching on. Howard asked if that entrance would go up from Ismay, as an extension from Aneth to Ismay and Chairman Taylor affirmed that was correct. It will also be accessed by SR-262, which will hopefully be a San Juan County road by then.

Chairman Taylor called a short break.

Bangerter Highway Noise Wall Adjacent to Learning Tree Preschool
Chairman Taylor commented the noise wall issue along the Bangerter Highway adjacent to the Learning Tree Preschool was something they've been involved in over the past few months, and there were many people in attendance regarding the matter: Mr. Gail Potter, the property owner, and representatives and parents from the daycare center. He noted Representative Kelly Atkinson had requested to be at the meeting, but he apparently had a sudden medical problem which prevented him from attending. Senator Stephen Rees was attending in his place and Chairman Taylor introduced him and invited him to comment.

Senator Rees said he appreciated the opportunity to represent the neighborhood. He said he also appreciated the way the Commission and staff had worked with them in trying to solve a very difficult problem, made more difficult by the zoning in the area and some of the policies they have because of the type of zoning.

Senator Rees wished Representative Atkinson could be in attendance because he had been more involved and had spent more hours on the issue than the Senator had. He said as of the previous evening Representative Atkinson had felt that a compromise had been put together which would work for everyone.

The Senator thanked the Commission for their time and restated that the UDOT staff had been very cooperative and over the last few weeks had worked very hard with them to try to work out a compromise. Senator Rees introduced the property owner, Mr. Potter.

Mr. Potter said he thought it was fairly essential for the peace of mind of the parents who have children in the school to hear what his concept is, and what he understands UDOT's concept is, of this whole situation. He understands that UDOT is going to put a jersey barrier the entire length of the building and up in front of the playground where the Bangerter Highway runs.

He said he has had some building experience in the past, so he is somewhat aware of the various and sundry safety precautions which are necessary, especially when talking about young children. Mr. Potter said the wall he is proposing to build [in place of the UDOT-constructed noise wall] is to be a six-inch thick, steel reinforced, concrete block wall covering two sides of the playground completely. He feels this is a great deal safer, from the standpoint of automobiles hitting or coming into that area, than just the two- or three-inch thick sound barrier wall. The sound barrier wall, in his judgment, is not the answer the parents really need for the total safety of the children.

As far as the decibel levels which could be created on the inside of the building, he feels "guesstimates" can be made, but "guesstimates" are never factual. The decibel level the traffic is going to create won't really be known until after the highway has been opened and running for a couple of months. Actual decibel readings can then be taken inside.

As the owner of the property, he said he is more than happy to immediately install storm windows on the two windows which are there. His understanding is that that would create a dead air space through which sound does not travel. So, from a window standpoint the sound problem can be eliminated.

After the Bangerter Highway is open, if noise inside the building is a problem, he understands there is a new material out which is two or three inches thick, and he would be very happy to install that material on the inside of the wall the entire length of the school. He thinks that will be more than sufficient to reduce the noise level much greater than the sound wall is going to do.

Mr. Potter commented he has had extremely good relations with Bob Fox and Gene Sturzenegger. They have been very helpful to him, he feels they have been honest with him and he has enjoyed the relationship. He said he has talked to them and to several other people regarding the possibility of satisfying the parents and he believes his proposal should satisfy everyone that the children are going to be much safer, and he will do all he can to eliminate the decibel level inside of the building, with the cooperation of UDOT.

Mr. Potter said he didn't know the history of the safety and security of a jersey barrier, but it seemed to him that in order to get over it a vehicle would have to come at it pretty straight on; if it is hit at any angle at all, the vehicle will glance off. He feels it is strong enough to deflect a car. He thinks that along the side of the building the jersey barrier would certainly be enough to insure the safety of the children. He thinks the parents' concern is whether UDOT is willing to put the jersey barrier from 6200 South all the way past the school, and he thinks that is a legitimate concern which only UDOT and the school can take up.

Mr. Potter said he understands that he has been considered the absentee owner, Fat Cat. He said he wished that was true, but it was not. He has a big part of his life savings tied up in that building, and he's lived in Park City for 12 years, so he is not a total stranger.

He again expressed his appreciation to Bob Fox and Gene Sturzenegger for their help in explaining things to him. Ever since the whole issue started he has talked to only about four people. The first he ever heard of it was sometime in July when he was in Florida, and he was asked to immediately come back to address the problem, but he was in no position to do so. He came here as quickly as he could and he said he was very willing to answer any questions anyone may have.

Mr. Potter said he was willing to commit to what he had already stated he would do, with the help and cooperation he expects from UDOT to help him get whatever building permits are necessary from West Jordan City. He said he has no influence there at all, so when he is asked how long it will take him to get the wall put up, all he can answer is that after the various agencies have approved everything and given him the permit to build, he would commit to start within a week from that time.

Chairman Taylor thanked him and said we needed that assurance. He commented that he and Mr. Potter shared something, because he is sometimes considered an absentee Commissioner because he lives 250 miles from here, but he assured everyone he has spent considerable time on the telephone and in meetings on this particular issue.

Mr. Potter said he thinks he probably has the second greatest liability of anyon e in the whole issue. The number one concern for everyone is the safety of the children. If anything happens and one of the children is injured by a car coming off the Bangerter Highway, he is certain he will be the one sued because he is the owner of the building. He would be the one who would be questioned if he hasn't done everything he could do to insure the safety of the children, so he is greatly concerned and wants every precaution which UDOT can take.

Howard Richardson addressed Mr. Potter, and explained that about mid-way along his building the terrain flattens out pretty well so the highway is about the same elevation as the building and the roadside is fairly flat. At about that same point, you pass by the part of the building the Learning Tree Preschool occupies. One thought staff has had is that running the jersey barrier only down to that point would accomplish the safety for the school children. He asked Mr. Potter if he sees a need to go beyond that point with the jersey barrier for any reason.

Mr. Potter replied the only concern he could see is, from the crossroads at 6200 South and going in a southerly direction, some cars could come through that intersection at 60 or 70 MPH. If there is no jersey barrier until you get clear up to the playground, that car could very easily come across before reaching the playground area and that would be dangerous. That's the reason he felt tremendous security in building the concrete block wall. He noted he will also benefit by building the block wall, because someday he is going to extend that building out to 6200 South. He will build the wall thick enough, heavy enough, and with a substantial enough foundation so he can put a building on top of it. But the greater point is that he doesn't think there will be very many cars at any speed that are going to hit that wall and go through it. But, after that building is extended, he thinks the parents will have concern with that jersey wall going up to 6200 South.

Howard said if the jersey barrier comes clear from 6200 South, about mid-way down the building--after we've passed the concrete wall, the playground, and the school--where the terrain flattens out, staff thinks that is a reasonable place to terminate the wall. Do you have any problem with that? Mr. Potter replied that he doesn't understand the thinking to only go halfway down the length of the building, then stop when there's only another 50 feet or so to cover the entire building and to meet the sound barrier wall which is already up. He doesn't follow the theory to leave a gap of only 50 feet where there would be no sound barrier and no jersey wall. In his judgment it would seem better to run it to meet the sound barrier wall.

Chairman Taylor thanked Mr. Potter and invited Ms. Jane Hosking, Administrator of Learning Tree, to speak.

Ms. Hosking said she appreciated the time everyone has put in on this issue; everyone, including Mr. Potter, has worked very hard. She said the time spent has been spent on the children of Utah, and that's very worthwhile. Child care is here to stay, it's going to be in commercial zones, and UDOT will probably be seeing others like her again. Referring to what was just discussed with Mr. Potter concerning the jersey wall, she said she and Mr. Potter have discussed her taking up more space in the building. She doesn't want to be back before the Commission two years from now, so if UDOT will bear that in mind they might want to extend the jersey barrier a little further.

She said they wanted to come today to clarify who is responsible for what and to get on the record what is going to be done, in what kind of time frame it will be done, and what will happen if any party doesn't follow through with their commitment. She said there are some parents at the meeting and they have a right to be heard.

As the administration representing Learning Tree Schools, She said she is satisfied that they have reached a decision that is going to be a win/win situation. No one is going to win 100%. They have given up the sound wall which would have given extra sound protection, but in exchange they have received extra protection on the playground where the children are very vulnerable, and she feels good about that. She personally feels that protecting them more on the playground from a car, and maybe a little less in the building from sound is reasonable.

Ms. Hosking said she is satisfied that Mr. Potter will keep his commitments, but wants to have his and UDOT's commitments on record. She asked if the jersey wall will be up before the highway opens and Chairman Taylor assured her it would be. She asked at what stage of construction the wall around the playground would be when the road is opened; will it be started, will it be finished, or what? Chairman Taylor replied that once an agreement is reached here today, Mr. Potter will be given permission to go ahead as far as we are concerned. It is his understanding that the funds for that block wall, within a certain cap limit, will be provided by UDOT as a cost to cure situation through the Right of Way Division, so the funding should be no problem. He commented we are running out of time; we are getting close to the opening date of that section of highway which is mid-November, but more importantly, we are running out of season, and if we are talking about concrete work we need to get moving. He said he could assure her that following the meeting, the wheels will begin to turn rapidly.

Mr. Potter asked Chairman Taylor if they still have to go through West Jordan for the permits, or will UDOT be able to take care of those for him. Chairman Taylor replied it is his understanding that the block wall will be constructed on Mr. Potter's property, and not on UDOT's right-of-way, so West Jordan will have to be consulted on that. UDOT will take care of the jersey barrier.

Mr. Potter said he didn't want the preschool representatives to be mislead into thinking that UDOT approval alone is going to be sufficient to allow him to start construction of the block wall. He still has to get a designer to design the wall, and go through West Jordan to get permits. Chairman Taylor said he could be assured that UDOT staff people will be right with him in seeking those permits so the job can be done quickly. The Chairman asked Senator Rees if he could help with the permits. Senator Rees said he was familiar with all the West Jordan people, the City Council, and he knows this is a concern they will respond to very quickly.

Chairman Taylor expressed to Ms. Hosking, Mr. Potter and the parents appreciation of the Commission for the time and effort they have spent in trying to come up with a palatable solution to all people involved, keeping in mind the primary concern of everyone is the safety of the children.

Mr. Mark Myer, a parent from the Learning Tree, said a question brought up in their meeting of the previous evening was, during the construction of the wall is there a chance the jersey barriers could be stacked double high for more protection just in case, because they don't know how long it will take to complete that block wall. Howard Richardson informed Mr. Myer there was no structural way to stack one on top of the other without building some kind of structure to support it. Mr. Myer said they are stored that way, stacked double. Howard told him they are stacked crosswise to store them; there would be no way to stack them double high along the highway with any stability.

Chairman Taylor assured Mr. Myer that UDOT will do everything we can to keep the project as safe as possible and get it done as quickly as possible, and we will provide the funding for the block wall. That is as far as UDOT can go in terms of commitments.

Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
Mr. Stephan Flint, representing the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present their views on the Logan Canyon road proposal. He displayed information for the Commission with overhead slides.

He said if they had known Logan Canyon was going to be discussed when the Commission met in Logan two months ago they would have been there. He said they had been told their views weren't welcome.

Mr. Flint said people are genuinely concerned about the impacts of the agencies' preferred alternative. When people get a letter back saying they misunderstand the proposal, or that their concerns have been addressed, or that construction will not impact the river, people feel disenfranchised, because they know those statements are not true. He said people do understand the agencies' alternative, their concerns have not yet been addressed, and the road will impact the river.

Mr. Flint said their own data collected on the part of the lower canyon which was widened to a modified standard a number of years ago showed that 54% of the river was rendered unnatural due to roadway riprap and other modifications. They know that in some of the lower canyon up to 90% of the fish population was lost in some of the areas. They don't want to see the same thing happen to the middle canyon.

People are also concerned about the cost of the agencies' alternative. In comparison to what is needed above the maintenance involved and no action, the agencies' alternative costs ten times as much as their proposal. At a time when there is great public concern about spending, this should be kept in mind.

It's been said that the agencies' alternative represents a compromise, yet it is clear that it was scaled down from the standard arterial design because a standard arterial would not be permitted under various federal laws. Selection of an alternative simply to stay within the law is not what they see as a compromise.

He said since there has been confusion about what they have proposed--and some people still think that they don't propose any construction--he has prepared a brief outline of their proposal, and a copy was included in the agenda packets. He explained it includes the replacement of all the existing bridges and structures with wider structures. Burnt Bridge is 21 feet wide and that certainly is narrow enough to terrify most people. Most of the others range from that width up to 24 feet wide.

Mr. Flint said the EIS makes a big deal of their proposed bridge width. In their original proposal they suggested the new bridges should be 28 feet wide. They selected that width because that's what they were told was the standard at that time for replacing the bridges with the existing roadway. Since that time the standard has been increased to 34 feet, and that is what's currently proposed in the agencies' alternative for Burnt Bridge. He said they are certainly not about to fight over six feet of bridge width, yet the EIS seems to emphasize conflict over consensus.

Their alternative also proposed several climbing lanes in areas where they felt the impact would not be great. They did not propose any on the Garden City side since at the time they put together their alternative the EIS was not really, in their opinion, evaluating the impacts of construction there. With the agencies' alternative there will be large cuts on the Garden City side. Those would be subject to erosion and that was not addressed in any way. That does not mean that they are forever opposed to anything on that side of the mountain; it simply means that they felt the impacts weren't being addressed, so they didn't feel comfortable in proposing anything there.

Turnouts are something many people want. They proposed five locations specifically, and only one of them appears in the EIS. They feel if they are paved, plowed, and signed in advance that people will use them.

They have proposed some turning lanes at some of the more heavily used intersections. They've also proposed several other modifications which they feel would have fairly low impact. At Logan Cave they decided it was possible to take the kink out of the curve by moving the road away from the river. There are several places where the road is fairly low in relation to the river, where the roadbed could be raised. They feel this would eliminate the need to build levees in the spring, then bulldoze them into the river the following summer. They don't feel the road needs to be signed like an interstate, but signs for certain features would certainly be reasonable.

They selected items for their alternative based on the structural need, bridges and raising the road bed and other driver comfort items, such as the turning and passing lanes, where they felt the impact would not be severe. They feel their proposal represents the degree of construction which most people in Cache Valley find appropriate.

He related information from a survey conducted by a high school class that was doing an exercise in democracy. Both alternatives were given equal mention. About 4,000 people selected the Citizens' proposal, and about 50 selected the agencies' alternative. As another example, at the Cache County Fair this August, 125 people signed up at their booth to get on the mailing list for more information about their proposal.

From UDOT's own EIS, 309 written comments and 682 signatures were received in support of the Citizens' proposal, in contrast to eight letters and ten signatures in support of the agencies' proposal.

Mr. Flint said they are accused all the time of wanting more studies, but what they really want is that the study that's done be done right. They don't feel that has happened yet. He said if the purpose and need is not firmly established in the EIS, you don't have justification for a project.

As an illustration, he displayed a table of accident rates right out of the EIS (Table 1-2). He said a couple of the points it makes is that accident rates are increasing in recent years as compared to the early '80s, and that the lower canyon, which was modified a number of years ago, appeared to be safer than the accepted values for the state. He maintains that neither of those are true. He said that information is expressed as an accident rate per million vehicle miles, so from what's given in the table they can go back and derive the traffic flow which was used in the calculations. He displayed a chart which calculated the traffic flow, and according to that information, traffic is decreasing in Logan Canyon fairly sharply. He said that was actually in conflict with what the EIS says about projected traffic. He said he would assume that that other location where it specifically talks about projected traffic is correct, that there may be some slight increases over time, and that there is something fundamentally wrong with the accident rate data on which so much of the EIS is based.

The question he has is what do you do if you accept his argument that there are some fatal flaws in the EIS. He said they've been told that the Record of Decision will correct these problems, but it can't; there's just too many problems. He suggested that a new EIS is needed, but why not make the consultants pay for it. They should have been able to catch this kind of problem. He didn't think the document was worth $1 million, and he didn't think the taxpayers got their money's worth.

They are told that the wider roadway in the agencies' alternative would promote safety, yet every time their people analyze the accident severity data, it is worse in the portion of the highway that was modified in past years, and it is wider. He said the Federal Highway Administration considers severity more important than simple accident numbers, and that's straight from the minutes of the Interdisciplinary Study Team which he served on when this process started in 1986. The current EIS does not mention accident severity at all and he wonders why. He suggested it was because the accident severity data would not support the agencies' alternative. It appears to him that speed, not safety, is the focus of the agencies' alternative.

Mr. Flint said enforcement is the element of highway safety that's been neglected in this EIS; it's never mentioned. The National Environmental Policy Act which requires that the EIS be done, also requires that an EIS consider alternatives which might differ a bit from the direct focus of the agency conducting the study. Such is the need here. Law enforcement needs to be considered along with the construction option.

He said he could go on with errors in the Purpose and Need. As he indicated, Table 1-2 suggested that the lower canyon had a lower accident rate than the statewide average. If they take the traffic flows which are in the EIS and use those, they find they differ by a factor of two from what was used to calculate the accident rate. He maintains the accident rate in the part of the highway that was modified in the '60s is still above the state average.

He referred to traffic projections. Some of them are based on population, and the 1990 census did not match the estimates used in the draft EIS. In the final EIS the correct population numbers were put in, but the traffic projections were not scaled down as they should have been.

He said of course they were concerned about the environmental impact on the canyon. It is obvious to them that there will be impact on both the stream and the visual quality of Logan Canyon. They feel both of these would be severe enough to violate the basic direction of the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan went into effect in the mid-80s after considerable public comment, and it calls for pretty much a retention of the visual characteristics and a lot of the stream characteristics in Logan Canyon. The basic direction of the plan cannot be changed by amendment as has been suggested. He said regardless of what UDOT's been told, the Forest Service cannot legally approve of the agencies' preferred alternative.

In the agencies' alternative, recreation sites would be eliminated, despite a directive from within the U. S. Department of Transportation to avoid any involvement with these sites. He can tell that this carries a little weight because the EIS goes to great length to deceive the reader as to the number of sites which would be impacted. He maintains that essentially twice as many of these recreation sites would be impacted as the document admits.

He said he had mentioned impact on the river before. They are always told that impacts to the river and wetlands can be mitigated, and of course the Corps of Engineers requires much of that. But he said it is the consensus of the scientific community that mitigation does not really work. The solution is really to minimize the impacts in the first place. He said he could show them an article from this year's issue of the Journal of Science which essentially says that mitigation is not working the way it was originally intended.

Mr. Flint said the interim between the time the draft EIS and the final EIS came out, they submitted another construction scenario as an indication that they were willing to go way beyond their initial alternative if it was something that could bring everyone to consensus. He said the evidence of that is in a letter they produced on page 9-145 and 146 of the final EIS. He said at that time their effort was pretty much dismissed, but they are still willing to reopen the discussion. If they could come to some consensus to avoid protracted dispute over the issue, they would certainly be willing to go quite a bit beyond their alternative.

He said UDOT has the power to set the priorities for highway construction; the choice is ours. Taking care of the bridge replacement and the other construction they have suggested in their proposal and similar types of things could begin soon and would have widespread support. But pursuit of the agencies' preferred alternative, which they see as focusing primarily on speed, is something they feel would bring years of opposition and litigation. He said the choice is UDOT's.

Chairman Taylor thanked Mr. Flint for his comments and said he appreciated him and the other representatives from Cache Valley. He said he feels badly that they seem to have gotten the impression they were not welcome at the meeting the Commission held in Logan. He explained the Commission tries to hold at least one of it's semi-monthly meetings outside the Salt Lake area during the summer months. The principal reason they do that is to give people from areas other than Salt Lake an easier opportunity to appear before the Commission with concerns about the transportation program.

He said the Commission and staff spent the day prior to that Logan meeting in Logan Canyon. They got out and walked many of the areas; they looked at some of the river impacts, they went over the top and looked at the switchbacks leading down into Garden City. He stressed the Commission does not take their responsibility lightly. If Mr. Flint's group was instructed by someone from UDOT or the Commission not to be at the Logan meeting he apologized, because that was not the intention, nor is it ever the intention when they hold their regular meetings outside the metropolitan Salt Lake area.

Chairman Taylor said they appreciated the information Mr. Flint presented and said he didn't think this was a done deal by any means. He said he hoped Mr. Flint understood that even if the Commission were to say to go ahead and build tomorrow, that we are not going to have funding for all of these improvements for many, many years. Certainly studies are ongoing and the design is ongoing.

Commissioner Weston stated that Mr. Flint had done an excellent job in making the presentation. He noted there were other representatives from Cache Valley in attendance and he invited them to comment.

Mr. Merve Coover from Providence said he would like to point out a concern he has had over the years concerning highway construction, and it doesn't apply necessarily to Utah, but applies nationwide. His concern started when they began putting in the interstate and the problems it created with people. He felt that the interstate went blindly on the standards, regardless of the people equation and the people it affected.

We can blindly adhere to standards and forget the people, but for years and years those people don't forget about it. He said the most blatant example of the impact a highway can do to people and the environment is I-90 through Wallace, Idaho, located in the panhandle of Idaho.

He contends that highway construction in many respects forgets the people and environment equation. He said he lived for many years outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Most of the highways through there were laid down initially as cowpaths; they are narrow and wind this way and that, but the accident rate isn't high, people get to work, and they have not destroyed the environment by chopping down the forests and riding over people's private property. The state of Missouri has not adhered strictly to a highway code that is suitable for the prairies of Kansas and Nebraska because they like to preserve the integrity of their Ozark Hills.

He entreated the Commission, as it deliberates on the Logan Canyon issue, to remember that highway construction can impact not only people, but environments, and many times it is irreversible.

Mr. Tim Wagner from Logan believes the alternative plan the Citizens' group from Logan is proposing is a viable alternative, not only for now but for the future. He said he pointed out to Director Zwick that this is the 1990s, not the 1950s, and changes in transportation have come. You are going to see a lot more mass transportation and more concern for environmental laws, air quality and everything else along with it. We need to look more seriously at projects that do not cater solely to the automobile, which is the way it has gone for so many years, and not just here, but everywhere. That needs to be taken into consideration. He restated Mr. Coover's comments that people's needs must be taken into consideration.

Chairman Taylor said he would like to make it clear one more time that the meetings of the Transportation Commission held twice each month are public meetings, open to the general public, and the public is not only invited, but welcome to attend. The Commission operates for the general public, under funding provided by the general public, and they are responsive to the general public. He thanked everyone for their comments, and assured them their comments would be considered seriously.

Chairman Taylor called a short break.

Enhancement Project, Mayberry Property Scenic Enhancement in Grand County
Chairman Taylor referred to the Enhancement project on the Mayberry property located on SR-128 near Moab which was discussed at the last Commission Meeting. He updated the Commission that, at their direction, the Grand County Council had held a public meeting concerning the project on Friday, October 1, which was attended by 250 people. The meeting was taped and transcribed in shorthand. The transcript should be ready in the next day or two and it will have attached to all the written comments received about the project.

Chairman Taylor said he attended the meeting and the large turnout was an indication the community was aware of the project and was involved. He said we were criticized by some that there was not ample notice of the meeting, but he personally met with a councilman on Monday and on Wednesday of that week there was a front page article on the meeting in the Times Independent, and there was also ample TV coverage of the meeting. The fact that 250 people showed up for both sides of the issue shows there was ample notification.

He asked the Commission Secretary and John Quick to circulate the transcript and correspondence from the meeting to the Commissioners when it became available so the Commission could review the information and act on the issue at one of the November Commission Meetings.

Commissioner Lewis said he would like the record to reflect that it was not a legally required public hearing so legal notice requirements did not apply. The public meeting was something the County held to comply with the Commission's request.

Chairman Taylor said he expressed those same feelings at that public meeting that night. The only meeting notice requirement the County was under was the regular public meeting notification which requires 24 hour posting. Kim Morris commented that was one of the reasons we specified that the meeting be held by Grand County. It was not a UDOT meeting so they do not have to follow our guidelines. Chairman Taylor said, aside from all the legalese, his opinion is the fact that they got 250 people out at that public meeting is proof enough there was ample public notice. Kim added that the fact there was good representation from both sides also indicated there was good notification and that it was not just through the grapevine.

Thistle Historic Memorial School
Mr. Shirrel Young from Thistle said his purpose for attendance at the meeting was to comment on their situation at Thistle. He said he was introduced to a group the other day as "that old fellow that used to live in Thistle before it disappeared". He said that's the kind of thinking they've been battling for the last ten years since the Thistle slide. They have taken the opportunity to consult with the Centennial Commission and he has an appointment with them next month to present some of their thoughts of trying to keep Thistle alive in memory and history and the actuality that it is.

He said UDOT's traffic counter near Birdseye indicates that they have 1,900 average daily traffic count, and during weekends in summer the ADT is 4,000 to 5,000, so it's not a remote place; it's not even fairly remote. The traffic is not going to diminish any more. He said he has lived in Thistle for 17 years. He maintained a legal residence there even when the water was high during the disaster.

He presented a picture to the Commission which showed a before and after aerial photo of Thistle Junction. He stated Thistle Junction has now been moved in on by their County Sheriff for weapons training. In researching that he finds it's a bit nebulous yet what the situation is as far as the highway. He said he has talked to Glen Nielsen in Planning and Programming who indicated that this Commission didn't legally abandon the general area right in Thistle, yet everybody has moved in and bought some of it from whoever they thought owned it. He wanted to alert the Commission that they would like to finish the job and tie up all the loose ends. He commented Howard Richardson has been very helpful to them, also District 6 and Archie Hamilton in District 4 were very gracious to them.

Mr. Young said they would like to restore the old schoolhouse. But they need to get everything in order to get by the zoning in Utah County. They are also in the process of taking the Utah County Sheriff's Office to court to get an injunction to get their weapons training out of their area. He said they need the Commission's cooperation in order to finalize all those things.

Mr. Young said District 6 found an extra copy of a 1930 highway plan near Billie's Mountain. He presented that to the Commission and said it indicates that all the property through there was leased to UDOT by the Denver and Rio Grand Western Railroad, now known as Southern Pacific. He would like to establish what property is still UDOT right-of-way in that area. They could pursue the issue through the legal channels so everybody could win.

Mr. Young said he would be very anxious to hear what our study is on Spanish Fork Canyon on US-6 because it may affect them, though he suspects our study is below them. Chairman Taylor commented that it was below Thistle, down around Moark Junction. There is a need to make that highway four lanes, but it would be very costly, around $30 million to $40 million.

Chairman Taylor thanked Mr. Young for bringing the Commission up-to-date on the matter. He commented that ten years ago he spent a lot of time in the Thistle area. He said he was disappointed in the interpretive kiosk at the top of Billie's Mountain when he learned that the only information in it is about how Wildlife Resources is managing the deer herd up there. It should give a graphic history of what that mountain did. He said he stood on that slide area after the initial slide and the earth was still moving. He made 14 consecutive weekly trips to that area, and it was a natural phenomenon which is rarely witnessed in a lifetime. Mr. Young said they hope to put up a museum and kiosk of their own on a piece of UDOT property if we will sell it to them. Chairman Taylor agreed that we do need to do some interpretive work there to commemorate that natural phenomenon that caused us all so much pain and the expenditure of so many millions of dollars.

Next Commission Meeting
Chairman Taylor stated the upcoming Commission Meetings were scheduled in Salt Lake City on November 5, and November 19, 1993.

At 3:00 p.m. on November 4, the Commission will be meeting with the Tramway Committee, followed at 4:00 p.m. by a presentation by the consultant on the Feasibility Study on SR-6 in Spanish Fork Canyon. Clint reported the study was a result of a resolution by the Legislature. It is on the Legislative agenda for November 17th, so they would like to make a presentation to the Commission prior to that for any additional input.

Farewell Dinner for Commissioner Winters
A farewell dinner has been set for Commissioner Wayne S. Winters on Thursday evening, November 18, 1993. The exact time and place was not established, but there will be notification as soon as that has been determined because there are a great many people who will want to pay their respects to him.

Logan Canyon
Commissioner Weston commented that he hoped the group which came in from Logan, especially Steve Flint, was not disappointed they didn't have every piece of data answered which he presented. It was his feeling, and he hoped the rest of the Commission felt the s ame way, that as long as the Record of Decision is being processed, to reopen anything is moot.

Chairman Taylor said he spoke to Mr. Flint during the break and told him he had every citizen's right to an overview of that final design process and to make recommendations; but that doesn't mean his recommendations are going to be accepted. Commissioner Weston commented Mr. Flint hadn't mentioned the fact that we have made a very big concession by agreeing to have a design hearing on every phase of that canyon. Dyke LeFevre said he asked Mr. Flint to send all his information to us.

Jim Naegle said he had a copy of the document of UDOT's response to the comments on the final EIS. In-house staff has until October 25, to review the document and get it back to Jim, and when those corrections are made it will go to FHWA. Chairman Taylor said when they send it to FHWA, the Commissioners should also receive a copy.

Commissioner Weston asked Jim if he learned anything new today from Mr. Flint. Jim replied the only thing new which Mr. Flint hadn't brought up before concerned the severity rating, but we will also address that in the Record of Decision.

Commissioner Weston said we need to make sure we have done our job, and if there is any holdup or delay let's make sure it's not because of us.

Semi-monthly Commission Meetings
Chairman Taylor said the suggestion had been made that the Commission hold only one meeting each month instead of two. The Commission discussed the suggestion, and the Chairman discussed it at length with Director Zwick. It was decided they will proceed as traditional, with two meetings per month.

The meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

The following Commission, staff members and other were in attendance:

Samuel J. Taylor, Chairman
Todd G. Weston, Commissioner
James G. Larkin, Commissioner
Ted D. Lewis, 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
Dan Julio, Planning
Dyke M. LeFevre, Engineer for Preconstruction
L. Robert Fox, Chief, Right of Way Division
Ed Kennedy, Right of Way
Sheldon W. McConkie, Engineer for Operations
Neal F. Christensen, Director, Admin. Services
Glenn B. Goodrich, Administrator, Ports of Entry
Kim N. Morris, Director, Community Relations
Stephen C. Reitz, Internal Auditor
Jim Naegle, Environmental Engineer
Lorraine Richards, Environmental Division
John Neil, Environmental Division
Les Jester, Engineer for Maintenance
Don W. "Sarge" Sargent, Maintenance
Lynn Zollinger, District 1 Preconstruction Engineer
Gene Sturzenegger, District 2 Director
Tom Smith, District 2 Preconstruction Engineer
Ken Adair, Region
Danny Washburn
Roy O. Nelson, FHWA
Bill Gedris, FHWA
Denis Yoggerst, Governor's Office of Planning & Budget
Robert Christensen, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation
Howard Saxion, CH2M Hill
Michael Rollins, CH2M Hill
Gail C. Potter, Property Owner at Learning Tree Daycare
Jane Hosking, Administrator, Learning Tree Daycare
Mark R. Myer, Learning Tree Daycare
Stephan Flint, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
Mae M. Coover, Logan Canyon
Mervin P. Coover, Logan Canyon
Tim Wagner, Logan Canyon